I go for the best bang for the buck (performance/$, performance/W, performance/features and OC abilities) in a given timeframe at the $200/$300 price range. It depends on the specific benchmark/app you're considering. Generally, AMD is strong with x87 code, but Intel has strong integer and SSE performance in its Core microarchitecture. But each app has different requirements on cache performance, memory access, branching, etc.
Intel is faster right now but it also depends on what. In huge applications and i mean video editing huge AMD is actually better, in smaller apps intel can wipe the floor with AMD. In almost all benchmarks amd gets killed by intel right now but they never test it to where the computer starts to freeze where amd would win. There is rumours going around that intel is cooler and faster. It depends on the how the manufacturer decides to make it. My AMD TL-60 is really cool. Intels are pricy though. I got my laptop stuffed with features for $999. A similar intel costs $200-$300 more. In tech forums they always say intels beat amd clock for clock. Most of the time that is true but as i said before it depends on the processor. Here is my laptop: http://www.notebookreview.com/defau...rtainment - Turion 64 X2 TL-58 1.9 GHz - 15.4 If you look at the pcmark scores it beats intels at the same clock or even .2 ghz more and intels have a bigger cache.
Exactly, encode mp3 in 90% of cases only first cpu is used (max 54% of dualcore), even with professional software. So until nothing drastically changes I stay with dual core and do more.
I went into the source today and saw a triple core amd processor....i had no idea triple core existed.
Yes it does. As far as I know, it should be produced by AMD before Intel's Quad came out. But since they had a few drawbacks it's single, dual, quad, triple. It's a bit of a budget processor, more then dual, cheaper then quad. Besides that if has some technological advantages: http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33895/135/ I doubt many people will buy it on purpose (eg: not shipped with their computer) though.
Hhhmmnn....pc store technician here in our city recommends AMD, and I also saw some reviews on some site that makes AMD processor a winner. , but looking at the polls here, maybe, they are wrong...Intel wins...here, but maybe still very early to say which one really are the most recommended by "pc experts" here. Actually, my pc was still has Intel Pentium 4 processor. ...and still was puzzled tht if I get a new processor of which one should I choose.
Well: usually people who have Intel processor like them but don't say it's holy. The funny thing is that people who have AMD processors usually say it's the best and they don't ever want to change. Very interesting phenomenon if you ask me . But at the moment Intel is just better (benchmarks). Like I've said: I'm an Intel fan (just a feeling) but I don't have bad experiences with AMD.
Yes it seems that Amds are faster in re-compensation when Apps starts freezing. I will make soon more tests, also with latest cpus of Intel, we will see what I find out. Then I only need to check a Phenom to get a overall picture of all actual systems. I am really keen to know how each system reacts and several situations you can´t even imagine how keen I am to find out which system has the best flow of all. Amd X2 starting @ 2 x 2600 Mhz is a basic of a good flow I think. I can tell you exactly the difference of Amd 64 3500, 3800, X2 4000, 4400, 4800 or 5200, if you make lots of multitasking you will feel the difference quite fast. In terms of gaming there isn´t even such a difference like in terms of multitasking. Probably the switch from XP to Vista slows down all CPUs for some percents.
My next upgrade will contain an AMD procesor, i prefer big memory bandwidth on my computer and in games AMD continue to feel better(lower latencies), not to say the prices are quite decent for a complete AMD platform.Intel is for encoding and such and i dont do that.
Yes I always had the feeling that Amd was faster when switching between lot of apps. But I will check soon everything maybe I can tell you then more.
AMD put up real claims about the phenom 9300, 9600 should come soon, but anyway, the said intel had a weakness on core quad Q6600 because it was basically 2 cores divided in 4. Well, guess what? It barely won at multitasking at the hand of core2DUO E6600
It isn't a design flaw. It was a design choice to be the first to market with an afortable quad-core. An Intel quad-core is basically two dual-cores glued together, so the communication between them is done over the relatively slow FSB. Nehalem will "fix" this because it will have an integrated memory controller and the external bus (it will be called QuickPath, a serial bus akin to Hypertransport) will only be used to access I/O in 1-way/1S systems.
I know it isn't, that why I said ' "flaw" '. But I've heard stories that their new processor would use different technologies. You just confirmed that . Thanks .
Inside Nehalem: Intel's Future Processor and System Warning: highly technical (but readable) article.
I always use Intel now. I tried an AMD once and it failed in less then a year and the whole motherboard had to be replaced (still under warranty fortunately) . Maybe AMD is better now but I cant really afford to take a chance.
I've always had Intel machines but AMD would not be automatically crossed off on my next purchase (a laptop seems essential now days).
If you see the Phenom's price, and how they are pricing their processers, I would say Intel provides better processers more cheaply.
