Since Amd has integrated memory controller they are great, all X2 starting from 4800+ are real good in everydays performance. Intel is good too but no memory controller in cpu a little handicap. The Socket 775 pushpins are cruel, I got bloody fingers by placing the cooler... Amd is more comfortable related to this. But maybe it is a matter of training, probably this flows if you do that everyday otherwise be aware of sharp coolers and pushpins... My advice: If you have a good working Amd X2 system with Windows XP you don´t need anything else for the next years, consider all additional things as toys and entertainment. Except you are OC maniac then go buy Penryn and overclock until you burn.
i have used all, and they are all great. currently own an X2 AMD Turion and its been great for me. my new laptop (when it arrives... ) will be one of the latest Intel penryn ones, doesnt really matter to me who.
In case of doubt, I use the alphabetical order to make a choice, so AMD was my first choice and never changed it.
AMD and Intel both so i can't support one above the other because they both soar like an Eagle for me, and catch snakes for lunch.
there is many kinds of intel and many kinds of amd but maybe intel quad better than amd any way i use intel now 2.8 P4
I love both, have a AMD Phenom as well as dual Intel Quad Core, the new i7 Intel with its built in memory controller is an excellent buy.
Always have rooted for and supported the underdog. AMD If you want [MOVE]speed[/MOVE] then the best Intel beats the best AMD in desktop use. You want a good processor at a decent price then AMD. They tend to beat Intel $$ for $$ for close to the same performance. Just my .02
Depends; both are comparable, though Intel is admittley faster across the board by a healthy margin. Unless you are doing intensive mathematics, either one will do.
The new Phenom-II is promising to bridge the gap considerably between Intel's quad offering, its good news for all of us as only compretition will keep Intel on its toes and prices down.
Just what I wanted to say. Although I7 is the king at the moment, Phenom-II could be a serious competitor.
Phenom II has a little problem with mem write/copy, no matter how many cores you use it remains always slower then core 2 duo related to mem write/copy. If you print screen paste it into a paint program this is a real weak point for phenom II cpus. Core 2 Duo does it so fast but phenom is really slow in several memory related situations. The cache flow seems to be better with c2d then with phenoms.
I'm a heavy overclocker and unless AMD gives us chips with better overclocking capabilities than the current Intels I would never go near an AMD. That doesn't apply to most users though.
Indeed. Phenom II seems to be interesting for people who want to have a decent amount of power, without paying too much. Overclocking capabilities are still available for those who want that, but then they have to choose Intel. (Well, for now at least).
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/836/1/ http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/...zero-overclocking-test-6ghz-obtainable-61146/ http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-ii-x4-920-overclocking.html I don't think there is any doubt that the best overclockable CPU out there is AMD's Phenom and that too by a great margin. Imagine breaking 6GHz barrier, thats no mean feat.
Sorry but say that at any hardware forum and people will laugh at you. No joke. Btw I would bend over if anybody achieved 6GHz on a Phenom WITH REGULAR COOLING NOT SOME LIQUID NITROGEN or whatever. Those tests are NOT PRACTICAL AT ALL! I don't have a frigging liquid nitrogen tank at home buddy. I use air cooling and I've got a 41% overclock on air on a Q9550. Phenoms can barely make a 10% yet alone 20% on air (or water for that matter).
AMD baby.... Because.... 1). I kick butt in online COD4 with it 2). It's less expensive than intel 3). If you don't support the underdog, you may end up with ONLY the top dog...and once there's no competition, YOU ARE SCREWED. example... Do you think for one second that MS could still charge $200 - $300 for an OS if IBM's OS2 HAD succeeded? I don't. I think XP, Vista etc would be priced UNDER $100.00 for the PRO versions. So, if you don't support AMD, you'll see mainstream entry level Intel CPU's at around ohhhh....$350 - $500 (average). You Intel users should go over and THANK AMD for keeping Intel's pricing in check.....then BUY an AMD cpu.
Have you tried Phenom-II, all the sites including some real good ones like X-Bit labs, Anandtech, Tom's Hardware have tested and found the Phenom-II to be a better overclocker than comparable Intel. We are not talking about the original Phenom but the newer Phenom-II which of course isn't as fast as Intel QC clock for clock but can be overclocked quite good. By the way, hardware forums are not necessarily inhabited by Pundits, some are knowledgeable, others do the knee jerk thing.
I think so. Phenom II is a Core2 Killer in several benches. Example: X3 unlocked to X4 @ 3 Ghz is 2 minutes faster then E8400 @ 2x4 Ghz when it comes to 3 GB winrar compression. It also outperforms most of the Core2Quads. TC encryption is another wonderful example Phenom X4 @ 3.8 Ghz will kill all Intels in TC encryption, no matter if core i7 or core2quad.
