Intel v/s AMD

Hi guys,

Just wanted to share some experience.

I have been using Intel processors for a very long time but recently I have moved to AMD and I really find it amazing.

I have got a AMD Sempron and NVidia motherboard with 1 Gb RAM . It seemed to work like a charm. Boot time is 4 secs and graphics is amazing.

Do u guys prefer Intel or AMD , vote for your choice, just wanted to know where do I stand along with those who uses AMD

 

I prefer AMD processors over Intel processors.

They're worth every cent. When you pay for an Intel processor, you don't just pay the piece of hardware, you also pay for the brand.

I'm waiting for the new AMD Phenom II X4 945, which will, I believe, come out, perhaps during the 2Q of this year.

Damn! I hate to wait this long.

 

I don't believe all those tests about Intel being faster. I have an old laptop with an AMD dual core and a desktop with a intel quad core. They feel exactly the same in speed.

I think intel purposely makes their chips to look technically better but actually fails when it comes to real work.

Kinda like how PS3 is technically superior to Xbox 360, but it does not show in the games at all.

 

Tests doesn't usually represent real-word scenarios. The everyday experience is usually less than what the tests says.

Technically speaking, Intel is ahead of the curve. But like you've said, it doesn't always translate to significant performance gain over AMDs offering.

 

I prefer AMD just because they are cheaper/speed and I am familiar with upgrading them.

 

Much as I love my AMD laptop, the ATI + Broadcom combo graphics card and wireless has horrible support when it comes to open-source drivers, which makes running Linux more troublesome than it should be. If this hasn't improved by the time I need to buy my next machine, I'm going Intel + NVIDIA.

 

AMD for those still stuck in the Pentium 4 / Athlon 64 era. Intel for everything latter. Btw this is probably the 10000th topic on this. There's a similar topic in the polls section.

 

Agree. Intel is better for multimedia encoding things but in most other situations Amd is price performance king.

The latest AM3 stuff is really cool, I prefer Amd too, especially since all the bad press, security leaks and agressivity of Intel.
Amd should be favored.

 

I prefer AMD, Cheaper, faster, better...

AMD can't do everything that Intel can though. So for one feature I gotta give it up to Intel.

I thought "This vs. That" threads were a TOS violation?

 

Bolded by me. Am I the only one that caught this?

FWIW, both companies make good processors. It all comes down to what your doing with your machine and your budget. I'm using my first intel and I'm enjoying it's "free" 25% overclock without touching the voltage. Having said that, my older AMD machines were working fine last time I checked. One is a retired 98 box with an Athlon 650 with an anemic 64MB of RAM.

 

Hello,
I buy which ever processer is best for my budget at the time of purchased.
last time round it was amd athlon 64 versis pentium 4. at that time amd athlon was much better.
this round it was amd phoemon versis intel quad core.
intel quad core won so i brought that.

I like backing the smaller company but its very hard to when the bigger company makes a better product for the same cost.

same with graphics cards. last round i got an ati card.
this round I got an nvidia card.

 

If someone was looking to build an inexpensive rig, AMD would be the way to go, in my opinion.
Looking at prices, nearly all of the Athlon FX 2 processors are priced considerably under $100.00 and the real world performance of, say, a 5200+ or 5600+ is really impressive.

Intel has reclaimed the lead since summer of '06, but AMD remains viable and even though the FX 2 series represents older technology, there is most probably one in my future due to the excellent overall value and performance.

 

Your computer boots in 4 seconds?

 

I don't think so. And besides, boot times are much more dependent on what is being loaded at boot, in terms of attached hardware, programs set to start with Windows, disk performance, RAM, etc.

I like the CPU that does the best job for the tasks expected of it, in the budget allowed. For this budget and primary use, an AMD CPU may be best. For that budget and use, an Intel may be best.

It is simply wrong to say the entire line of CPU Maker B is better than the entire line of CPU Maker A. Just as saying all nVidias are better than AMD/ATI, or the other way around.

In either case, if you do your homework, any "compatible" combination will make a fine computer platform, providing years of reliable use, and growth potentials.

 

I think intel is faster only if the software takes advantage of its instruction set. But most don't for compability reasons.

For me, they are both good. as long as its not a duron or celeron.

 

Purposly makes their chips look technically better? Come on - that's called "marketing" - and has absolutely NOTHING to do with engineering, design, or manufacturing - and guess what? Both AMD and Intel have extremely competent marketing departments. If you recall, it was AMD that started the mess of naming CPUs based on some magic comparison formula AMD pulled out of thin air - CLEARLY an attempt to make their chips look technically better.

Huh? That's the way it is with anything. Just ask Chevrolet and they will show tests that make Chevys look better than Fords.

What? Ummm, no. That's just not the way it works.

I say again, if someone believes an entire line is superior to the other, they are sadly misinformed, or narrow minded - or both.

The obviously biased comments here are EXACTLY why reviews should be based on scientifically derived data, conducted by qualified technicians in independent test centers, using standard baseline equipment configured in standard setups - and not individual users of a few sample machines configured for who knows what.

 

Forget about bias, we have facts. Intel attacks Amd and Nvidia, Intel has a problem called smm rootkit, Intel is bad actually.

 

I prefer AMD, but I know, that Intel has the fastest CPUs, but they are useless for a common user as a gamer, who benefits more with cheap and powerfull AMD.
But be advised, that AMD has cheaper CPUs with comparable speed to Intel, but they "eat" more, so in the end they can actually cost more, results may vary.

 

Yeah right. Did you bother to look this stuff up yourself? Did you bother to see what it would take for a badguy to exploit this vulnerability? Did you bother to check to see what chipsets are affected? What CPUs? I did. Ever heard of Blue Pill?

Have you noticed how the entire IT Industry, IT Security industry, and the IT Media are all up in arms about this smm rootkit? No? Me either - and I'm pushing 40 years in this business!

Know why they aren't up in arms? Know why your mention above is the ONLY mention of it on Wilder's "Security"? Because fear and rumor-mongers have, once again, blown things way out of proportion - typically in an attempt to get headlines.

Is there a vulnerability? Yes. But basically it would take a system administrator sitting in front the computer to disable all security defenses, THEN grant privileged access to change defaults in order to modify memory mappings - in other words, the badguy would have already gained full access anyway.

Oh, boo hoo! Are you actually going to pretend that's a one-way street? At least they attacked both major GPU makers.

We? What about you? I am afraid you don't know the facts - only snippets from here and there - and in the case of the SMM rootkit, all reports seem to point to a single source - 1 report copied 10 times is still just one report.

Brand loyalty is fine - as long as it does not blind you to reality, and to the competition. You are in too deep when you make clearly biased, prejudicial, extreme, and therefore irrational statements such as,

Not sure I would call gamers "common users". Gamers tend to demand more power and are willing to spend extra for it. They often overclock and use alternative cooling solutions. They often build their own. So while gamers are common, they are but a small minority of the computer users - users who use their computers for work and school projects, communications (email), Internet surfing, and maybe an occasional DVD movie.

 

AMD for desktop computer but sadly intel on laptop - and I am a mere woman who notices the difference.


.

 

Either is fine. I don't look at processors when purchasing/building a system.

 

I don´t think so, a browser vulnerability with priviledge escalation is enough. Intel is bad, such a vulnerability is absolute no go! Ring -2 access, direct CPU manipulation, no, no, no unforgivable.

These computer manufacturers play cat and mouse, this whole hardware scene is a total security disaster.
10 years ago most motherboards used to have a bios write protection, today most don´t. But this is endless discussion, better to turn back.

 

Huh? It has nothing to do with what you think - but how it is. As I said before - did you bother to research this?

Since I cannot find where this is such a HUGE, unforgivable no no, nor can I find where hardware is such a security disaster, or how the entire line of Intel is bad - how about you providing some substantiating proof - links to real sites (not just another forum poster, or a rehash of the one article)?

Huh? First, that is not true either - with many motherboards have multiple levels of flash protection. And second, that has nothing to do with Intel or AMD CPUs.

 

Then what do you look at? It's the most important part of a system.

 

No - not necessarily. Certainly with today's computer's and software, the graphics solution can have a much greater impact on overall performance than CPUs - noting that GPUs have several 100 million more transistors per die than CPUs do.

Others would contend a good solid power supply is the most important part. Others would say data storage/integrity is more important.

I would put the CPU 3rd in line, behind a good graphics solution, and an ample supply of RAM.