AMD or INTEL?

[SpeedTrap]

I still can not get a solid answer from anyone other than the fighting between the two.

I want to know whats better?

I could care less about price. what I do care for is not getting to hot at standard speeds (this chip not going to be overclocked)

Chipsets that have issues, chips that crack.

I want something that will last and not have to be replaced in a year or two.

 

[PC Freak]

AMD

 

[A2KLAU]

Got to be another vote for AMD.

For sheer stability I would go with Intel, But for sheer price/performance ratio got to be AMD.

Choice is yours...

Albert.

 

[PentiumIV]

I am actually an interested party,
and currently have no problems with my BETA Pentium(r) 4.

AMD makes some excellent chips, but they have 2 disadvantages:

1. Platform issues. For example, Intel publishes ALL
known user-visible bugs since the FDIV days VIA did not publish
their errata list, for example, and currently some rumors about the
data-corrupting bugs in VIA chipsets have been floating over the Net ...

2. Due to lack of agressive clock gating Athlon is hotter than Pentium 4
of comparable performance. Since Athlon lacks thermal diode you have a
non-zero chance tr fry the CPU if the system is not properly assembled.


But I do agree, that the price/performance of the AMD CPU is better
(much to my dismay) But it is good for consumers (and for Intel
engineers) to have such a strong competitor as AMD.


Greg Pribush, iMPG.
Not speaking for Intel.

 

[DeepBlue]

<< I still can not get a solid answer from anyone other than the fighting between the two.

I want to know whats better?

I could care less about price. what I do care for is not getting to hot at standard speeds (this chip not going to be overclocked)

Chipsets that have issues, chips that crack.

I want something that will last and not have to be replaced in a year or two. >>


I just wanted to say that there is nothing that you can buy now that won't be outdated in two years. In two years according to Mor's Law there will be CPUs more than twice as fast as the ones out today. Sorry to say it is just a fact of the computer world that things become out of date very quickly.

 

[SpeedTrap]

if i get him a P4 1.7 in 2 years it still will be a fast mofo and last at least 4 year

 

[Killrose]

AMD. Not just because it's AMD, but Via chipsets have gotten so much better than they used to be, and allow so much more in the way of overclocking.

 

[Spankthru]

Now you know better than to start this up again!

AMD for me.

 

[Wiz]

Hey there Trooper, a WA state resident here!

If you are going for rock solid stability with less chance for the user to foul things up then stay with iNtel. If you want the bare knuckled excitement on the edge of your seats feeling you can only get by pushing a chip that may just fry without any warning go AMD.

Security versus Thrills is the way I see it. If I had the money to build a 6th system for my house I would go AMD, but that's because my own system is a 1Ghz iNtel box - I already have the security, now I want some thrills &amp; chills -

All this goes out the door when building a Palimino based system becomes possible - that will really change the landscape.

Just my $.02

 

[sandorski]

Wow. It's the daily AMD or Intel thread.

AMD!

 

[bonkers325]

both

 

[WarCon]

They are both top notch performers and both lines with be chuggin along in 2 years. With the coming Palamino processor you will at least have a chance to have a really fast AMD without the need for tip top cooling (will still need good cooling though). But I am pretty sure the Pentium 4 has the same need for cooling and until software catchs up with the chip (I would guess a year or so from the introduction and wide spread acceptance) its going to be slightly undergunned compared to the AMD's currently available. But when the optimized code does come into mainstream OS and program usage, its going to even the odds, if not overtake the AMD's, but with AMD's aggressive growth plan, a year or so from now is going to be hard to predict who's gonna be the better or faster processor. Intel really hurt themselves with that premature or lets say inappropriate release of the 1.13's. They should of accepted a short term defeat and concentrated more on the future Pentium 4 and had it come out fully optimized for current programming and with built in features for future growth. I mean they do control the chipsets too.

While I own an AMD and am very happy with it. &quot;What data corruption errors? Never have seen any issues in my system. Luck?&quot; I would buy an Intel if I was building a machine for a business that required stability, but I would also be handpicking the other components for stability too, so it wouldn't be a gaming machine or even close. Kinda hard to cross the two worlds and have a guarantee of stability and an assurity of data integrity.

 

[Swanny]

I'd go with AMD no matter if I was going for performance or stability. I have never had any problems with the AMD CPUs I have owned or worked on. The only place I would recommend Intel is in really low cost integrated systems or dual CPU systems, but the dual CPU will change with the Palomino and 760MP and hopefully the low cost will change soon too.

 

[ace31216]

Both have their good points. I like AMD better because of the price for the performance you get out of them.

 

[insane]

WTF?

I can't understand why people recommend AMD over intel. The guy didn't even mentioned he had a budget. I know tons of people who love the P4 but can't afford any (including me). I have a project on the side for building a Homepage for a company after that i am gonna get one

Get a P4 man AMD suck i know it. Atleast intel publishes his error

 

[The_Lurker]

<< I still can not get a solid answer from anyone other than the fighting between the two.

I want to know whats better?

I could care less about price. what I do care for is not getting to hot at standard speeds (this chip not going to be overclocked)

Chipsets that have issues, chips that crack.

I want something that will last and not have to be replaced in a year or two. >>



If you want the fastest chip w/o a price range, you should probably get the Intel P4 1.7ghz. If it's not going to be overclocked, dont worry about the temperature of the chip, as long as u use the cooling that came with it, it should be fine, whether it's running at 25 degrees or 40 degrees. Just a note, intel P4 chips are known to run hot (high 50's) but they are completely stable. As for chipsets, the Intel chipsets are generally better (VIA 4 in 1 drivers are a pain), and the chip is relaly hard to crack on the P4 chip cause of the heat spreader. As for the replacement time, all chips will be outadated in a year or two, but whether u replace it or not is ur decisino. So for ur situation, i'd recommend a P4 platform. FOr basic price/perfroamcen ratio, go for an AMD.

 

[Biggs]

Neither get a Cyrix.

 

[BlueScreenVW]

<< WTF?

I can't understand why people recommend AMD over intel. The guy didn't even mentioned he had a budget. I know tons of people who love the P4 but can't afford any (including me). I have a project on the side for building a Homepage for a company after that i am gonna get one

Get a P4 man AMD suck i know it. Atleast intel publishes his error >>



Even if he isn't on a budget he still wants great performance, right?

 

[Ajay]

WSPTrooper,

AMD for price and price/performance.
Intel for better stability, fewer platform and compatibility issues.

Based on your criteria I would think that you'd want and Intel system.
Wait a month or two and get a Brookdale (socket478) based system and
socket478 P4 (.18um). If you want, next year you will be able to upgrade
to a .13um P4 for higher performance and lower heat output.

I love the performance and low cost of my AMD system (especially with
easy overclocking, well, easy except for cooling!). But I intend to dump
it and switching to Intel, even though that may mean (gasp!) that I
won't have my rig back up and running for a month or two (I'll use my
wife's machine for email, web browsing I guess). Platform (Via) and OS
issues (Win2k) have driven me nuts - no more AMD/Via for me - I'm used to
just plugging in my Intel systems and forgetting about them.

Good luck,

-AJ

 

[DDad]

My $.02 worth:
&quot;I want to know whats better?&quot;

Which is better- Chevrolet or Ford?
&quot;what I do care for is not getting to hot at standard speeds&quot;
I feel that both companies have good cooling solutions for their processors- I'm not wild about the P4's requiring a Cu based Hs, but AMD is tending towards needing the same sort of solution.

&quot;Chipsets that have issues, chips that crack&quot;
Intel wins the Chipsets issue IMO, but it's not nearly as bulletproof as it was- witness the I 820 double fiasco of 1 1/2-1 year ago. AMD's own chipsets are good solutions, but harder to find. Biggest Beef I have with AMD is that they depend too much on 3rd party chipsets (Via, primarily)which have problems that have to be dealt with in order to have a stabile system.
As far as the &quot;chips that crack&quot;, Intel wins this one IMO by being almost &quot;dummyproof&quot;. It really isn't a problem for the AMDs as long as you use some sense and take your time installing the HS/Fan!

IMO, if you are not taking O/Cing into consideration, the AMD is the prefered answer for the &quot;I want something that will last and not have to be replaced in a year or two.&quot; part of your question. AMD (from what I understand)is committed to the Socket A platform for the foreseeable future. So(theoretically), in 2 years time if you decide that things are getting slow, remove the HS/Fan, remove the processor, install the 2.6 ghz &quot;Manowar(tm)&quot; processor and go your merry way.
However, IMO that is unlikely to work, but theres realistically no chance that Intel newest (2 years from now) processor will work in their current form factors. Both Socket 370 and the current P4 socket are pretty much limited to what's out NOW- future versions will require a new M/B (and who knows what else)

Finally note- as far as designed life- both companys claim that the design life of the processor is approximately 10 years. Personally doubt you'll be using either in that time, however, thats what they say.

 

[Boonesmi]

amd for me

some others above said go intel if you want stablilty, but i kinda disagree, i agree that intel is very stable, but i also think amd is very stable

if you look most of the stability problems with amd are on overclocked systems

 

[MadAd]

'better' is a value judgement and relative only to the poster, who should qualify exactly what sort of 'better' hes looking for

Better than what?? Eachother? well that depends on what you look at - even on what line of processors specificly to answer some 'betters'

As to build quality of the fabs, either of them will last its useful life in a PC - was it 80 degrees C for 10 years that intel P3s are supposed to last on avg??? something like that ... ok, so whos still using a 10yo x86?? some ppl use the 486 as a cable server these days, and they were not cool chips.

As to chipset problems, yes we have them, and most of the time they are in immature platforms, and if not rectified by the MOBO co in a bios update self applied, then the board is revised ... just dont buy the 'first run' of production boards for the latest version of P4/A4 or whatever - get a mature product thats been market tested.

And as to 'year or two' replacement - how can anyone tell you that if you dont say what you use it for??? Thats a tall order in some areas of PC use, but if your just surfing and opening Office 2000 once a week, then it should last u 5 years not 2

 

[goshdarnindie]

intel

I ride both sides of the fence as far as personal chip purchases, but from the qualifications you are setting (price is not important, stability is) and you plan on running a windows box, then my experience tells me that intel will give you less to worry with.

But, if your running Linux, then AMD is a must. It just plays into the whole counter culture plot of the Linux OS I love

 

[loopy109]

No other choice is needed

AMD

 

[scaryjeff]

I think there is confusion. Shouldn't we be saying what CPU is best for him and not which one we think is best? For a start he says he wants it to last and doesnt care about the price or the overclockability, and some posts here are saying that the P4s won't show their full potential until optimised for in software, which one person said will be in about a year. So that suggests the p4 beggining to shine in about a year...thats already half way to his 2 year goal!
As for stability I have to say I think that AMD cpus, or the chipsets they use, are not as stable as intel ones. Every LAN party I have, the person(s) whos computer keeps crashing and refuses to work is nearly allways an AMD machine.
With all four of his original constrainsts in mind: any price, long lasting, no overclocking, and no chipset issues, you have to go with the P4. Sure if he had said &quot;I want the fastest cpu including the greatest value for money and the best overclockability&quot;, or maybe even just &quot;I want the fastest CPU - which one?&quot;, then AMD would have won hands down, but he didn't, so it doesn't.