AMD vs. Intel... any thoughts....

[kabir2]

For a long time, almost 4-5 years, I've been blindly buying AMD thinking I was getting a much better chip at a better price. Right now, I'm thinking about switching over to Intel. Any thoughts? I know this thread could go on for a while. I just want some feedback, pros cons going either direction.

By the way, I ran a search and couldn't find anything, i'm sure this was posted at one point or another, or maybe posted right now.

 

[Budman]

Coke or Pepsi?

You decide.

 

[Necrolezbeast]

What do you use your computer for? How much speed do you need? How much money are you willing to spend? Are you overclocking? I like my AMD systems, but I also have a lack of income and need something cheap, if I had the money to blow then I'd go buy a high end P4...I like spending $48 on my 1700+ tbred b and overclock it to 2050mhz...nice and cheap and pretty darn speedy.

 

[wicktron]

Look at the benchmarks and pick the platform that performs best for the software that YOU use.

 

[human2k]

Originally posted by: Budman
Coke or Pepsi?

You decide.

yup, another pointless amd vs intel flame thread. sum1 get the fire extinguisher!

 

[rommelrommel]

I just see it as if ya only got $50~ for a processor you get a lot more from AMD. But, by the time you're at the $100-200 level or above it's a tossup.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Budman
Coke or Pepsi?

You decide.

Bruce Lee

 

[Viewsonicboi]

I like both. I've bought so many AMD chips but now lately I started to get Intel chips. I build many computers for my friends also and I just ask what they will be doing. If not high intense games, then I will get AMD. Other than that if they just high clock speeds I go with Intel. I had a lot of craked cores back in the thunderbird days so get a shim. Its worth it.

 

[dguy6789]

ok here it is basically, AMD offers great performance at great prices, while intel offers the very very best performance at more then twice the cost, os if ya got money go intel, otherwise AMD, I personally like amd better cause Athlon XP sounds cool

 

[Duvie]

while intel offers the very very best performance at more then twice the cost

I believe this was the first shot fired in the flame war!!!!! Like the other member said above...once you get above say 150.00 dollars and the amd 2400+ chip the price to price comparison and performance comparison is pretty much equal....

The advantage is the ppl getting the lower 1700+ tbreds and some of the 2100+ versions as well...

both system are stable with research in correct components...

 

[dguy6789]

sorry, i was talking about the p4 3.06 ghz compared to say a 2400, see the price diff?

 

[Duvie]

Yes....BUt can you compare them performance wise??? NO!!! Then you need to compare apples to apples or as near as you can....The barton 3000+ didn't beat the 3.06ghz p4 so you need to compare them....

I see maybe the point you were trying to make but there could be quite the performance gain by jumping to 3.06ghz over the 2400+ so therefore there is where the premium lies and has always laid....

the 2400+ you need to go to 145+ in pricewatch before you even get to the tbred line of the chips....At 2.53ghz versus the 2500+ and 2.66ghz versus the 2600+ it is very tight with sometimes the inclusion of 1 to 3 year warranties and the Intel being retail pack with included hsf making the deal look a little better for the intel package...

 

[sash1]

<< "By the way, I ran a search and couldn't find anything, i'm sure this was posted at one point or another, or maybe posted right now." >>

apparently you didn't search hard enough, this has been covered way too many times and needs to stop.

<< "I know this thread could go on for a while." >>

Only due to the massive amounts of flame wars

Kinda depends what processor you have NOW what you'll be wanting to upgrade to. IMO, Intel is much better--too bad I dun have the money to get me a P4, but if I did, I would...

~Aunix

 

[Booter]

im waiting for the lower mhz HT p4's. my 655 rig blows away any other rig i've had previously only thing 'missing' is HT but idon't want to spend a premium for HT cpu (3.06Gz)

 

[SpideyCU]

Originally posted by: rommelrommel
I just see it as if ya only got $50~ for a processor you get a lot more from AMD. But, by the time you're at the $100-200 level or above it's a tossup.

Let's be realistic people - this right here is the honest truth. Anything beyond this is flamebait and fanboy ranting.

 

[Soulkeeper]

AMD wins everytime just give it up
hehehe

 

[Soulkeeper]

AMD wins everytime just give it up
hehe

 

[Soulkeeper]

Intel boooooo !!!!
lol

 

[Duvie]

AMD sucks!!! AMD is not the fastest!!! AMD is unstable!!! HeHeHeHe..... (sarcasm ended)

say what you really mean and then laugh and make ppl think you are joking when you really are not...Sound familiar???

 

[Soulkeeper]

hahahaha

 

[spanner]

Its really depends on what you want. Stability wise nforce+AMD is as stable as anything intel has out there (yes I do own both). AMD seems to do better on unoptimized code which is why I have a small preference for AMD. In the sub 2ghz (2000PR rating) I think AMD wins with value and beyond that I think you would be happy whichever way you go.

 

[Booter]

I agree with the post above you will be happy anyway you go BUT remember going the P4 route means access to HT which i think is very neat, specially if you are into multitasking with video apps. OTOH i tend to change mobo so often anyway that it's a moot point for me the upgrade path argument.

 

[rommelrommel]

Yeah, HT is neat, but seems to have very little practical use. It's like having 8HP extra at redline, sure, in a few uncommon situations it's useful, other than that it's just bragging rights

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: rommelrommel
Yeah, HT is neat, but seems to have very little practical use. It's like having 8HP extra at redline, sure, in a few uncommon situations it's useful, other than that it's just bragging rights

Wrong!!! go read up on it....many ppl now use all sorts of multitasking and this is where it can benefit...In some optimised programs for it you can get up to 25% benefit while often it may be no benefit to a 5%....To say it has no practical use is to say none of us multitask....

I disagree with the fact that only the 3.06ghz has it now and the prohibitive cost for many is why we do not hear more about it and the practicality and performance manyare gaining in more specific situations...Once the lower multiplier 200fsb chips come out with HT we will start to see how revolutionary it really is...

 

[lchen66666]

Definitely, I would go with AMD for the following reasons.

* AMD CPU + nForce2 is as STABLE and REALIABLE as any INTEL's offering.
* AMD CPU + nForce2 gives you HIGH QUALITY on-board Sound ouput.
* AMD CPU + nForce2 platform is much CHEAPER than INTEL's

If you go with INTEL, you have to spend more on
* CPU(probably $50-$80 more)
* Sound card(unless you don't need high quality sound $50-$80)
* MotherBoard(You have to get INTEL chipset based motherboard for high quality).

You can use the money saved from above items to buy high quality
memory(CAS2, DDR400 at least), or Video Card. These are also critical
factors have big impact to overall system performance.