"I just like intel better"

[Zebo]

How about an "I refuse to buy Intel" comment? = I refuse to buy a chip over $100

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: dudeman007
they are NOT 10-20% faster. Theres one

Looks like 15% to me
Looks like 10% to me
Again, 10%

If the A64 was not at least 10% faster than the P4 on average, the people on here would not be reccomending them in droves.

Obviously you forgot to use your eyes.
The processor that will apparently save $300 is one that will overclock to XP3200+ speeds or thereabouts.
The P4 will also overclock.
Those graphs show the 3000+ being slughtly slower, equal to or slightly faster in many cases (most I think, from what I looked at) than the 2.8c the person was going to buy. Not really 10-20% faster at all, definately not in some situations, as it is slower.

Overclock the 2500+ to 3200+ speeds, and the 2.8 to 3.5, and the 2.8 will be faster most probably (and NOT $300 more either).
Way to recommend a 2500+, then have someone say it's not 10-20% faster, than show graphs of an AMD 64 being 10-20% faster.

 

[SickBeast]

God this is getting out of hand. I shouldn't have to defend everything I write like this. I swear you guys are just out to flame me sometimes.

Lonyo: When he quoted me there, it was SPECIFICALLY regarding the A64 vs. the P4.

The 2500+ will OC much beyond 2200mhz so your arguement there is basically bunk.

 

[SilentZero]

I think this whole topic is FUBAR. Who cares what people like or dislike. Its all about what YOU prefer. I run 2 Intel rigs, and 2 AMD rigs, and I seen the strengths in both. Yes, I do prefer AMD for gaming, and at the same time I prefer Intel for tasks such as encoding. Im sure im not the only one here who thinks this way. The bottom line is, there are "fanboys" for each of these chips, but its not about them, its about what works the best for you and your needs!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: sandorski
This is kinda silly. Liking something better is not bad, I prefer AMD for example. I claim to be an AMD fanboy, but I try not to get involved in Bad Fanboy behavious. Coke or Pepsi?

1) Coke! Pepsi drinkers are Fascist Commies and are too stupid to live!!! <-------this person is an a55

2) Coke! Sorry, I don't have any Pepsi. <----- this person prefers Coke, but doesn't get worked up that someone else prefers Pepsi

Don't get worked up about these things, been there done that and it's a total waste of Time and Energy. Give your opinion on why X > Y, even if it is true and the guy refuses to accept it, no big woop, it's their money.

The real zealots tend to be AMD (and ATI) fans though. Although those companies certainly have their share of reasonable &amp; mature fans, when you see something like "company_01 iz teh pwn ololol thay r r0xx0rz j00!!1!1", it's never about Intel (or Nvidia)...

Not true. There are zealots for all sides and how someone posts isn't an indicator of zealotry(aka--the whole leet speak stuff). Zealotry ebbs and flows.

A few years ago(about 4) there was no such thing as an ATI Zealot, in fact the amount of people who even mentioned ATI was on the same level as Matrox or S3 is mentioned today. The only ATI products of any interest were their AIW line and few people were interested. Around the same time and before the first Athlon was released there were fewer AMD zealots(by a lot) than Intel zealots. Times change and so do dominant products, with those changes comes an increase of zealots(everyone wants to be associated with a winner, some want it too much).

 

[ath50]

1) Coke! Pepsi drinkers are Fascist Commies and are too stupid to live!!! <-------this person is an a55

That person is also pretty ignorant because facism is pretty much the exact opposite form of ideology/government as communism

Ok well I didn't contribute much to the thread, I don't see it going very far anyway...

 

[oldfart]

Has anyone here EVER seen someone post that they are only interested in buying an AMD rig because they "just like AMD better"?

Yes, many times

IIn my experience, the people that buy AMD setups are the most objective people on these message boards

Some are, some are plain fan boys. Some AMD fans even go so low as to call someone an "idiot" for even thinking of an Intel based system. Can you imagine such a thing?

Here is something to ponder:

Not very long ago the AMD fans were constantly screaming on how "Intel screws their customers" by changing sockets specs, and charging a premium for the top end processors.

Now that we have socket A, socket 754, socket 939, socket 940 (did I miss any?) and some high prices for the upper end AMD chips, where are all the complaints? Interesting double standard.

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

this thread makes baby jesus cry

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: OdiN
I just like Intel better.

Yes I know this.
Yourself and countless others "just like intel better". That's why there needs to be an intel-only forum on here. It would elminate the flame wars. Maybe the other solution would be to make this thread a sticky and tell everyone to put "intel-only" or "AMD-only" in the title to their thread.

No need . . . you simply need to LEARN to IGNORE those posts - much the same way "we' (generally) IGNORE yours.



:roll:

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: OdiN
Also, an Intel system with an Intel chipset (and going farther an Intel motherboard) will be more stable than an AMD system on any VIA chipset. The NF2 chipset is really the only other choice and it's not without it's troubles and bad implementations.

For a rock solid system, I would recommend an Intel chip, Intel chipset, and Intel board. In fact, this is what I usually sell to businesses because I know that they will work and I don't have to worry about anything. If I have trouble, Intel is there to back me up.

so very wrong.
i couldn't even tell you if my PC was not 100% stable because there are NO unexplained crashes/stability problems EVER. (XP2500+, NF2 board) so how can you say something is more stable? i mean, it depends a lot on other things like memory/motherboard brand/quality, but for the most part.. I have had even BETTER luck with AMD being more stable than Intel (just probably my findings, but it's the truth) I still have an Athlon900 at work on a KT133 board (Asus A7Pro) with the original Win2k install, and it still runs 24/7 used every day without ever a crash or instability. IMO Via chipsets are awesome for Athlons.. never had a problem with any Via chipset I've had! so to go out on a limb and say Intel is more stable is just dumb. that is a 5 years ago argument... it just doesn't work like that anymore IMO!

this isn't to say I haven't had some good luck with Intel systems, just not when I've had them at my own house. my PC at work is a P4 2.4B on an Asus P4B533 rig, with a gig of RAM... this PC runs very stable. it's not as fast as my XP2500, but its very stable indeed. HOWEVER no more stable than my ATHLON or for that matter ANY Athlon system I've had.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: OdiN
Well...I see nothing wrong with just liking Intel better. That's where I'm at right now. I mean....it's simple. I took my 2.4, threw a Zalman on it in an Abit board and overclocked it to 3.4. No biggie, it still runs cooler than an Athlon of the same speed. So...yeah I'm liking the Intel better. I didn't think overclocking would be so simple on an Intel chipset after the 440BX. Intel seemed intent on stopping this practice, but since the 865/875 chips came out it's been a big reason some people have moved over to their CPU's. They fixed rebranding with a processor tag that cannot be changed (at least not without some serious hacking).

Also, an Intel system with an Intel chipset (and going farther an Intel motherboard) will be more stable than an AMD system on any VIA chipset. The NF2 chipset is really the only other choice and it's not without it's troubles and bad implementations.

For a rock solid system, I would recommend an Intel chip, Intel chipset, and Intel board. In fact, this is what I usually sell to businesses because I know that they will work and I don't have to worry about anything. If I have trouble, Intel is there to back me up.

I know...you aren't building one strictly for business or whatever but it's possible to just prefer Intel over AMD without being a "fanboy" or biased. I just like Intel better. Now, this isn't to say this won't change, but as things stand now I prefer Intel. Does this make me a fanboy? Of course not. I never say that the AMD is a bad chip, nor does it perform poorly. In fact quite the opposite. The downfalls of AMD's CPU's have usually been in the chipsets that support them. Relying on VIA to make their chips work hasn't always worked to their advantage. The NF2 is good, but I've seen a lot of memory problems and things with that chipset, as well as video problems with VIA's integrated stuff. Not every board has the problems, but they are there.

I agree that there are fanboys out there - on both sides. But your statement is too broad and sweeping of an accusation. If someone just prefers to purchase an Intel, let them. Why should you care? If you are the one pushing the advacement of AMD and pushing people to buy an AMD when they don't want to, then YOU are the fanboy.

Wrong on the heat, at least with an Athlon64. And wrong on the stability, at least with the Athlon64 again. And the new HP servers use Opterons (I will have to check which chipset they use when I have time). Don;t talk without any proof. Do you own an Athlon64 ? I think not.

 

[gururu]

Odin is correct about the chipset qualities. problems with amd chipsets are well documented.

anyway, this thread should have been called "I just like AMD better" but I don't understand why someone would "Just like Intel better".

Sickbeast, I've not seen any particularly nasty posts from you when giving advice, but just yesterday someone called an "intel fanboy" who was just getting into computer building (does he even qualify as a fanboy yet?) an idiot. Someone else and yourself all agreed that this guy was an idiot. Those are hostile sentiments and it baffles me why this is so. Why shouldn't someone be able to ask for Intel specific advice. I CONSTANTLY see threads about people asking for advice when building AMD machines. Maybe the reason we don't see statements like "I just like AMD better" is because we don't get "intel fanboys" flaming the OP into justifying their decision.

anyways, I'm kind of feeling like you are a wolf in sheep's clothing. You kind of come off as knowledgeable and wishing to help with your advice, but darn, you really turn on someone simply for preferring Intel. Such decisions really shouldn't bother you.

 

[jspeicher]

I'm an AMD fan, but the Intel Pentium 4/ 2.4C GHz 800MHz FSB, 512K Cache, HTT is only 169.00 right now (reaches for credit card)

 

[gsellis]

SickBeast, I know why you see the "I just prefer Intel" all of the time. It is a defense mechanism. There are AMD fanboys who will belittle someone for wanting to build an Intel system and immediately tell them the should get AMD or they are an idiot (and vice versa, but not so much at Anandtech).

NOTE to the challenged individuals who have made SickBeast see all of these "I just prefer Intel" posts (good lord, no flamage as this was not directed at anyone in this thread, just a general rant) - If someone asks about rating another Intel system and AMD would be better (like duh for a gaming system), it would be much more polite to say, "have you considered using an Barton 2500 instead as it will improve your performance and save you some money?" See, a question that does not insult.

Oh, a little social psychology for the day. Cognative dissonance (you can google) is the driving force for all of the "Is this system OK" posts. These folks know that there are lots of combinations that they could choose for hardware. They have multiple options and they have choosen one. Now they want to reduce their concern and show they have made the right choice. They post (and will continue to post) with their rigs and ask if it is good. The best thing that we could do is tell them yes unless we see some glaring issues or at least ASK if they have considered certain other pieces. Many here do do that (including those in this thread.) Generally, anything they are planning to build will kick butt compared to what they have. For the most part, it will be fast enough and they have considered that. But still, friendly help is good. We just need to remember that they have already made the choice, they just want to be reassured that they made a good decision.

PS - @Odin - I have not seen any processor combo (Intel or AMD) that has been unstable since the AMD 386 chips (but this was a MS OS issue, not really the hardware). The last mobo that I saw that was a loser was a NexGen (4 boards - none would boot to DOS), got a new board with an AMD 486-50DX2 instead. Although I did have a P4-100 supporting SIS chipped board that was a little dicey with the modem piece...

[/endwhine]

Edited because typing continues to be a challenge

 

[viivo]

Must.. not.. let.. flaming.. die... out.. thread becoming... civil.

ATI fanboys are less mature than Nvidia fanboys? That may be true. I have experienced some very egotistical ATI users who, because they think they are more informed, feel superior to Nvidians. Still, it's always funny to see some random Nvidia user who wonders and whines why his FX 5700 Ultra with the uber 900mhz memory (and 128 bit interface) is being smashed by every Radeon after 9500.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Overclock the 2500+ to 3200+ speeds, and the 2.8 to 3.5, and the 2.8 will be faster most probably (and NOT $300 more either).

Only an idiot would buy a CPU and thinking he's guaranteed to be able to overclock by 25% (2.8->3.5) or 28% (2500->3200). Most CPUs I've gotten my hands on aren't stable at over 10% above stock speeds. Maybe your random window / game crashes are really the result of hardware issues rather than software problems.

 

[Matthias99]

The most useful thing in this thread:

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
What I'd really like right now is a Yuengling Traditional Lager.

mmm... Yuengling... <drool>

:beer:

 

[imported_Reflex]

Here is something to ponder:

Not very long ago the AMD fans were constantly screaming on how "Intel screws their customers" by changing sockets specs, and charging a premium for the top end processors.

Now that we have socket A, socket 754, socket 939, socket 940 (did I miss any?) and some high prices for the upper end AMD chips, where are all the complaints? Interesting double standard.

You know, Socket A is now dead. It lasted for 5 years or so. Its revisions were minor, and even first generation owners of a socket A board can find modern CPU's that work on it(I can have up to a 2500+ on my old Abit KG7-RAID board, not too shabby considering 700Mhz or so is what I started with).

Socket 754 is not dead yet, and AMD has actually announced a new line of CPU's for it, the 754 based AthlonXP's. It looks like it will become the low end choice for very cheap systems.

Socket 940 is also not dead, and is promised a long life by AMD with continuing releases of Opteron chips, and the promise that upcoming dual core chips will work on current 940 motherboards.

Socket 939 is new, and is promised as the mainstream to high end socket of choice. We will see how long it lasts, but I'd wager it'll be around as long as 940.

I have yet to see AMD discontinue a socket simply to get people to upgrade. By contrast to some of their competition, their sockets, chipsets and so on last an extraordinarily long time. The only exception to this in the past ten years(remember how long they prolonged socket 7) MAY be socket 754, but time will tell what their plans are for that as currently they have a product line actively being developed for it. I'm willing to bet that their new low end chips(Sempron) will likely be geared for that platform, giving it a long life.

Contrast that to the number of sockets and standards that Intel has released for the Pentium 4 since 1999. Can you buy a 2.5Ghz CPU for an original socket 423(I think that was the original) P4 motherboard? I bet not.

For the record, I am not a Intel or AMD fanboy. When I was a reseller I happily sold both, and AMD has certainly had thier own share of problems(and will continue to do so until they make thier own chipsets regularly in my opinion). But sockets are probably one of the strongest aspects of their platform, you can upgrade for years with their products vs. months in some cases with Intel. Most people never upgrade, however, so its a non issue in cases where its not an enthusiast on a limited budget...

 

[AndyHui]

The system shows about 28 users with Intel in their name.

The system shows about 130 users with AMD in their name.

You tell me which side has more fanboys here.

 

[HokieESM]

PS - @Odin - I have not seen any processor combo (Intel or AMD) that has been unstable since the AMD 386 chips (but this was a MS OS issue, not really the hardware). The last mobo that I saw that was a loser was a NexGen (4 boards - none would boot to DOS), got a new board with an AMD 486-50DX2 instead. Although I did have a P4-100 supporting SIS chipped board that was a little dicey with the modem piece...

Just FYI--I've seen a LOT of "instability" in various systems. Usually from non-server class chipsets (this is where Intel has a definite advantage--they make their own chipsets and motherboards). Of course, my definition of "stable" is running a computational run for 3 weeks without causing errors. So it depends on your definition of "stable". But for a home user, you're right--I've seldom seen/had a computer since 2000 (and before was more a cause of Win98 than anything) that hasn't been stable for several weeks for a home user.

As far as the original post... there are a lot of "fanboys" out there... for BOTH sides. If you look at STOCK speeds and STOCK timings (because anything else is a variable), AMD wins at the low-price mark handily... but mid-to-high systems, the two are at a deadlock in price (and performance depends on what you're doing). Each has its own advantages otherwise. AMD has great all-in-one chipsets in the Nforce line--especially considering the excellent onboard audio. The Athlon64 is excellent at gaming. Intel has different strengths. Excellent Linux support. They write their own compilers for Fortran and C++--which has tremendous applications in scientific computing. They make their own chipsets and motherboards. The ICH5R is excellent--especially at moving gigabit off the PCI bus.

Just like EVERYTHING else, you buy based on your budget and what you're doing with the computer. Depending on the circumstances, either has its benefits.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: AndyHui
The system shows about 28 users with Intel in their name.

The system shows about 130 users with AMD in their name.

You tell me which side has more fanboys here.

No, it's just that AMD users aren't ashamed of their processor choice.



- M4H

 

[Mik3y]

If i were to build a rig for gaming, i'd go amd. if i wanted a rig for encoding and such, guess wut!?...i'd still go amd. as proven already, even with the new socket, amd is better then intel in nearly every field. its not just that, they still have better price for performance then intel with teh athlon 64's believe it or not and they have done me well on the 4 other amd systems i have at home. personally, even my dream system composes of amd. as for video cards, i just like whoever makes the better card.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: jspeicher
I'm an AMD fan, but the Intel Pentium 4/ 2.4C GHz 800MHz FSB, 512K Cache, HTT is only 169.00 right now (reaches for credit card)

And if you bought an AMD Mobile XP for $77 you would'nt need credit


Less than half the price (I assume your overclocking) for the similar performance. Still a poor value that Intel offers. Then can you find a overclcokers dream like the Shuttle AN35N fo $54 in intel world? No, IC7 is starting point @ $90.

131 vs 259

Double the price for similar performance. Are you sure your an AMD fan? Or a victim of the overdog hype? One thing for sure is you have no concept of price/performance.

 

[oldfart]

Contrast that to the number of sockets and standards that Intel has released for the Pentium 4 since 1999.

That would be a grand total of 2. Socket 423 and 478.

Yeah, Socket 423 didn't last that long.

Socket 478 has lasted from 1.6 GHz to 3.4 GHz. That is a pretty long life

When AMD changes a socket design, it is for new features and no one minds. When Intel changes, it's to "force" users to upgrade. A double standard.

From Anandtech article:

One of the major issues with having multiple generations of processors with different memory controllers is that AMD has to be careful about not allowing CPUs with different memory controllers to fit into the sockets of unsupported motherboard. This means that every new generation of memory controller for AMD will bring a new socket to the market. Intel is able to be a little more agile in this area, as the memory controller is in the chipset.

See, if Intel did the same thing, AMD fans would be screaming about how Intel "forces" you to upgrade. If AMD does it, it is OK.

BTW, new socket designs dont and never have bothered me. New mobos have new features that are worth upgrading to anyway.

It just seems odd to be all the complaints about Intel socket changes, but none when AMD does it. Nether have done it to "screw" anyione, or to "force" an upgrade. Its just the way things go.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: jspeicher
I'm an AMD fan, but the Intel Pentium 4/ 2.4C GHz 800MHz FSB, 512K Cache, HTT is only 169.00 right now (reaches for credit card)

And if you bought an AMD Mobile XP for $77 you would'nt need credit


Less than half the price (I assume your overclocking) for the similar performance. Still a poor value that Intel offers. Then can you find a overclcokers dream like the Shuttle AN35N fo $54 in intel world? No, IC7 is starting point @ $90.

131 vs 259

Double the price for similar performance. Are you sure your an AMD fan? Or a victim of the overdog hype?

/running 12x200 on an AN35N

- M4H