"I just like intel better"

[Schadenfroh]

the only reason to buy an intel CPU is if you do video encoding, and nvidia is about to fix that short coming with the 6800

 

[stickybytes]

sometimes when your bragging to your friends about a rig, it just feels better when you say you got a intel chip under the hood rather than a amd chip. i don't know why. it's just that sense of feeling you get when you say you got a pentium 4 versus a XP.

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

Originally posted by: stickybytes
sometimes when your bragging to your friends about a rig, it just feels better when you say you got a intel chip under the hood rather than a amd chip. i don't know why. it's just that sense of feeling you get when you say you got a pentium 4 versus a XP.

that feeling you get is a smaller wallet in your back pocket. a grand feeling it is

 

[dudeman007]

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy

Originally posted by: stickybytes
sometimes when your bragging to your friends about a rig, it just feels better when you say you got a intel chip under the hood rather than a amd chip. i don't know why. it's just that sense of feeling you get when you say you got a pentium 4 versus a XP.

that feeling you get is a smaller wallet in your back pocket. a grand feeling it is

lol I wish that was me. Damn how is this thread still alive.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: dudeman007
Damn how is this thread still alive.

Yeah I know. I'm predicting a 300-post behemoth. I wonder what the AT limit is. I guess alot of people "just like intel better".

 

[xylem]

Although I can't recall having seen that quote being used verbatim, the my general sense after having been here for a long time is that fanboyism exists "50/50" on both sides, whether you're talking about AMD/Intel, NVidia/ATI, etc... I'm sure that a lot of posts that seem fanboyish have some logic behind them, but the responsible party is just feeling a little too lazy at that particular time to explain the reasoning.

I have never bought an Intel CPU, for the following two main reasons: 1) I don't like to spend a lot of money on CPUs, and AMD has had a great streak of offering wonderful, stable, O/C cpus in the $50-$90 price range; 2) equally important to me is the promotion of competition, so if I can spend the same amount of money for roughly the same performance, I'll support the underdog, since neck-and-neck competition keeps performance high and prices low, at least in the short run. Don't we all love competition here?... companies putting more energy into developing superior parts, instead of coming up with clever ways to market old, stagnant technology for higher prices?... as a result, we get better parts for our money no matter which company we choose to support =).

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: xylem
Although I can't recall having seen that quote being used verbatim, the my general sense after having been here for a long time is that fanboyism exists "50/50" on both sides, whether you're talking about AMD/Intel, NVidia/ATI, etc... I'm sure that a lot of posts that seem fanboyish have some logic behind them, but the responsible party is just feeling a little too lazy at that particular time to explain the reasoning.

I have never bought an Intel CPU, for the following two main reasons: 1) I don't like to spend a lot of money on CPUs, and AMD has had a great streak of offering wonderful, stable, O/C cpus in the $50-$90 price range; 2) equally important to me is the promotion of competition, so if I can spend the same amount of money for roughly the same performance, I'll support the underdog, since neck-and-neck competition keeps performance high and prices low, at least in the short run. Don't we all love competition here?... companies putting more energy into developing superior parts, instead of coming up with clever ways to market old, stagnant technology for higher prices?... as a result, we get better parts for our money no matter which company we choose to support =).

Very well written post..... Good points, and very constructive. Somebody pick this apart !!

 

[Jeff7181]

My belly button is an innie... it use to be an outie, then I got a beer gut at college and now it's an innie.

 

[SickBeast]

:Q:Q Wow, I finally found someone who "just likes AMD better". Wow. :Q:Q

I actually like AMD more then Intel

I suppose that's close enough. What do you guys think? Here's the LINK. It's about 3/4 of the way down where he "sets the record straight".

He's a professional journalist to boot. Nice. He even has a disclaimer at the top of the article. I suppose I did take what he said out of context, but he did actually more or less say that he "likes AMD better". :beer:

 

[Ionizer86]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well, my 1700+ XP mobile (1.47 stock) runs stable up to 2.1. That's a 43% overclock, and if I kept raising the Vcore I'm sure I could get it to 2.2

Since I see that you've decided to use PR ratings on the 2500+ to 3200+, I'm going to redo my calculations:
1700+ --> 2600+ = 53% increase

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Ionizer86

Originally posted by: 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.

Well, my 1700+ XP mobile (1.47 stock) runs stable up to 2.1. That's a 43% overclock, and if I kept raising the Vcore I'm sure I could get it to 2.2

Since I see that you've decided to use PR ratings on the 2500+ to 3200+, I'm going to redo my calculations:
1700+ --> 2600+ = 53% increase

Ditto. My 1833mhz 2500+ runs at 2500mhz for a 36% increase. I'm pretty sure my PR is a 3700+ or so, so that would make it 48%. Either that CTHO guy has been very unlucky or he doesn't know what CPUs to buy in order to overclock. Probably a combination of the two. :beer:

 

[Dubb]

I'm probably not the average user here, but here's why I've bought intel in the past:

Workstation performance
3d rendering speed
audio/video encoding (mainly audio)

last time I looked (which was a bit ago), intel was a decent amount ahead in all these. Of course, with opteron out there and 64 bit windows on the horizon (I hear a 64 bit maya build is in the works for linux too)... my next computer could very well be dual opteron. Will probably depend on how the 64-bit xeon sits in comparison about this time next year.

I suppose I also have a bit more confidence in the workstation chipsets available for intel. Couldn't really tell you why...it's probably because I've never seen a chipset for amd labled as a "workstation" chipset (ala 875p, E7205). again, that might have, and probably has, changed since I last looked closely

that said, I've been recomending AMD64 setups to my gamer / traditional user friends left and right...looks like they really made a great chip there.

ok, now who's going to point me to benchmarks showing opteron or amd64 ahead in 3d rendering speed?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I hereby copyright the saying "I just like ____ better". 'nuff said, and the AT Forums can return to their normal state now. It's been fun.

 

[Mik3y]

i just like @MD better

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

i think your original post, though doesn't explicitly say so, dubs you as an amd fanboy. personally, i decide what i'm going to be doing the most with my system (encoding, dl'ing, and gaming... probably like most people). i'm partial to intel, but that's my opinion. i've never owned an amd, but when reading reviews (from review based sites like anandtech and hardocp, not nameless joes from buttplug indiana) it seems that an intel best suits my needs. that really is the bottom line. both make quality stuff, and compatable components are good for both. amd seems to hold the edge in gaming, but intel seems to out perform amd on office based programs and encoding. i'm a hardcore multitasker. i got azureus, wolf mp, and gordian knot running full tilt... among other things, so i've been a lil partial to intel, especially the 2.8 northwood with the 800fsb. prescott doesn't do it for me. the upsides are too few compared to the downsides. maybe just a lil ahead of the components it'll be working with. i'm just not rich enough to fry a motherboard, or buy a high tech cooling system, so the northwood is right up my alley. again.... never tried an amd. not out of distaste, just like to test the water before i jump in. i think that just like intel has it's biased following based on their advertising, amd has a biased following for the exact opposite reason. just my two cents.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: OdiN
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.

No, it simply means that I am objective and they are ignorant. I considered two options, they only considered one.

this entire thread lends itself to ignorance. opinions are just that

sorry bout the ol' back to back

 

[allanon1965]

{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.}

well i will tell you all one thing right now, i used to be intel all the way, amd chips and boards sucked bigtime until Athlon XP came out. I run a barton 2500 clocked to 3200 speeds on a sis 748 chipset based asrock k7s8xe+. ABSOLUTLEY ROCK SOLID! only took a few minutes to set the fsb up and i also used name brand quality parts, alot of people overlook the quality of the individual parts. i run crucial ram, maxtor hard drives( ONLY RMA'D ONE DRIVE FROM THEM IN 12 YEARS, CANT SAY THAT ABOUT WD OR SEAGATE!) fortron power supplies,I now use this setup exclusivley for my customers and my business and home systems, in 14 system builds, no problems at all, if i am a fanboy at all, it is a STABILITY FANBOY! seriuosly though, i agree about via chipsets, a very unstable set in my opinion, both under intel and amd. until this setup doesnt work anymore, i will continue to build these bulletproof sweethearts! they are great for gaming and officework.....the only varibles in these systems are how much ram they want and which video card they want....cd roms and burners are usually sony, no problems with those either...

 

[goblue420]

i just feel more comfortable with an intel setup bc ive been buildin them since i was in the 4th grade

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: goblue420
i just feel more comfortable with an intel setup bc ive been buildin them since i was in the 4th grade

they arnt any differant when you build them as a amd rig, cept amd is a lil simpler to put together if you get a mobo with the intel like HS/Fan mounting brackets, since it does not even use that strange power connector that intel uses on their mobos.

 

[TitanDiddly]

I just like AMD better. For good reasons.

 

[NOX]

I was an Intel hardcore person all the way. I was one of those who bought an i820 and RDRAM (which IMO was rock solid). Though that all changed when I saw I could get a comparable speed AMD setup for less then what I could get an Intel system.

I'm not loyal to one brand, why should I be, they don't pay for my bills or anthing like that. :frown: I will buy whatever I feel will run my programs and games in a manner which makes me happy, and of course if the price is right. As far as I'm concerned, for the past 5 years, AMD has given me the best bang for my buck. I've build many AMD and Intel systems over the years, I have yet to see any issues with either CPU, I've seen issues with chipsets etc, but none with the CPU's.

I will continue to make AMD my first choice until Intel comes down in price, or offers a performance increase where it would make huge difference versus a comparable speed AMD CPU.

 

[stickybytes]

If people are saying that the prescotts will be a useless series of chips, then what's next for intel?
I don't believe northwood core will live much longer becuase intel will be pushing them along with the new sockets 775.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Just because your single system is doing just fine doesn't mean that they all are.

This goes both ways... just because YOUR Intel CPU and chipset is stable and doesn't have problems doesn't mean they all are stable and don't have problems.

I wasn't talking about a single system Jeff. I build a lot of systems. I build systems for business clients and home users. I have had VERY few problems with Intel systems, very few to none. This isn't just one system, it's many systems. I can't say the same thing with AMD. I've run into more issues with AMD systems than Intel systems, period. I've worked with a variety of different boards, brands, etc. and this is what I find to be true.

 

[AFB]

I like AMD because Intel kills babies.

 

[Budman]

Click me