AMD vs. Intel

[jmaxxz]

If the performance between AMD and Intel chips was close enough to be negligible which would you pick?

I ask because 'emotionally' I like AMD more, but performance of intels is just that much better, and I was wonder if other geeks perfered the AMD brand, or the Intel brand.

[Seshan]

Intel, because I'm to lazy to learn what AMD's namings mean.

[Deags]

i started on amd back in like 2002 when they were much cheaper. then in 2007 my computer broke. So i got a new one with a 1.8 core2 duo it went well for about 16 months and then it stopped. So i went back to AMD after not being too impressed with the intel. The AMD is alright... probably should have gone Intel didn't have the money.

By Computer Broke i mean it's not going to work unless i buy new motherboard,psu, cpu. I never reuse a PSU incase it was what broke the pc before. If your gonna get a new CPU might as well get a motherboard to suit or vice versa.

[Netshroud]

Tough choice.

Intel only includes Intel-VT on some chips, AMD includes AMD-V on all.

AMDs are more overclockable.

AMD had the XP SP3 fiasco.

Intel sounds cooler.

[dr0p]

Grew up on AMD, love them <3

[VaKo]

Intel, always had Intel since my 386, the AMD chips i've tried haven't impressed me so far.

[Lord Necron]

AMD had the XP SP3 fiasco.

Huh? HP/Compaq caused a fiasco because they were lazy when creating their images.

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\intelppm]
"Start"=dword:00000004

Adding this to the registry prevents/stops the boot loop.

Intel, because I'm to lazy to learn what AMD's namings mean.

Intel isn't any better. Core i5? i7? And trying to figure out which Intel supports Win7 XP mode, what a mess!

[digip]

I always pick amd, even when performance is less. Quieter, cooler, and stable, and still does everythign I need for less in cost. Every Intel I hav eowned had tons of crashes, overheating issues, and loud, hot noisy machines. Plus, they were always more expensive than any of my AMD's. Jus tmy opinions and experienc ethough.

[Zimmer]

I wouldn't get AMD right now just because of my recent ATI problems (sense AMD owns ATI).

[deleted]

Ive been using Mac's since the Intel switchover so I dont really have a choice :P

But before that (when I built my machines) I would always use an Intel chip. Ive always found them generally easier and less headache-causing-y. I did once have an AMD, caused more problems that I would have liked.

[Seshan]

Huh? HP/Compaq caused a fiasco because they were lazy when creating their images.

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\intelppm]
"Start"=dword:00000004

Adding this to the registry prevents/stops the boot loop.

Intel isn't any better. Core i5? i7? And trying to figure out which Intel supports Win7 XP mode, what a mess!

Yes but I already know what they mean. I've always had intel so I just know.

[moonlit]

AMDs are more overclockable.

That could be debateable, many Core2-based chips are very, very good overclockers, even the budget ones, and on stock air too. Not that I run overclocked day to day, but during testing my E2180 ran 1GHz above its 2GHz rating without a problem, with the stock cooler.

[wh1t3 and n3rdy]

Whatever is the best bang for buck at that particular time. Have always had good experience with AMD

[foo]

I've always favored Intel. They've seemed to be the best "power" feeling processor in my day to day computing activities. Although, I've yet to try AMD's new Phenom line, which I've heard great things about. Maybe it's time to give 'em another shot?

[555]

AMD, just because thats what I have always owned

[MRGRIM]

If the performance between AMD and Intel chips was close enough to be negligible which would you pick?

What about COST?

For me it's always been performance+cost, then I go look for what mothers are avaliable for each processor, then go from there.

[cgarison]

Hmmmm.......

I have leaned toward Intel for the last 10 years. But currently, I am thinking that AMD with the more broad implementation of virtualization code on all CPU models slotted above the Sempron has me thinking they have a better bang for the buck factor for low end PCs.

For high end systems, Intel is still the preferred choice.

[cabster21]

I've had better overclocking with Intel, but that doesn't mean much. To answer the questions, probably AMD. But Intel chips with Virtualization seem to be more common on notebooks. So this is why I seem to be with Intel more these days...

[jenken]

If all people will buy Intel like the old days processors are way too expensive that's why not so many people have computers specially on the 3rd world country's so for me i'll choose AMD simply to help AMD kick Intel out of the top and Intel will kick AMD again at the end it's always end user's benefit ^__^

[DigitalManiak]

I always choose Intel, I'm a former die-hard AMD guy, the athlon XP series is what let me down and so has every other series afterward (up to the AMD 64x2) When I started my PC shop I sold AMD products, I had to replace every processor at cost (because they wouldn't honor the warranty) and in some, I wound up just switching them to celeron CPU's on 775 mobo's, and those are still in service today. When I worked as a IBM/Lenovo FSR, every Lenovo with an AMD processor I was sent to, needed a new proc (notebook or desktop). When debating price vs. performance, my last Core2 Duo 2.8ghz system (MSI board, 4gb ram, 9600GT 512mb pcie vid) cost $360... a guy I know just built a new PC out of an AMD barebones kit and he's on his 3rd proc, not even overclocking either and like me, he's not a gamer.

[Zimmer]

If all people will buy Intel like the old days processors are way too expensive that's why not so many people have computers specially on the 3rd world country's so for me i'll choose AMD simply to help AMD kick Intel out of the top and Intel will kick AMD again at the end it's always end user's benefit ^__^

Why? Let the person with the best proc for the job get your money (not saying intel or AMD is better), another company will come along if AMD fails and hell a business either needs to be successful or fail (oops my capitalism is showing :-))

[lectroburn]

Intel is for speed and nerds.

AMD is for raw sexuality.

[555]

Why? Let the person with the best proc for the job get your money (not saying intel or AMD is better), another company will come along if AMD fails and hell a business either needs to be successful or fail (oops my capitalism is showing :-))

I dont think we agree on anything.. ever.. lol

[h3%5kr3w]

This is a pretty interesting read for me, especially since I have always been an AMD fan till' recently, seeing how the Core Ix series has been mopping the floor with AMD.. I have a few different points of my own to add to this.

IF performance was equal or relatively equal, then I am definitely on board with AMD. Mainly because it would most definitely be cheaper, and thus better for my wallet, and better for the industry in terms of competition.

Intel has always had (and probably always will) have the maximum saturation in the business market, and for good reason. I have noticed since the beginning only 1 major difference in stability between an Intel and an AMD processor and that is when things get sluggish (I mean close to locking up style sluggish) I have always noticed that while it may take forever, an Intel processor will trudge through it and will come out with the task completed, while an AMD processor will just simply give up and lock up. Maybe this was some type of buffer issue, but it never really bothered me about AMD because I always ran as light on the resources as possible.

Also I noticed some of you said you had a lot of problems with Intel chips overheating, but I have always noticed the opposite (until recently anyways). My AMDs have always ran really hot, and I have had AMDs since my 486 133mhz chip.

I will also have to admit while the core2duo seems nice even today, my 64X2 5600+ still smokes a regular core2, and is still good enough to run most new games at competitive resolutions.

I have heard that the Phenom II X4's are comparable to an I7 but only when overclocked, and that is compared to a stock core speed I7. Regardless though, when you build the systems side by side, the price of a Phenom II X4 chip/mobo/mem combo is WAY cheaper than a comparable I7 system.

Fact: Phenom II X4's will do the same thing as an I7, just a smidge slower. Also games are not really better on an I7. Once you get over the standard requirements of a game, it's all on the Video Card.

So i'll have to admit with all this in play, even though I really admire a badass core I7 based system w/the triple channel ram, I still have to go with AMD. I have always looked at price with performance, and at this point in the game, unless your running a 1080p or higher rendering farm, or something needing the equivalent specs, you don't need an I7 based system. However in the same respect I would not feel too great using AMD based systems while working on mission critical applications (also because corps. are generally cheap, and are running on the bare minimum for the task anyways).

[VaKo]

Just like Intel dropped the ball with the Pentium 4/Netburst design and had to play catch up, AMD dropped the ball with the K10 and will have to rely on lower priced parts and up-rating its current tech until AMD Fusion comes out on 2011. It will be interesting to see how Larrabee competes with this, even though they are aimed at different market segments.