Rkiver Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Hmm, no option for "Whichever best suits my needs". :P I started with Intels, then switch to Athlon XP, then back to Intel for Core 2 and then Core i7. My main rig is a Core i7 water cooled system. My lan box is a Phenom II X3, as it was cheap and more then powerful enough for lan party needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5ive Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 I voted intel because that it what I have been using in most of my builds lately. It's hard to say hypothetically if performance wasn't an issue, because it is an issue, and if they really were the same then AMD would probably have the same prices to match. At which point my decision would move on to what motherboard would best fit the build... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5ive Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/artic...,S,M,GT,MYL,HTZ AMD was mentioned in this article about big companies that are veering toward bankruptcy. If you are an AMD fan, now is the time to show your support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmaxxz Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/artic...,S,M,GT,MYL,HTZ AMD was mentioned in this article about big companies that are veering toward bankruptcy. If you are an AMD fan, now is the time to show your support. That would really be too bad if AMD went under, as it would most certainly give Intel a monopoly over desktop processors. Not to mention that the phenom II is a pretty awesome chip, and I would hate to see its evolution end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h3%5kr3w Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 If AMD were to bomb, It makes me wonder if Cyrix would buy them... ugghhh!!! *shudders* That would be the day I piss on my AMD... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArkNinja Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 From what i've seen the choice for 'better processor' seems to go between AMD and Intel, taking into account price, quality and speed. I personally would go for upgradable as a major point. I'n a few years could I put in a better processor without changing out the mobo, or needing new memory. Now, every computer will get to a point where upgrading is no longer feasable, but I like to make sure my boxes last as long as they can and still stay competative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webjockey Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 I use Intel processors in all my builds (every, single, one, ever). But thats because over time, Intels get worse, slower... But if performance (in all aspects) were the same, then, because AMDs are cheaper, I would obviously go for them :P . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h3%5kr3w Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 hmm... here's a good questy! What happens when we go to the cloud? (yes i'm bouncing this idea from another thread).. Are computers just going to end up being just cheaper to throw away and replace? Seriously. Think about it. I don't think Intel AMD Cyrix etc. are going to just step aside and be cast away after a few years to the cloud... hmm.. conflict of interest.. this interests me.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razor512 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 AMD gives better performance for the money, at least most of the time, when there is a comparable AMD model to a intel CPU, the AMD one is cheaper and after a certain point, the CPU's become extremely expensive and games only get a slight performance boost, which generally is not noticeable especially if a game is already running at a good FPS and theres no point is building a system and saying something like " I just dumped $3000 into this pc, I should be able to run the latest games for the next 5 years" when in reality, then the $700-800 PC from today fails to run a new game or lags to hell, the $3000 computer from today also wont do much better and the game will still be considered unplayable because the performance will be too low. I have noticed this since the mid 90's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h3%5kr3w Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 lol. yeah, your right about it being from the mid 90's because that's when 3d, polygons, and raw power came into play. I feel it is getting better though. Sure you can't play crysis in full settings unless you get an uber expensive system, but at the same time, there are games that have just as great of detail and do not have to have those types of specs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.