AMD or Intel
- Thread starter JcsMP3
- Start date
Actually, 4 of my 4 PCs are AMD's. And I own stock in AMD, so there's probably no bigger AMD lover on this board than I. HOWEVER, Intel hands down has the fastest performing CPU on the market....at the moment. And they've been #1 in performance for months now.
Well, I seem to have the other view here. The AMD processor platform, while having had moments in the sun, is outdated (new processors won't be out until 2003).
I vote for Intel and have for years. The new P4s with a 533MHz Front Side Bus really fly. I just sold a 2.53GHz machine to a client and have a 2.2GHz on my desk at work.
I vote for Intel and have for years. The new P4s with a 533MHz Front Side Bus really fly. I just sold a 2.53GHz machine to a client and have a 2.2GHz on my desk at work.
Amd of course, no contest
Reason is this. I can buy an AMD 2200 XP for a fraction of the cost of a Pentium 4 2.53 ghz, (fastest available) right now. With a good motherboard, and just a slight bit of overclocking, the AMD will blow the P4 out of the case, then, if you let me fool with voltage, and RAM access speed and that sort of thing, I can launch a space shuttle for much much less than I can buy a P4.
Reason is this. I can buy an AMD 2200 XP for a fraction of the cost of a Pentium 4 2.53 ghz, (fastest available) right now. With a good motherboard, and just a slight bit of overclocking, the AMD will blow the P4 out of the case, then, if you let me fool with voltage, and RAM access speed and that sort of thing, I can launch a space shuttle for much much less than I can buy a P4.
BondoBob said:
True, but even still, an AMD will get you better bang for the buck. Intel's just happen to be faster right now. But wait until this winter...with the release of the Operton (Hammer). Have you seen early benchmarks of those things? OMFG! It's insane.
intel for me. i reckon any processor that needs a heat sink bigger than my hand has some issues.
still with technology going the way it is, it will continue to be more a matter of personal preference than any serious performance differences. i mean who can really tell the difference between two speed matched intel and amd chips now anyway? i don't buy a processor because i want to run benchmarks all day.
overclocking??? what's that all about? what are you trying to do with your computer? doesn't matter to me that someone with a water-cooled cpu can open ms word a little faster than i can.
still with technology going the way it is, it will continue to be more a matter of personal preference than any serious performance differences. i mean who can really tell the difference between two speed matched intel and amd chips now anyway? i don't buy a processor because i want to run benchmarks all day.
overclocking??? what's that all about? what are you trying to do with your computer? doesn't matter to me that someone with a water-cooled cpu can open ms word a little faster than i can.
First off, welcome to the board, stef_NZ!stef_nz said:
Next, I beg to differ with you. AMD's have run hot for their entire history. They don't have any higher failure rate than Intel's.
I agree with you that the performance differences are only noticed by those using machines for the most CPU-intensive applications around (i.e., new games or CAD) and/or by those who love to run benchmarks.
However, I feel that this point actually should make you trend towards AMD rather than Intel. If they aren't that different, then why not buy the (much) cheaper chip?
Let's face it, all most people want a momboard or CPU to last is a few years at best, anyway. Whether we like it or not, applications and new technology will require greater computer hardware power and speed as time goes by. However, if all we use a computer for is to surf the web, then we can get by with Windows 95 on a Pentium 166 with 32 megs of ram.
This question was answered "AMD" by computer power users. They see the cost/performance ratio and decide based upon that. They also see a chip that doesn't mind being overclocked, as Intel's do (they didn't in the past, but Intel changed that). Most general computer users (as long as they haven't been tainted by Intel's barrage of advertising) probably could care less which CPU powers their machine. They do care, however, how much it costs.
Funny you have purchased Intel's for years. Most of those years, their bus speeds and benchmarks didn't match the best AMD. AMD is not "outdated". The AMD chips that come out in 2003 will likely overtake the Intel's chips at that time. Even if they don't, what will be the price/performance ratio? The CPU's you mentioned are at the top-end. Most people don't buy at the top end. They buy at the "price point".
My guess is this: those here that chose AMD for performance reasons only will consider a faster Intel chip when they look at their next purchase. The performance gains may outweigh the higher price in their mind. But these folks have developed an opinion over the years of AMD's because of the level of performance (always at or near the top), a common footprint (which Intel changes as often as a cat takes a nap), and the sweet price.
However, Bob, since you used the word "client", I take it you build machines for people. I can definitely understand that you would plunk Intel's into a built-up machine for the general populace since so many people have bought into the marketing-induced fallacy that Intel is truly superior to AMD. That changes my perspective of the reason why you have consistently purchased them.
Last edited:
thanks for the welcome Syzygy!
okay, now its time for me to fold like the jelly-spined weakling i am
my next cpu will likley be amd depending on how the new ones turn out. of course i had to try my best to defend my current choice didn't i?
i still have some hang-ups from the very early days of amd when their instruction set was a little inadequate for some applications (ie didn't run some of them) - i realise this hasn't been the case for years but a lot of people tend to be very brand-loyal unless they get burnt (like you would if you touched a running athlon - haha) which i never have.
okay, now its time for me to fold like the jelly-spined weakling i am
my next cpu will likley be amd depending on how the new ones turn out. of course i had to try my best to defend my current choice didn't i?
i still have some hang-ups from the very early days of amd when their instruction set was a little inadequate for some applications (ie didn't run some of them) - i realise this hasn't been the case for years but a lot of people tend to be very brand-loyal unless they get burnt (like you would if you touched a running athlon - haha
) which i never have.good points made by everybody here. but what do you care if somebody has a fast car that costs a lot. now imagine you can get a faster car or just as fast for a lot less money. AMD athlon xp offers that. the only reason intel outsells amd is because all dells and gateways out there use intels. people see the little "intel inside" sticker on the case and assume intel is the best.
Sticker
It is truly amazing how much power that sticker wields.
I'm not an Intel-hater, by the way. I simply have issues with marketing-induced loyalty (yes, I mute commercials). A purchase of anything, be it a computer or a toaster, should be based upon many different criteria. In our commercial society, advertising often drives the wheels of profit and, subsequently, market dominance. The better we are at differentiating between the quality, performance and price of one product over another, the more likely the best products will stay on our shelves.
Companies with little competition have few reasons to continue innovating and delivering an excellent product for a fair price.
It is truly amazing how much power that sticker wields.
I'm not an Intel-hater, by the way. I simply have issues with marketing-induced loyalty (yes, I mute commercials). A purchase of anything, be it a computer or a toaster, should be based upon many different criteria. In our commercial society, advertising often drives the wheels of profit and, subsequently, market dominance. The better we are at differentiating between the quality, performance and price of one product over another, the more likely the best products will stay on our shelves.
Companies with little competition have few reasons to continue innovating and delivering an excellent product for a fair price.
stef_nz said:
Well, the thing is, that for the $, an AMD chip performs better. Agreed, for most stuff it'd be hard to tell the difference, but When the AMD chip that peforms the same as the Intel chip costs 3/4 of the price of the Intel, you'll notice that.
About the heatsinks: Who cares if it creates more heat? So you spend another $3 on a cooler.
stef_nz said:
i still have some hang-ups from the very early days of amd when their instruction set was a little inadequate for some applications (ie didn't run some of them) - i realise this hasn't been the case for years but a lot of people tend to be very brand-loyal unless they get burnt (like you would if you touched a running athlon - haha
When was the AMD instruction set inadequate? You're talking to a hardcore computer NERD and I've never heard of this.
all i remember when the first amd chips came out was a pile of people complaining that certain apps were crashing. i don't have anything to back that up with because it was so long ago.
i surely didn't say the instruction set is inadequate, this was my reasoning behind why the first chips had problems.
i'm the first to admit that amd now is nothing like amd then.
i surely didn't say the instruction set is inadequate, this was my reasoning behind why the first chips had problems.
i'm the first to admit that amd now is nothing like amd then.
Last edited:
