AMD or INTEL for a new purchase ?

[exmessa]

Here are my views
Commercial Apps for servers or workstations, definitely Intel multicores procs.

Budget home computing, AMD procs is definitely the choice.

Many years of my industrial computing experiences hardly seen AMD Opteron servers in SMEs compared with Intel Xeon servers.

Both companies have their own niche market & of cause Intel always dominant ahead. That's why Intel a little pricey!
I personally respect AMD to keep Intel competitive in the market.

 

[wongers]

Where as I will side with Intel being the superior processor, it is for the wrong reasons. I am currently rocking an AMD Athlon x2 4800+ and couldnt be happier with it.

I personally think (in a nutshell) is AMD are always a step behind Intel but are better value for money.

So although I did vote for Intel as their processors are faster and more efficient and are always ahead, I would generally recommend AMD to the average family computer and low-end gaming machines as they are cheaper and better value for money.

 

[farscapeone]

My "relationship " with Intel started a loooong time ago when AMD not so good. I was a programmer (I still am ) when I first had to make a choice so I, naturally, went for Intel. Since then Intel processors were good to me so I haven't felt the need to change the manufacturer. That's why I still use Intel and I'm still happy with it

 

[fractalfeline]

I like them both! Argh. My new PC has an Intel but I like AMD too. AMD is generally better value for the money, and I generally don't care about the Latest Greatest Fastest thing. Intel is certainly more widespread. I think if I upgrade my CPU in a few years, it'll be AMD, unless the market changes... ?

 

[jdawg2k]

intels have the raw power but emphasis on RAW. AMD used to furnish the CPUs for MicroSoft to script on so Windows runs smoother on AMDs in general (Main reason for the XP blue screen debut since it was on a dell with the new intel architecture and XP didn't know it from AMD's architecture and faulted the CPU) so I say it depends on what you want to run. If for Windows I say AMD, but Linux I say Intel if money's no object

 

[phazzedout]

My current laptop runs on AMD. I used to have a laptop with about the same specifications as this one that had Intel and I will tell you. Intel ran a lot smoother and cooler. My AMD processor keeps overheating and would have burst of energy and sometimes run really slow. I am still using this laptop but if I could, I would get an Intel computer with Nvidia.

 

[jdawg2k]

I gotta go with intel also. AMD proccesors are just a waste of money when you can use an Intel one instead

a waste of money? intel processors cost way more than amd unless you're buying a production pc and then its about the same except intel's "Celeron" is a better deal than the amd single-cores right now

 

[jdawg2k]

My current laptop runs on AMD. I used to have a laptop with about the same specifications as this one that had Intel and I will tell you. Intel ran a lot smoother and cooler. My AMD processor keeps overheating and would have burst of energy and sometimes run really slow. I am still using this laptop but if I could, I would get an Intel computer with Nvidia.

laptops aren't fare to compare on. there's more cooling factors plus the fact some manufacturers actually mass produce great architecture for laptops, ie my laptop with intel dual core cpu at 2.0 mhz per core out performs my friend's dell with a quad core intel similar speed per core, 1 gig video card (dedicated not shared like mine) and same OS.

 

[Smith6612]

laptops aren't fare to compare on. there's more cooling factors plus the fact some manufacturers actually mass produce great architecture for laptops, ie my laptop with intel dual core cpu at 2.0 mhz per core out performs my friend's dell with a quad core intel similar speed per core, 1 gig video card (dedicated not shared like mine) and same OS.

The desktop I'm sure is outperforming the laptop in every aspect. Might be the way you guys have your hardware tuned and software set up that makes the laptop seem to be quicker. Either that or your friend is simply not utilizing his quad/hardware fully.

 

[jdawg2k]

The desktop I'm sure is outperforming the laptop in every aspect. Might be the way you guys have your hardware tuned and software set up that makes the laptop seem to be quicker. Either that or your friend is simply not utilizing his quad/hardware fully.

i haven't played with my tuning and neither has he. its just on photoshop and benchmarks that i got him beat in. i'm inclined to think that he has less on die cache and is bottle necking. considerin i had a P4 2.0ghz w/ 2mb on die out bench a P4 2.8 with 512kb on die... thats where i think the prob is. my laptop is a sony and his desktop a dell so the idea of it just being a cheaper cpu model (if intel still makes a dozen cache sizes) is probably the cause. one scary thing is that the mobile intel 4 graphics chipset's not posting horrible benchmarks for 3d and such. never had an onboard ever come close to an ati. wouldn't dare compare it to an nvidia tho XD

 

[Smith6612]

i haven't played with my tuning and neither has he. its just on photoshop and benchmarks that i got him beat in. i'm inclined to think that he has less on die cache and is bottle necking. considerin i had a P4 2.0ghz w/ 2mb on die out bench a P4 2.8 with 512kb on die... thats where i think the prob is. my laptop is a sony and his desktop a dell so the idea of it just being a cheaper cpu model (if intel still makes a dozen cache sizes) is probably the cause. one scary thing is that the mobile intel 4 graphics chipset's not posting horrible benchmarks for 3d and such. never had an onboard ever come close to an ati. wouldn't dare compare it to an nvidia tho XD

I have a laptop from Dell that has the Intel GMA 4500MHD. I'm rather surprised to see that it's managing some modern games with many of the settings maxed out, even if the frame rate isn't ideal. Obviously it's not as fast as my desktop's SLi set-up. If I'm not mistaken however, if your friend does in fact have a Quad Core he should have On-board cache of at least 4MB. 8MB and higher is generally where they are at for Intel's Quads. If you can get the exact specs from each machine, that would be great. I can offer up some tips for performance improvements if you do so.

 

[henk506673]

I would not tend to go with amd due to the fact that they break quicker. Also, intel's tend to be more compatable with most motherboards.

 

[FrozenTime]

Well, you probably already purchased one by now, but I guess this could always be useful for others. Overall, Intel is the main processor company, but it depends on the quality of the processor. IIRC, Celeron was at the bottom for Intel Processors, and obviously a Dual Core AMD processor would beat that. It really depends on the price, so if you can get a AMD Dual Core for the same price as a Intel Celeron, go for the AMD Dual Core. Do some research on the processors themselves, because it's not always black and white as to which one to choose. Now if you have more than enough money to spend, Intel is imo, generally superior.

 

[CWeb Creative]

Right now intel rules the market. AMD hasn't really had an answer to the sandybridge processors yet. Intel's new processor technology makes it clear who is currently leading the market. The only bad thing about Intel that i'm not sure about with AMD is that supposedly the only difference between the 920s and the 940s and 960s is how they performed on a test right after production. They are all capable of the same speeds but some are better manufactured than others. Overall I still have to say Intel paired with EVGA(Nvidia) is the best.

 

[vv.bbcc19]

can go with amd phenom processors. they are built from the ground up for true quad- and triple core performance,AMD Phenom processors speed through advanced multitasking, critical business productivity, advanced visual design and modeling, serious gaming, and visually stunning digital media and entertainment.

 

[locogeek94]

I think it depends on the user.
If the user only does simple basic functions (surf web, email, watch video, etc.), than I would go with the AMD processor because it is lowest cost and I don't think the user will even notice (or care) what processor they had - never had any complaints from computers that I installed AMDs in.

But if the user is a gamer (fast pace/high end graphics), I would go with the Intel core i7 series. This processor is fast and can keep up, although it does run hotter than the AMD at full speed. Either way, I would vote for the Intel.

 

[achilleasgr]

Right now... AMD and their 6-core processors.

 

[farscapeone]

I don't think there's much difference between Intel and AMD these days. It is all about which brand "sounds better" to you. They both have competing products in all categories of processors and I believe that brand power is the only differentiator. I am sure you'll be happy with both manufacturers.

I have always been an Intel fan, mainly because I haven't had any problems with their CPUs so far. I ordered a brand new Intel Core i5 2500K few days ago and you just can't go wrong with that kind of CPU. I am sure that AMD has equally good CPU and that both of them are grate.