AMD or INTEL for a new purchase ?

[groscon]

Hi,

The débat is always actual I think. I do not have found any topic relative to that on X10hosting.com forums. So....

So please dont mind what have they been opinions in the past.
At your opinion, at this moment, what plateform you prefer within AMD and Intel ?
If possible it would be great to explain your choice and criteris with précisions:

Equipement cost, fiability, performances, noise etc..

In fact I know the question has been asqued several times.
But even for an old geek, its sometime hard to make a quick choice when have to purchase a new PC at a "T" time. Because the situation have varied and the Athlons XP are not comparble with actuals AMD multicore and its the same between P IV and qudaicore.
Personaly, I have alterned several plateform and actually I have several PC at home (P4 3.2 HT, AMD sempron 64 , 1 core2 duo E 6300, 1 PIII 850 notebook, 1 Centrino 1.6... 1AMD Athlon XP 1.8 !! )

As you can see, I'm not a "locked customer" neither at AMD or Intel. I buy the best of the moment at the moment I buy.

I would like to know the choice of the moment, at this time, of other people and their motivations.
That will help for future quick purchase to do !
So dont forget to explain your choice. In fact, AMD or Intel is not the good question..
The good might be... " Actually, why do you prefer... ? What usage for this... etc.. "

Thanks for your answers. Sorry for my awfull english and... Best regards from France to all :drool:

 

[Evocation]

Intel cure 2 duo imo is the processor to get at the moment. I don't buy the quad cores yet as theyre just stuck together duo's with intels, and AMD's are abit iffy

From what I've read of comparisons they offer better performance for a better price general.

 

[Fedlerner]

I agree with Evocation. Intel Core 2 duo is the best one at this moment.

 

[DeadBattery]

I agree with Evocation and fedlerner. :biggrin:
Intel Core Duo pwns everything else.

 

[Smith6612]

Intel for the world. AMd makes some nice CPUs, but Intel I find gives more RAW power. I have an Intel Q6600 and even with programs that support 4 CPU cores, it hardly runs any higher than 70% usage at the most because of it's speed. When gaming, my CPU sits at 25% usage.

 

[Jesse]

I would prefer Intel because i never tried AMD. Yeah Intel Core Duo Rocks!

 

[VPmase]

I've heard good things about both. I'd say they are about even to me.

 

[alexandgruntz]

Yeah Intel Core Duo Rocks!

Core Duos were earlier versions of Core 2 Duos, the Core Duos being in laptops only.

I'd go Intel, Core 2 is the main reason.

 

[TechAsh]

I've always used AMD's, I'm not really sure why. I've never had any problems with AMD so I don't see the point in changing. This may not be the case anymore but AMDs used to be more efficient than Intel processors.

Looking at some comparisons between Intel's and AMD's new quad-core processors, Intel does seem to produce the processor with the most power, but AMD uses tried and tested architecture, which may be more stable/efficient than the brand new design Intel have come up with.

This post probably hasn't been much use in helping users to decide which process make to go for, but I don't think there is much between them.

There is a very long article here which talks about both AMD's and Intel's Quad core processors, but also talks about other things.

 

[lammoj]

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

 

[groscon]

Hum.. IT seems that core 2 duo are appreciated...
But actually, the resuklts of the poll are nearly equal...

Doesnt AMD better quality/perf/price ?

 

[eagles051387]

intel is stomping ovr amd right now. my purchase is going to be a new 45nm quad core. im in europe and i can get one for 318 euros. intel has the atom 45nm processor and the out performing server processors. dont get me wrong amd is good but they r falling behind and arent able to keep up technology wise. intel already has plans for their 32 22 and 11nm processors by replacing the transistors all together and using carbon nano tubes in their place. intel already has plans for 6 core and 8 corer server processors. and they r also working on a 16 core graphics card called larabee. with all these innovations by intel it leaves u wondering where amd is in all of this.

 

[Dutch]

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

:bsflag:

 

[sumitmehta]

I have been using AMD Athlon 3000+ 2.01 GHz processor for the last 3 years. Though it sounds slightly old technique in times of dual core processors all over but my experience has been so good that next time I would very readily buy another AMD processor based PC. But change is the requirement of life. So I recommend those to try AMD who are using Intel and those who are already using Intel, next time they should give a try to AMD. There is also one point that I would like to make. When I purchased the PC, I got some benefit in monetary terms as well. AMD processors are cheaper than Intel ones. But I am not sure whether this holds true in every part of the world. But I guess it should as new competitors always offer services at lower costs as compared to their older counterparts.

 

[componentwarehouse]

Intel are superior in nearly every way, especially when it comes to the new quad core ones. AMD dont even have a 45nm one out yet, Intels has been out for a while now.

 

[groscon]

Well...

What CPU model would be the best regarding the price/performance factor ?
Thanks for your answers

 

[Dutch]

Well...

What CPU model would be the best regarding the price/performance factor ?
Thanks for your answers

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-8.html?tag=lnav

Hope this helps.

 

[c00ster]

I have been pretty satisfied with my AMD. I was a bit worried when I purchased my computer at first, but I figured, I would try it out- I buy a new pc every couple years anyways. So far, I havent noticed anything wrong with my AMD, but then I also do not do a lot of gaming or anything like that.

When I got my pc, INTEL had not yet put out their late great version. I was too impatient to wait and I didnt want the old one. To be frank, I think all the processor comparisons are more hype than anything now days anyways. My dual core 64 seems sufficient enough for me.

I also wasnt pleased with Vista when I first got it, but now that I have it I wouldnt go back to XP. I didnt like having to pay 130 bucks to upgrade to ultimate, but I am now happy I did because I think it works every bit as easy as XP, and I enjoy a lot more options with Vista. Of course, I know this is another subject altogether. (sorry):hahano:

 

[Smith6612]

Don't forget, they will stop selling XP in June

 

[c00ster]

I would also like to add that I think it is funny when people boast about how much more superior the new INTEL is over AMD. I usually just think that those people have no idea what they are talking about and they are merely buying into the hype or just aping a commercial (or a friend of theirs). If people thought more about what they say they might agree that only in extreme situations does it really make any difference which you have. BOTH are capable of just about anything you want to do with them or they wouldnt sell. I can buy a pair of Wolverine work boots for less than half the price I could pay for Red Wings- both would allow me to get my job done. The difference is, I can buy the Wolverines, 2 pairs of good work gloves, a Carhart jacket, a tool belt full of tools, lunch for a week, and the gas I need to get to work and back- If I buy the Red Wings I am hitch-hiking to work with no lunch coming home with blistered hands and freezing my butt off.

Do people buy the "Superior" INTEL for bragging rights, or do they actually need it? I mean can anyone tell me a situation where an AMD cannot do the job that needs to be done?