You choose. AMD vs Intel.

[AlexTeHowneR]

Surely the Intel processors look intimidating. Quad-core, Core 2 Extreme, Xeon. Or do they? Take a look at AMD's Athlon 64 x2 dual-core or FX processors. Athlon. Xeon. Turion. Core 2. What does it matter? What matters is what processor you think is superior. So tell me, what processor do you think is best, the Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX6700, or AMD's Athlon 64 x2 Dual Core?

[blade995]

This has a lot of factors you need to look at.

 

 

 

Like price to performance ratio. Currently AMD and intel are tied for this or AMD is a little better in some price ranges.

 

 

 

Intel currently has the performance crown in the upper division of processors like the E6800 and the Q6800 because AMD has no offering in the price ranges right now. All of this may change with AMD's new phenom processors coming out very soon, which include tricore and quad core processors (tricore will be out in january, the rest in november I believe).

 

 

 

Now this is the desktop I was talking about, but in the laptop section, it's very different.

 

 

 

Currently Intel is winning with laptops because AMD doesn't have too many processors to choose from. With AMD all they really have is the Turion models so they don't really have a budget, midrange and high end chips. With Intel you can get the whole thing like the Celeron (budget), Core duo (mid), Core 2 duo (high end).

[cyco]

The jist of it is, Intel's compatibility with motherboards. So Intel.

[blade995]

The jist of it is, Intel's compatibility with motherboards. So Intel.

 

 

 

That made no sense at all.

 

 

 

If I get what your saying is that Intel has better processor compatibility with the motherboard. This is not true, AMD is better for that because it doesn't rely on the chipset for compatibility like Intel.

[dfergfshktf]

You can't say which one is better, just which one is suitable for you. And both of them have their own disadvantages.

 

I personally like Intel. I just got my new Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 at

 

http://www.[Link removed]/viewtopic.php?t=32699

 

I think it's cool, and the price is reasonable, i just got what I paid.

[JoeDaStudd]

It all depends on many factors;

 

*Your budget

 

*What your using it for

 

*If your upgrading, buying a pre-built or building it yourself.

 

*Plus some other factors which have missed me at this moment.

 

 

 

Price wise AMD are great value at the low to medium range for the average user. Intel win in the medium to high category as AMD don't have cpu's in this range (yet).

 

However if your willing to overclock then Intel knocks AMD out of the medium pricing range.

 

 

 

If your using it for a HTPC then AMD is generally used due to the BE (or EE) chips being very good; low power consumption, low heat and good performance. This is not to say you can't use a Intel in fact the E2xxx and E4xxx are also great in this area.

 

 

 

If your upgrading you'll already be stuck to AMD or Intel.

 

If your buying a pre-built or building then refer to the budget part.

[Chris]

Whatever is fastest at the time (per pound of course).

 

 

 

Used to be AMD Athlon all the way (Currently X2 4400+). Now if I were to buy a processor it'd be an Intel Core 2 Duo near the middle of the range. I'm not sure of the numbers, but when you have to pay near double the price for a 0.4GHz increase in speed that's when I stop. :thumbsup:

[adam_ross0]

I pick AMD. No real reason, but on a very very basic scale, they're about the same as Intel anyways and a little cheaper. I dont really care which one...

[dsavi]

Amd=Cheaper, better buck for the GHz.

 

Intel= better reputation, especially the new core 2 duo.

 

 

 

I chose AMD when I got my comp, it's an Anthlon X2 64 5000+ (2.6 ghz Dual core), it runs Vista better than my Dad's Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4 ghz with 4 gb DDR2 ram. I have 2 gb.

[Randox]

I prefer AMD because in the range I use, AMD's are cheeper for about the same preformance. Although I find (noticable in laptops) that an AMD and Intel of the same preformance power, the AMD has a tendancy to run a little hotter. The heat makes my current laptop a bit ineficcent, if it werent for power settings this could drain a new battery in 40 minutes. But unlike my old laptop, it wont sterilise you or give you first degree burns (chipset cover plate was aluminum) from prolonged contact.

 

 

 

I just like AMD more, maybe because my fist computer was an AMD and it has preformed admirably. Just like I prefer HP computers (though thats partily customer support).

[AlexTeHowneR]

Apparantly, a 1.1 gig processor from AMD is the equivalent of a 1.8 on an Intel. Not to mention much cheaper.

[Cruiser]

Apparantly, a 1.1 gig processor from AMD is the equivalent of a 1.8 on an Intel. Not to mention much cheaper.

 

Care to source that and actually prove it? That may have been somewhat true when Intel was still cranking up the clock speeds on P4s and the Athlon64 was eating it for lunch, but that is no longer the case.

 

 

 

Clock speeds have very little to do with performance these days. Power use vs. performance is a much better benchmark now that multicore chips are the norm and the clock speed on everything was almost halved compared to the P4 series.

 

 

 

The whole 'which is better' argument is a complete waste of time. Buy what you feel is the best bang for your buck at that time. No matter what you buy, there will always be some advance on the horizon that will make it look like a waste.

[1alebcay]

As far as just strait out of the box goes, AMD is better price to performance in the lower end. For me personally there is no choice I say intel all the way (currently) because you can over the clock the cabbage out of the low end intels on air cooling and have an $80 processor with air cooling performing better than a $300 processor.

[ClareJonsson]

Sorry I prefer Intel. I have had so many AMD CPU's die but intel's just go on and on. Probably due to inlel's thermal cutout diodes being better than AMD.

 

 

 

In my experience, AMD's burn up (literally) taking your motherboard with it, while Intel's just slow down and stop....

 

 

 

And at the mo, Intel CPU's are faster. Get a quad core Intel I say!

[dsavi]

Sorry I prefer Intel. I have had so many AMD CPU's die but intel's just go on and on. Probably due to inlel's thermal cutout diodes being better than AMD.

 

 

 

In my experience, AMD's burn up (literally) taking your motherboard with it, while Intel's just slow down and stop....

 

 

 

And at the mo, Intel CPU's are faster. Get a quad core Intel I say!

 

 

 

I would have an intel core 2 duo quad if I could afford it...

 

 

 

Intel Ftw, AND AMD ftw.

[Futurama]

Really doesn't matter that much. Most people just split hairs and try to find reasons why one's better than the other, but when it comes down to it, they both do the same thing. I've picked AMD's cos they're cheaper.

[Nadril]

I'm all for intel currently until AMD gets some better offerings.

 

 

 

 

 

They seem to be a step ahead sometimes now. (Intel)

[zaquierming]

Without going way into this - Intel at the moment.

[WutangFlu]

Intel personally

 

 

 

Though right now its a rat-race with processors.

 

 

 

We're moving very fast in the development of new ones, I'm sure it wont be long til we see processors with several dozen cores. Or something new all together.

[Doomster]

AMD A64 had Intel P4 well beat - P4 had a super-long pipeline that was supposed to scale to higher clockspeed - it didn't, they never solved to increasing power usage problem.

 

 

 

AMD moved the A64 on from DDR400 to the AM2 socket and DDR2, but with no significant gains.

 

 

 

Intel threw away the P4 development, and went the the elegantly designed and far more clock-efficient Core/Core 2 architecture, and stole the crown back.

 

 

 

Though if you go Intel, you need a 1333 FSB capable motherboard, as anything good is going to end up at that speed.

 

 

 

 

 

AMD are in an unfortunate state of flux, with Socket AM2 to be superseded by AM2+/AM3 and the degree of cross-compatibility is uncertain.

 

 

 

Intel also have a wide, but confusing range...

 

The "Pentium" E21x0 is actually a bottom end Core 2 Duo, with reduced cache compared to the Core 2 E4x00 range.

[AlexTeHowneR]

Sorry I prefer Intel. I have had so many AMD CPU's die but intel's just go on and on. Probably due to inlel's thermal cutout diodes being better than AMD.

 

 

 

In my experience, AMD's burn up (literally) taking your motherboard with it, while Intel's just slow down and stop....

 

 

 

And at the mo, Intel CPU's are faster. Get a quad core Intel I say!

 

 

 

Yes, let's all spend 1.3 grand on a processor! \

 

 

 

AMD is coming out with tri and quad cores too.

 

 

 

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/Virt ... dir=dtqc01

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Phenom

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AM ... processors

[cem22lp]

Sorry I prefer Intel. I have had so many AMD CPU's die but intel's just go on and on. Probably due to inlel's thermal cutout diodes being better than AMD.

 

 

 

In my experience, AMD's burn up (literally) taking your motherboard with it, while Intel's just slow down and stop....

 

 

 

And at the mo, Intel CPU's are faster. Get a quad core Intel I say!

 

 

 

Yes, let's all spend 1.3 grand on a processor! \

 

 

 

AMD is coming out with tri and quad cores too.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

The Current processors of both AMD and Intel are much better at preventing the chip "burning up" than previous processors and however if the can on the heat sink fails an AMD is more likely to switch off, most likely due to them generally running at higher temperatures, however its unlikely that either will damage the processor or motherboard.

 

 

 

The Intel core2quad Q6600 is only around $300/ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã150

 

 

 

As for the Phenom you linked to, it's very late to the market, at the moment it looks like they will only be a match for the current core2duo's in terms of overall performance and with Intel launching its "penryn" family soon after (45nm process compared to the phenoms 65nm) Intel will still hold a huge lead in terms of performance.

 

 

 

The simple fact is that AMD has fallen badly behind and unlike the situation with Intel P4 and AMD athlons, AMD doesn't have the finances to recover quickly at all.

 

 

 

If your looking to buy a new mid-high range computer currently you would have to be pretty crazy to buy an AMD, Intel has the advantage in terms of power consumption, performance and they are offer a far better overclocking potetial.

 

 

 

Currently - Intel > AMD