Clearing something up about AMD

[jasignhagj]

AMD processors are NOT of a lower quality. There are some people here who seem to believe this, but it is simply not true. CPUs in general have very low fail rates due to the testing they go through, and I have never seen one article stating AMDs fail more often.

 

As to which processor is better, it really depends on your preferences and needs. I personally find that for sub $150 processors and general non gaming builds, AMD preforms better for the price, but once you hit about $150 for the processor or want a gaming rig, Intel preforms better due to the high clocks on the i3 processors and Turboboost on the i5 processors, which allow games, which tend to be single or dual threaded, to preform better. This is just my opinion and either way, your gaming performance will probably be bottlenecked by your graphics card unless you spend over $300 on graphics cards.

 

Please stop spreading blatant lies about AMD, it just makes you look uninformed and confuses people with less tech knowledge.

[Tim]

i7 > AMD.

 

Besides, these days you have to spend over $300 if you want a very good GPU.

[jasignhagj]

I agree fully with that. Intel's higher end processors, especially the new i7 2600K, are far better than the Hex and Quad core processors from AMD.

 

As for graphics, I have a single GTX 460 and have yet to see it stutter on any game on a 1920x1080 monitor. I run SCII maxed with 4x AA, and can get away with 8x on most modes except 3v3. It probably wouldn't manage crysis on max, but I honestly never found that game much fun anyways.

[Sbrideau]

AMD is coming out with a new processor. Supposedly it's going to outperform the equal intel processors, but that's just what I got wind from my friend about. Let's see how it goes.

[Tim]

trolling aside, I dont have much faith in AMD as every machine I've had/used with it is very boggy, and this Hex core is still rather experimental, which is why I went with my i7. The processing power is still more or equiv to the Hex but from personal experience its reliable.

[Guy]

I'm still pretty clueless as to why a 3.0GHz AMD Phenom II Quad core is $99.99 while an i7-950 @ 3.06GHz Quad core is $294.99.

I know the i7 has that 8MB of cache an people have been telling me that the Intels internal architecture is a lot better.

[MageUK]

I'm still pretty clueless as to why a 3.0GHz AMD Phenom II Quad core is $99.99 while an i7-950 @ 3.06GHz Quad core is $294.99.

I know the i7 has that 8MB of cache an people have been telling me that the Intels internal architecture is a lot better.

 

Because that i7-950 at 3.06GHz would outperform a 3.0GHz AMD hexcore, never mind the quad core.

[Guy]

I'm still pretty clueless as to why a 3.0GHz AMD Phenom II Quad core is $99.99 while an i7-950 @ 3.06GHz Quad core is $294.99.

I know the i7 has that 8MB of cache an people have been telling me that the Intels internal architecture is a lot better.

 

Because that i7-950 at 3.06GHz would outperform a 3.0GHz AMD hexcore, never mind the quad core.

But surely 3GHz is 3GHz, regardless of brand (perhaps if you tested w/o cache?)

[MageUK]

I'm still pretty clueless as to why a 3.0GHz AMD Phenom II Quad core is $99.99 while an i7-950 @ 3.06GHz Quad core is $294.99.

I know the i7 has that 8MB of cache an people have been telling me that the Intels internal architecture is a lot better.

 

Because that i7-950 at 3.06GHz would outperform a 3.0GHz AMD hexcore, never mind the quad core.

But surely 3GHz is 3GHz, regardless of brand (perhaps if you tested w/o cache?)

 

Not true. The way instructions and such are processed has a large effect on how fast the chips are. An i5 or i7 will beat AMD's offering at the same clocks, the new i5s and i7s will beat the old ones at the same clocks with the same caches.

[jasignhagj]

AMD also gives their chips a higher base clock, which leaves less room for overclocking. The new sandy beach i7 and i5 K processors are beast, and easily OC to 4-5Ghz on a good heatsink. Ivy bridge is going to be [bleep]ing awesome.

 

I personally am an intel person, it just bothers me when people go around saying AMD's are bad quality or AMD is a bad brand.

[noble_aloof]

I think at the end of the day, AMD is really just there to not only keep the CPU market progressive but also to make sure Intel does not abuse their monopoly. I'm ordering a computer this week (just waiting for confirmation from the person building it) with Intel's new i7 chip and I'll admit I didn't even consider comparing it to AMD.

[The Observer]

It depends on what you're aiming for in a system really. If you're looking for performance then (in my opinion) Intel's higher-end processors are the way to go. But for everyday use, AMD is fine.