INTEL vs AMD?????

[are-men]

AMD is my choice>>What about you??

[vinice_79]

mine intel.... what about the others :D

[aswin]

Well I've long with AMD since it was separated from Intel Owners,
I'm still use my Barton2500+ and 64 3000+ in my home. But I've use Intel too here in cafe 2.4 A(Presscott) which OC through 3.0Ghz its stable to 3.6GHz but I'm not used it, what for. So I'm try with E6600 now to build up :-D

[ph15h]

Intel actually has better hardware. AMD usually comes out a only few weeks beforehand but dwarf the intel's capablilities.

If you compare the specs of the current releases of the Intel Vs. AMD, you can see that AMD falls behind. Even though they had the first 64-bit processor, it was very flawed. Intels first attempts worked perfectly. The front sub buses on the Intels are even better than AMDs.

Cnet and other Tech forums/sites even say that AMD is the cost efficient alternative, but will not help you out in the long run.

[jimrobins]

I am having the hard time on comparing Intel to AMD. I don't understand the main specifications of every AMD Processor. If they can have the same Spec name as the Intel, there would be no problem on distinguishing the difference between the two. AMD cost a little but I can't gamble to it unless they change their spec name. (eg. x.x ghz)

[Mrrandumbxd]

AMD I wouldn't waste money on Intel cause there mainly for business unless the you get the 400-500$ extreme edition dual core processors

[anxon]

Intel has a large advantage currently. The new AMD's barcelona still stand no chance against Intel's Pherymn.
*note , intel extreme edition is more liek USD$700 to $1000. but currently, a simple $200 E6600 is capable of winning all AMD's offering in terms of performance due to it hehe, insane overclocking capability. and who say intel's for office use, thats rubbish talk.

[DonmegaIII]

intel is on top now, when intel came out with its quad core, and lowered the prices recently amd went all nutz and now they are lost.

[Otacon645]

Intel all the way, but remember that in preformance (look at tom's hardward website for processor comparisons) a 1.8GHz intel dual core out preforms the AMD 1.8GHz dual core by a decent margin.

[ph15h]

Plus AMD never adresses their flawed FSB issues..

[joe4ever86]

Intel has the capabilites of puting in either 2,3, or 4 processors in parallel. Add 2 graphics cards that work together and you have a super PC. INTEL wins no doubt about it.

[anxon]

?? the 2 previous posts are quite...er.. wrong.
Its is Intel that has the FSB problem, their performance is limited directed by the spees of fsb(currently stock at 1600mhz), amd on the other hand has its memory controller directly integrated into its processor. But intel still manage to win in overall performance due to superior architecture. when intel remove fsb next year, the game will be over for AMD.

AMD processor Also support 2 graphic cards, infact they can now support 4 graphics due to their buyout of ATI firm, provided u can get ur hand on the motherboard and beta driver. intel wise is same too, but u cant put 3 processor in parallel yet, intel's current quadcore is fake, its using 2 dual-core and paste them together, cant work in parallel. AMD's current quadcore is real as in build up to for parallel operation. still INTEL WINS

[Devistemy]

Intel, I guess. Both my parent's work at Intel, rotfl.

[ichigosbankai7002]

Im my opinon I am going to say Amd processors are better. I think that Amd

came out with daul core before Intel. Intel came out with quad core before

Amd though. It's easier to overclock Amd processors as well to get the most

proformence out of them. So I am going with Amd.

[nightwish]

Sigh, I realy dint want to have to push up a week old thread, but some of the info you guys are touting is just giving both AMD and Intel bad names.

First off: If you buying a CPU in the $0-$120 range, then AMD is the better choice, unless you plan on overclocking, then buy and intel Core based CPU (Celeron L, Pentium Dual-Core, Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad, Core 2 Extreme.) If you DO NOT PLAN on overclocking, then an AMD CPU is a better choice (this does not apply for single core CPUs.
For single core budget CPU's the Celeron L will beat out the Sempron in price/performance easily.

If your budget is above $120, then go for a Core 2 Duo/Quad.

No, Intel is not limted by its FSB issues, I have never encountered anyone who uses even a fraction of the bandwidth supplied by a 533+FSB (QPB). The FSB issue only arrises in high-traffic server networks and multiple proccessor systems. In multi-proccesor systems (as apposed to multi-core) AMD has the advantage thanks to its HyperTransport system. It is this system (HyperTransport) that allows AMD to use 2, 3, 4+ number of CPU's, while the FSB currently used by Intel means that they need to use an even number of cores and proccessors.

Second off (or possibly third, fourth or fith.) any CPU is capable of running any number of GPU's, it just needs to be able to provide the GPU's with the work they need to do via the drivers. A more powerfull CPU will do that better then a weaker one. (eg. the Pentium 4's vs. the Athlon(64's), the Athlon's were able to dominate thanks to their higher IPC over Intel's offerings. However Intel's Core based CPU's now have an even better IPC and architecture in general that they surpasss AMD's K8 architecture by several hundred MHz (a 2.0GHz C2D is the rough equivilent to a 2.3-2.6GHz K8 CPU depending on the other hardware involved (Motherboard, RAM being primary factors.)

Yes its true AMD did come out the Athlon X2 before intel introduced the Pentium D, however, currently, the Core based CPU's will overclock farther, and easier then the K8 line. People and 3rd party review sites have reported 50%+ overclocks on budget level Core CPU's. Some people have even been able to get 100% overclocks with half-decent water cooling or very good air cooling. (however, the 65nm Netburst's CPU's(Specificly the Celeron D line) have been rumored to hit an easy 5+ghz on air.)

Third, the FSB is not limited to 1600MHZ (400mhz quad-pumped.) Its easily possible to get an FSB of 2000 or more, its just not practical becouse of the energy consumption and the inifecent design, which is why intel is working on its Intel Quick Path design (similar to HyperTransport.)

Fourth off, ACCORDING TO AMD; Intel's Quad-Core is a fake. A Core 2 Quad is made by putting to Core 2 Duo dies on a single CPU. However, IMO, this is a far superio way of producing Quad cores cheaply and with a much higher yeild then AMD's vision of Monolithic quad cores (true-quad). Which so far are having large yeild problems (AMD 3-Core CPU rumor) and scalling issues (currently no chips beyond 2ghz have been seen in the retail market (K10/Barcelona). Personaly, I have a Q6600 overclocked to 3.0GHz and I wont need to upgrade for at least 2-4 years minimum, The duallithic design works, and Intel is going to continue to provide cheap Quad-cores using the method (as apposed to AMD's current retail quad being ~$500. A Q6600 costs ~$250-300. While a E5310 is ~$230 (LGA771; server platform.)

I think I covered everything, if I dint, please say so. I need another exuse to spend 30 minutes tpying instead of playing Halo, doing work, or going to class.

[XRattlesnake]

Nowadays, it's got to be Intel with the Quadcores, it's almost unbeatable.

[nightwish]

Nowadays, it's got to be Intel with the Quadcores, it's almost unbeatable.
Wrong. a Q6600 will not always beat a E6700

Four cores at 2.4GHz or two cores at 2.6GHz, it all depends on the programs, operating syststem and power requriements. (Personaly, I just recently (month or so ago) moved from a E6400 @ 3.1ghz to a Q6600 @ 3.0ghz and for most tasks, it realy does not make a difference. Only in photo/video editing, decoding, unpacking/packing and similar tasks does a quad core realy stand ou.

[XRattlesnake]

Wrong. a Q6600 will not always beat a E6700

Four cores at 2.4GHz or two cores at 2.6GHz, it all depends on the programs, operating syststem and power requriements. (Personaly, I just recently (month or so ago) moved from a E6400 @ 3.1ghz to a Q6600 @ 3.0ghz and for most tasks, it realy does not make a difference. Only in photo/video editing, decoding, unpacking/packing and similar tasks does a quad core realy stand ou.

True that, but what about the rumors about AMD cards that overheat really quickly?

[nightwish]

Sometimes those are true, currently, AMD GPUs (not CPUs) have heat dissipation and power usage issues (aka to much.)

But CPU wise, AMD CPU's arent as good as Conore on clock for clock, but performance/watt wise they are tied.

[XRattlesnake]

Sometimes those are true, currently, AMD GPUs (not CPUs) have heat dissipation and power usage issues (aka to much.)

But CPU wise, AMD CPU's arent as good as Conore on clock for clock, but performance/watt wise they are tied.

Interesting info, took a while to get that in. Thanks for the clarification.

[yeoman]

If money is not a problem get Intel, if it's the problem AMD works fine as well

[sazzuke]

If money is not a problem get Intel, if it's the problem AMD works fine as well

yeah.. tat rite..
After all rite now for me, Intel beat AMD... Dont know for the future...:p

[super_john]

ofcourse intel because my girl works there:hitsugaya: