AMD or Intel??

[caesarhawy]

Hi I'm about to buy a new PC and I'm lost between AMD and Intel,so can you advice me guys which one is better,which one is more compatible with DVD programs,I'm using (DVD Lab-Pro,Sonic Scenarist,Adobe Encore DVD and DVD Maestro) so I heared that Encore DVD and Sonic Scenarist are not compatible with AMD,is that true guys???

ANY HELP WILL BE APPRECIATED.
THANKS IN ADVANCE.
CAESAR

[redwudz]

Both CPU brands are equally compatible with all programs. Most video PC builders presently seem to be leaning toward the Intel quad CPUs for best performance. In the dual cores, AMD is generally cheaper, if that's a big concern. But the price difference is not great at present. Performance of the dual cores with both brands is more a matter of motherboards and setups if the CPU and front side bus speeds are similar. All JMO.

[guns1inger]

Most benchtests and reviews that I have been reading seem to strongly favor intel for pure performance. AMD may have been first to market with a dual core CPU, but they haven't been able to keep pace, and quad core is just beyond them at the moment. If I were buying today, I would buy Intel. The small price difference is more than compensated by the performance difference. Hopefully AMD can balance this situation soon, but it's big if to wait on.

[chupacabra]

I would buy AMD, because they don't "lie" with their CPU frequencies. Intel tells you the highest possible frequency which you will rarely reach, whereas AMD tells you the average frequency you can expect. The other point is that AMD is not such a dirty company paying stores money to boost their CPUs instead of the concurrencies. At least I haven't heard this about AMD yet. So if you want to live faithfully you support AMD.

[pijetro]

Before any AMD vs. Intel bashing goes on, let's keep to the original posters most important concern....

AMD is compatible.
Perhaps some older line or chip architecture didn't have SSE2 instruction set, but that's where the problem ends..

AMD and Intel are so close together in terms of real world use, that you'll have to decide on your own.
I personally have two AMD dual core Opterons, and couldn't be more happier..
But the workstation was already designed for that.

Had i been building a PC, i'd probably go with the Intel, do to their supply, marketing, and motherboard chipset..

Most importantly, find out your needs, and then chase down the equipment..

CPU speeds and benchmarks are worth nothing, if the other hardware components and MOBO chipsets are slowing you down..

[Seeker47]

I would buy AMD, because they don't "lie" with their CPU frequencies. Intel tells you the highest possible frequency which you will rarely reach, whereas AMD tells you the average frequency you can expect. The other point is that AMD is not such a dirty company paying stores money to boost their CPUs instead of the concurrencies. At least I haven't heard this about AMD yet. So if you want to live faithfully you support AMD.

Had i been building a PC, i'd probably go with the Intel, do to their supply, marketing, and motherboard chipset..

One thing no longer being mentioned here is Intel's avowed direction to put hardware DRM on their CPUs. (If AMD is going to do that also, it doesn't seem to have gotten any press that I've seen . . . ) Philosophically speaking, that is a clear Intel disqualifier to me. Perhaps none of you will ever trip over this potential landmine, during the service life of that Intel CPU, or have it pull a big thumbs down on some software you want to use. But I'd rather not take that chance.

[nonoitall]

Intel has the fastest CPU available, but in areas where AMD is able to compete performance-wise, their CPUs are generally cheaper for the same performance.

Purely my opinion:
Intel is evil. Go with AMD. But even though I say that, I just bought an Intel CPU, so that shows you how much I stick to my principles. I only bought it because I want to overclock it though, which you probably won't/can't do with a manufactured PC.

[lacywest]

Good info

[jman98]

so I heared that Encore DVD and Sonic Scenarist are not compatible with AMD,is that true guys???

ANY HELP WILL BE APPRECIATED.
THANKS IN ADVANCE.
CAESAR

Sonic Scenarist 3.0 certainly works on my AMD system with no problems. I am not aware of any Scenarist problems with AMD, but I have not personally tested any version beyond 3.0.

[budz]

If you decide to get a Intel processor system make sure you're not getting a low end core 2 duo processor like the Allendale 1.8ghz, 800fsb. You'll probably want a core 2 duo processor like the Conroe E6600 2.4ghz, 1066fsb. Get at least 2gbs of ram & 2 hard drives. Just my 2 cents!!!!

[Super Warrior]

Both appear almost equally good. I've always been an intel guy but my current laptop has an AMD sempron, thus far it has been great.

Choose what you want.

[video_magic]

If You are buying very soon - and don't mind going for a used CPU, the best value for money would be a P4 Prescott 3ghz+ with Hyper-threading technology.
Honestly, with the 1mb cache, the great legacy of optimizations and support for the P4 - performance is superb, and the low cost, these are great for capturing & encoding video, and really for any other general task required of it - all at a relatively low price.

From a price & sense perspective: Intel. P4. Prescott.

[budz]

If You are buying very soon - and don't mind going for a used CPU, the best value for money would be a P4 Prescott 3ghz+ with Hyper-threading technology.
Honestly, with the 1mb cache, the great legacy of optimizations and support for the P4 - performance is superb, and the low cost, these are great for capturing & encoding video, and really for any other general task required of it - all at a relatively low price.

From a price & sense perspective: Intel. P4. Prescott.

I wouldn't touch a P4 PRESCOTT (nicknamed:"PRESHOT") processor since they're known to have high cpu temps. It wouldn't make $$$ sense to even consider a "PRESHOT" processor since the newer Core 2 Duo processors have better & cooler cpu temps. Don't confuse the OP by including a processor that's pretty much considered obsolete.

[zoobie]

If you're strapped for cash, AMD. If not, Intel.
I'm looking at an E6550 with 1333MHz FSB, 4MB of shared cache right this very second...
But I also had to increase my budget for a matching mobo

[SatStorm]

IMO, the best choice right now is a Intel's Core 2 Quad Core Q6600 2.40 GHZ LGA775 - 1066 FSB - BOX.

But those Athlon 64 X2 (sAM2) @6000 (3.0GHz)/2x1Mb ain't bad (and exactly the half price of the core 2 quad - At least here in Hellas).

[smitbret]

At the same frequency, the Intels are about 15-20% faster than an AMD, as a general rule. Comparable CPUs are generally the same in price, but where you'll make it up with the AMD system is the motherboards which tend to cost about half of what an Intel LGA 775 board would cost. Really, the only thing to consider when building a system is whether you plan on overclocking or not and then it is Intel in a landslide. You should get a 30% overclock out of most any Core 2 Duo CPU. If you're not overclocking, just take the Intel CPU, multiply its frequency by 1.15 and that'll give you a rough equivalent for AMD, then pick the system from there. Whichever one is cheaper.... you win. Great time to be putting together a system, memory prices are CHEAP, CPUs are CHEAP and storage (HDDs) are cheap.