What do people prefer AMD or Intel?

[richdvd]

Hi all!

Just curious as to which type of processor people use.....

[808smokey]

AMD

[richdvd]

I am happy with my Athlon 2700+

[Cobra]

AMD - cheaper so more bang for your buck, very overclockable and the new Athlon FX processors are going to leave Intel standing.

AMD all the way.

Cobra

[Craig Tucker]

AMD - Value for money

[Abbadon]

AMD Athlon XPs.

At present I have two machines, one running an Athlon XP 1900+ and the second one Athlon XP 2600+. The money to purchase one Intel processor was enough to buy to AMD processors :P .

The only thing you must keep in mind is that you must protect these processors from overheating "at all cost".

[richdvd]

The only thing you must keep in mind is that you must protect these processors from overheating "at all cost".

I know, I have a Celeron 2.4 which runs around 40F all the time and my AMD 2700 runs around 50+F all the time.

[redwudz]

AMD XP2500 Barton $83.

[Solarjetman]

CYRIX!!!!!

But I will settle for AMD

[rallynavvie]

the new Athlon FX processors are going to leave Intel standing

Not entirely true, though it is fun to see Intel catching up to AMD for once

For single processor systems I'm all for AMD. I was all for AMD with the dual CPU systems with the Opterons but with the upcoming 64-bit Xeon release I'm opting for those instead. For the first time AMD is going to be the overpriced processor

[Craig Tucker]

The only thing you must keep in mind is that you must protect these processors from overheating "at all cost".

I know, I have a Celeron 2.4 which runs around 40F all the time and my AMD 2700 runs around 50+F all the time.

You sure thats not centigrade

[Piccoro]

AMD
Best bang for your buck CPUs for low (duron/AthlonXP2000+),mid (Athlon 2500+) and high end (Athlon64 3000+) desktop CPUs. IMO

I can buy a Athlon MP that performs better and for less money than a single P4 w/HT if I use SMP apps and I can get a Opteron 24* system starting for just over 1000$ for kickass SMP performance.
I would look to Intel for 2 types of systems:
1)if I needed a 3D rendering Workstation (Dual Xeons). If it was a workstation I would look away from P4 and to a real SMP system.
2)if I used a lot of SMP apps for home use and I was on a tight budget.

But hell, 2 Athlon MP 2600+ cpus only cost a total of 250$ which is what a single P4 3ghz CPU costs. I can get 2 Opteron 240's for 400$.

These multitasking benchmarks show just how Athlon 64's compare against P4's w/HT. If I did that much work at a time, I'd go for a real dual system IMO.

[richdvd]

Athlon64 3000+

Don't you need a 64 bit OS to run?

[808smokey]

Athlon64 3000+

Don't you need a 64 bit OS to run?

Nope, they run on both 32 and 64 bit OS's.

[rallynavvie]

Dual Opteron boards are still pretty pricey. Dual Xeon boards are actually pretty affordable for a nice one (the Asus PC-DL for instance). Besides, you need dual Opteron 246s to compete with the current 3.2 GHz Xeon MPs and both are pretty expensive. THG says the 64-bit Opterons do much better in number-crunching and server/data work, but the Xeons are tops for workstations. Now imagine those Xeons as 64-bit CPUs like the Opterons but cheaper. That's what the upcoming Nocona Xeons are. As I said, soon AMD will be the expensive CPU. Of course we'll still have to see if Intel actually gets them out in Q2 and at the prices they're saying...

[Jayhawk]

Guess I'm going against the grain here but I've settled in with Intel. More expensive yes, but they run cooler and I believe Intel chipsets are the best at avoiding inconsistencies, incompatibilities, etc.

[Piccoro]

Idle: Current Intel CPUs (Northwood and Prescott) run cooler than Athlon XP (thoroughbred and barton) but by hardly anything noticable.
Athlon 64's are cooler than both anytime.
Load: Intel CPUs run hotter on load than Athlon XP/64's.

Athlon (thunderbirds) ran hot, the old 1-1.4ghz CPUs. The first AthlonXPs could run a bit hot. But that is not as bad as Prescott of course (55-65+ C).

Should check out this workstation review.

Top end Opteron and Xeons trade punches pretty equally as workstations and don't usually win by a whole lot either. Depends what you are doing (Encoding/3D rendering).
Servers on the otherhand are Opteron dominated for the most part.

Dual Opteron boards are still pretty pricey. Dual Xeon boards are actually pretty affordable for a nice one (the Asus PC-DL for instance).

Dual Opteron MSI board that supports DDR400 (800mhz Hypertransport) for 205$
Dual Xeon Asus board that supports DDR333 (533mhz FSB) for 205$

[Tool Man]

CYRIX!!!!!

But I will settle for AMD

That bring back memories
The first PC I ever built for myself. I used a Cyrix MII, at a blazing speed of 266Mhz , but like AMD are doing now, it had a PR rating of 300.

After that, I have always used AMD chips,(K6-III 400, Duron 800 and now an XP3000) mainly because as has already been said, you get more bang for your buck.

[shoozleboy]

Guess I'm going against the grain here but I've settled in with Intel. More expensive yes, but they run cooler and I believe Intel chipsets are the best at avoiding inconsistencies, incompatibilities, etc.

I'm with Jayhawk on this one.... AMD's are cool and cheaper than Intel, but I too have seen better running systems with less crashes using Intel processors, with Intel chipped boards, and keeping up on the bios updates and staying away from the cheaper memory....

The computer shop down from the square near here uses nothing but Intel processors with Intel boards.... been in business since the 80's and he said that through the years, that's been the most consistent for him... He likes the prices and performance of the AMD's, but he has less headaches with systems that are built from the ground up using Intel... says that the board manufactures vary too much on their chipsets for AMD boards... if AMD would make their own boards like Intel does, then he would definately try them out again...

It will be interesting when the 64 bit AMD is readily available and the prices steady out on them to see which way people go... I know of more Intel based users (friends, relatives) than AMD ones....

[Piccoro]

I too have seen better running systems with less crashes using Intel processors, with Intel chipped boards, and keeping up on the bios updates and staying away from the cheaper memory....

That's too bad, they must have bought a VIA chipset for that AMD system. Do with AMD as you would with Intel, keep away from the cheap parts (VIA chipsets) and go with solid parts (nforce/sis chipsets).

I have my AMD Athlon 650mhz box which has been running my local server forever. Asus board, ALI chipset, Samsung PC100 memory.

Can't blame a CPU for system problems with poor chipsets/memory/other system parts.

I've had my fair share of problems w/poor intel chipsets but they at least make it obvious enough to stay away from them, unlike VIA.

[shoozleboy]

That's too bad, they must have bought a VIA chipset for that AMD system. Do with AMD as you would with Intel, keep away from the cheap parts (VIA chipsets) and go with solid parts (nforce/sis chipsets).

That's probably true, I never bothered to get that involved in troubleshoting their systems (you fix one person's computer, you know what happens next.... you end up fixing everyone else's computers... I once had to disconnect a phone line because of that 'domino effect' - but I digress)

I have found out that spending that little bit extra money in buying name brand, well engineered parts, goes a LONG way in saving me headaches in building/upgrading my systems....

I have nothing against AMD, I'm just commenting on what I see the most... I do have a good friend who uses nothing but AMD and is very happy with what he has. He too subscribes to the theory of 'you get what you pay for' and spends that few dollars extra to get things like a better motherboard, memory, or video card... I don't know what speed of AMD he has but I remember him telling me about it having the 'barton core'.... he's pretty up on the tech side, so I just take his word for it that it's good.... It is pretty fast, that's what I've seen.

Myself, I may check out the 64 bit AMD when it's readily available (as in when the prices come down on them after their initial release). Of course, it probably won't do much good with Windows... isn't windows hampered by that it's only 32 bit??

For now, I'll stick with what I have, a P4 by Intel.

[Capmaster]

Intel. No good reason ...just inertia, or force of habit. I've never owned anything but Intel.

[BobV]

normally AMD give the best bang for the buck