I prefer Intel myself but I'm sure I may have just started another forum war....![]()
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 31
-
-
I only use Intel but other members of my family use AMD. The main advantage of Intel is the other features on the processor (hyper-threading), but the price for an AMD is a lot less than the price for a same speed Intel.
I don't think this will have started a forum war. In fact, it will be quite interesting to see different people's opinions on why they chose this brand of processor over that brand of processor. -
I agree pixel...it will be interesting to see why everyone chooses the processor they do. I'm sure there are many different reasons why one would be chosen over the other.
-
not really clear cut.
If i were building a system that needed to be operational 100% for 7/8 years straight, i would build an Intel system. if i needed something cheap, or for your normal user, or for encoding or captruing or games, i would choose AMD. the price is the big factor on this one, and anyone who is actually interested in what's inside their computer will be upgrading every 3/4 years anyway.
Having said that, i've never had any problem with an AMD processor, and i've been using them since the days of the K5. there's still a k6-2 266 running at my parents house, and my athlon 650 has been running on 100% CPU for the best part of two years....... -
Now, can I ask you a question flaninacupboard. I have never upgraded a CPU...yet but will probably try it in a few years. Do you think that is the hardest upgrade to make? And are there lots of things one would have to watch out for when doing so...in order not to screw up their system.
-
I always go for the best bang for the buck, so AMD it is.
Got my retirement plans all set. Looks like I only have to work another 5 years after I die........ -
I have a 2100+ that I oc'ed to a 2200+ adn It outpreforms my friends machine with 256 pc-800 mem and 2.53 gig p4 with 533fsb. IN my opinion amd is the better choice in performance and price!
-
I heard here that AMDs can overheat. I use an Intel Celeron for the bargain pricing.
-
5x Intel and 7x AMD they both processors preform perfectly for me. Oh ya, 1x Celron in one of my OLD Laptops.
PS: I do own some AMD stock and am very happy with it. So I always root for AMD to win the war.
I believe there is room for both to grow and prosper but it seem to me the big boy INTEL is a little greedy for their own good.
jm2c(;-{> Dd
Strength and Honor
www.dvd9to5.com
www.dvd9to5.com/forum/
"For every moment of truth there's confusion in life"
Black Sabbath/Ronnie James Dio -
I just picked up one of the new 2.4 Ghz P4 with HT and 800 FSB...havent put everthing together but from what I have read on the web it looks to be a lot faster than my old 1.0 Ghz P3.
The reason I chose Intel was purely just luck of the draw. Intel has been pumping out faster and faster CPU's lately and I like the name sake."Sleep-
Those little slices of Death;
How I loath them." -
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE AMD. Right now I'm using a XP 2200+, but the truth is the current high end AMD and high end Intel are not very compairable. If you include video encoding then it just knocks the AMD out of the park, it has WAY to many advantages going for it as this generation of CPUs comes to a close.
-
I use AMD chips. They have a better price/performance ratio. I'm also a creature of habit and I'm unlikely to switch unless AMD suddenly starts making crap.
-
I chose Intel because of the low support for AMD in India.
*** My computer can beat me at chess, but is no match when it comes to kick-boxing. *** -
upgrading a CPU is a lot easier today than it was just a few years ago. motherboards automatically set up bus speeds and voltages (used to have to set them with jumpers or dip switches) and CPUs have locked multipliers. however, the gains from upgrading a CPU become ever smaller. a motherboard i bought just 4 months ago is now out of date: i can't run the XP3200 on it, or at least it could, but the RAM would be slow, and i'd be better off plumping for a new mobo and more RAM. if you ever decide a machine is too slow, unless it's less than six months old, you're better off just replacing the mobo/CPU/RAM with something new.
The AMD xp retail boxes are good, they come with a full colour manual showing you how to install your new CPU. highly reccomended for someone who hasn't done it before! -
Flaystus is right, the top of the end Intel can knock the top of the end AMD out of the park, especially when it comes to vid editing. Even with the old P3 1GHz I used to have, I prefered using that to edit videos, over a 1400MHz AMD Athlon.
I have to say, I was slightly swayed towards getting an AMD for the overclocking capabilities, which the Intel's just don't have, but if you compare the risks and cost (risk of burning out mobo and processor, short term-life, cost of possibly buying water-cooler for system or increasing fans) you will probaby find you will be off better long-term with buying a slightly more expensive Intel than facing the risks of having to prematurely replace a burnt out CPU and motherboard (that is only if you want to overclock though). -
Intel have the edge on speed, AMD have the edge on price.
If you have stacks of cash and want speed, damn the cost, go for Intel.
If you are a bit more frugel then AMD is definately worth a look. -
I went with AMD because of the price, Intel charge way too much for similar/same spec cpus.
Plus Nforce2 mobos are now becoming respectable in price, an AMD and an Nforce2... what a combination -
I have both a 3GHz HT P4 and my 1900+MP machine and I beg to differ about the video editing differences. The dual machine was cheaper to build and using TMPGEnc will encode an hour of video in just under 35 minutes. The HT P4 will encode the same piece of video with all the same settings in about 40 minutes. Granted it isn't much, but when you do a lot it adds up. By the numbers the dual CPU should be putting out 3.2 GHz of processing power but it has nowhere near the bus speeds the Intel has. On the other hand the single CPU runs games and apps that don't really use multi-threading quite a lot better since it runs them at 3 GHz instead of ~1.6 GHz. And I've had some wierd glitches when compiling things with InDesign on the HT CPU, that hyperthreading BS still can't compete with a true dual CPU. And WTF is up with the Xeon? Isn't it based on P3 architecture? They need to bring the prices down on those a wee bit more and system boards for them need to get cheaper in a hurry. We just got dual AMD 2800+MP boards for our servers at work rather than the Xeons because we got almost twice the hardware for the same price
-
Gotta go w/ intel, however that may change when the AMD64 & P5 come out.
-
I would go for AMD, there are much faster. i used to have a Intel pc (P4 2.0GHZ) and it was always slower than normal. Now i have a AMD 2400+ and works much faster.
-
Intel
His name was MackemX
What kind of a man are you? The guy is unconscious in a coma and you don't have the guts to kiss his girlfriend? -
Most of us are stuck with what we have anyhow. If we plan to go up a few hundre meg, if our present board will support it, we have to stick with the same brand. We have ever since they did away with the Super 7 socket, which would take Intel or AMD. Forget the Slot A and Slot 1, they didn't last, even tho' the poor souls who bought them feel, or felt abandoned.
Now, we're into Socket 462, AMD, or Socket 478, Intel, and the IA64, and the new Intels are supposed to be in the 800's in pin count. If you have an AMD 2000 and want to go to 2600 or so, you go with another AMD, because Intel won't fit. Intel, same thing.
Until you are ready to change platforms, you have to prefer the one you, personally, have, unless money is a minor object.
Personally, I have run AMD's since the 133 mhz, had a P166, 200, 266, all eminently o'clockable, but after that, have run the gamut in AMD to my present 2000 + XP, or XP+, I forget. I think my board will go to 2600 or more, so I'kk probably up it one more time, then, I don't know what I'll do, depends a lot on price. -
well unless your board supports 200mhz FSB it's out of date already and you're better waiting six months and getting an AMD64...
-
Seems like we're pretty evenly matched on opinions here.
-
I have always used Intel processors, esp since the fact that I never ran an AMD machine to really determine performance. Im somewhat an oldie though....if theres a brand i really like I tend to stick with that brand, and often reluctant to change. As for performance when it comes to video editing and processing, especially when it comes to encoding long movie clips and such, I feel that Intel would do better in this category. I am not much of a gamer so AMD/Intel differences arent really an issue. The nice thing about building your own system is that you can build it to however you want power-wise.
VTMI have the staff of power, now it's up to me to use it to its full potential to command my life and be successful. -
Well I'm thinking about building my next system and I'm mainly going to just do editing, encoding and all sorts of Digital Video stuff. I dont mind spending more for Intel if its worth it. My friend says that AMD always wins in power tests and that AMD is a faster better processor, but I have also heard that AMD just copies Intel and that just about all the programs out there are set-up mainly for Intel so Intel is alittle more stable. So what do you think is the best for Editing, Encoding and all that stuff. I also dont really care if I pay more for a better chip unless im just buying the name. thanks
Similar Threads
-
Rumor: Intel to shaft AMD
By deadrats in forum ComputerReplies: 5Last Post: 19th Jan 2012, 14:31 -
Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion
By ocgw in forum ComputerReplies: 23Last Post: 12th Nov 2009, 23:58 -
amd vs. intel current 4 cores
By aedipuss in forum ComputerReplies: 2Last Post: 25th Apr 2008, 03:27 -
AMD or Intel
By waheed in forum ComputerReplies: 33Last Post: 4th Mar 2008, 14:43 -
AMD or Intel??
By caesarhawy in forum ComputerReplies: 15Last Post: 13th Oct 2007, 22:47