Do You Like intel or AMD .....say WHY!!!

dwellman

Distinguished
Dec 14, 2002
548
0
18,940
I like Intel (Core 2 Duo) for regular, mainstream computing and Opterons (x2, x4) for server and other parallel computing tasks. Most people can't add enough memory to their systems to get the benefit of AMD processors, so for most people, Intel will be "faster" (faster as in I defy you to tell the difference without a benchmark).

 
Intel due to performance, both in apps and battery life. AMD procs for laptops have been battery eaters for a while now and that holds mostly true. Their newer mobile platforms that use hybrid graphics are improving that though.

@NoTime: What do you mean AMD is better for graphic programs? If you look at the charts provided by Tom's Intel pretty much cleans house in the rendering benchmarks they tested. Did you mean memory benchmarks? That I would agree with, but with just about everything else, Intel has the lead.
 

quanger

Distinguished
Jun 6, 2005
20
0
18,560
I perfer AMD because they tend not to over charge their consumers. Intel reminds me of the big evil corporate company.

But with that said, I would go with Intel since they offer higher performance that I am willing to pay for.
 


That may only be true since AMD knows they have to beat Intel in pricing to seem like a viable option.

I was trying to look up retail prices for AMD mobile CPUs, but newegg's offerings were rather pitiful. Only 5 AMD's to 20 Intels. I also found it rather odd that none of the 5 were newer chips. They were either of the MT series or the older TL's.
 

frozenlead

Distinguished


Lots of people say this, and it always surprises me. I mean, both companies are in it for the money, what makes the underdog any different?

 

quanger

Distinguished
Jun 6, 2005
20
0
18,560
Well, that statement is best described during the AMD athlon vs P3/P4 era. I really shouldnt have to elaborate more. You can buy $300 CPU from intel or you can spend $250 on a cpu from AMD which had equal or better performance.

More relevant examples would be the new ATI 4000 series cards. They offer great performance and don't gouge you like NVIDIA.

Sure ATI/AMD is a big coporation that is in it for the money but atleast they are a bit more forgiving to the end users. Not everyone earns a disposable income.

 

overclockingrocks

Distinguished
Oct 9, 2006
232
1
18,840
Always been an AMD guy. Just can't justify the price jump for an equivalent clock intel chip and going from 4MB cache to 6MB cache assuming both systems have a crapload of ram (4GB or so) isn't going to do much.
 


Not sure where to begin with that.
 

overclockingrocks

Distinguished
Oct 9, 2006
232
1
18,840
maybe it was poor phrasing on my part. I guess I look at it this way. 2 identical chips with respect to clock speed,cache (one might have more than the other but it's not going to do a whole ton) and assuming they both will work with DDR2 and such the Intel will 99.9% of the time be more expensive than the equivalent clocked AMD chip. Just really can't justify that. Not to mention Intel chips are in some of the crappiest prebuilt's out there I prefer to not follow the sheep
 
Clock for clock though, and Intel chip will beat an AMD chip in the mobile realm. That's where you are paying extra. Look at the Tom's charts, even though they are a bit dated, all that info is still correct. A 2.4ghz Turion TL-68 gets beaten in many cases by a 2.00ghz Core2 T7300 and in pretty much all cases by the 2.2ghz T7500.

Sorry, not really seeing your argument. I'm not really trying to start a flame war, but I'm not really seeing your logic.

edit: I would like it known that I am a performance fanboy. I will buy whatever holds the crown a given time period. I have owned both Intel and AMD CPUs.
 

dwellman

Distinguished
Dec 14, 2002
548
0
18,940
Of course, if we were all running 64-bit OSes with 4-8 cores having 16-32 GB RAM, we'd see a different story altogether (hello on-board memory controller, dynamic scaling, ect.). However, we are talking about mobile computing here. Intel has always owned the performance crown in mobile computing (well, maybe except for a breif period between the P-III Tualatin and the Pentium M) and even more so since the Pentium M-- more performance at lower frequencies consuming far less power than any of the competition.

The introduction of the Core and Core 2 has done nothing more than solidify that position. . . and if it's just $20 or so price difference compared with comprably performing AMD parts, you go with Intel if you primarily value performance.
 

vasplieon

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2009
1
0
18,510
AMD, especially with the new Phenom II which looks like it will match performance with i7 except for about 50-66% the cost. In all honesty either of those chips will do everything I want and then some so I would rather pay less and upgrade more often. Also I like having BOTH companies because the innovation of competition is why we have come so far so fast.