AMD VS INTEL

[ArmyGuardStrong]

I personally prefer Intel. Ive always owned Intel computers. They have always worked well for me. So far I have had 5 intel computers. I generally upgrade to a new laptop every 2 years. My brother owned a AMD and he always had issues with it. It was also an HP so maybe that was another reason.

I am interested in knowing what other members prefer when it comes to their CPU.

[Space Toast]

Intel here, but AMD has a better overclocking ability, but Intel is relatively more stable, for me anyways.

[ArmyGuardStrong]

Thats one of the things I like about Intel. Intel seems to be a very stable CPU, I also find their chipsets to be more stable then AMD.

[runtohell121]

AMD, i'll be cheap intel is just.. too pricey for me to use..

[Tobososlow]

I've used mostly AMD's and haven't had really any problems, but with my new laptop, it's an Intel, I like it although I can't really tell a difference haha. Runs about the same as my friends who have AMD's.

[Justananomaly]

Currently Intel has my pick, AMD is slowly playing catchup. I'm really disappointed in them for being so far behind for so long, but they're still a good company and I used to always pick AMD over Intel, but for the time being it looks like Intel has the upper hand.

[lacrosse_man16]

Originally Posted by ZuneNerd

Intel here, but AMD has a better overclocking ability, but Intel is relatively more stable, for me anyways.

Are you serious? Have you looked at the Core 2 Duo overclock ability? its atleast a GHz stable with stock cooling with any chip. Plus add in the larger caches. Intel has AMD beat on that by atleast 1MB per core. I used to be a fan of AMD until Core 2 Duo came out then Intel put AMD in the dark as far as performance goes.

[Justananomaly]

Originally Posted by lacrosse_man16

Are you serious? Have you looked at the Core 2 Duo overclock ability? its atleast a GHz stable with stock cooling with any chip. Plus add in the larger caches. Intel has AMD beat on that by atleast 1MB per core. I used to be a fan of AMD until Core 2 Duo came out then Intel put AMD in the dark as far as performance goes.

My Q6600 Intel Quadcore, stock @ 2.4ghz at around 26-28Cish on all cores idle, OCd to 3.4ghz @ 34-35C idle, an entire 1ghz faster with aircooling and not much of a heat difference. Of course it's not the stock heatsink but still.

[EndUnknown]

I don't have a preference. the laptop im typing on has a pentium 4 2.6ghz, and the laptop next to it running the zune software has a AMD Turion 1.6ghz. I just find the best things in my price range.

[Gow616]

Unless you spend all day doing Benchmark tests and base your decision on benchmark tests and plan on doing benchmark tests...one is no better than the other.

Face it, the processor is meant to get things done with not impress people with benchmark results. Either processor will get the job done.

I have used both AMD and Intel, there is so little difference between the two that it ain't even worth discussing.

As for AMD playing catch up...well Intel has had to do the same with their Quad Cores as they were just dual cores with a little more oomph as opposed to the phenom that accesses all four cores. The Nehalem, no coincidence that that they have a new factory in Israel, is supposed to be the first true Quad core from Intel and guess what...it outperforms their Quad Core 2 Duos. I guess when you can access all four cores at once you get better performance than just doing a sandwiched two core.

AMD's only drawback is that they have been slow to move to the 45nm fabrication, which should be no problem supposedly in Q4 of this year or Q1 of 2009.

Either way...AMD vs. Intel is a joke as a computer user can get by and do well with either brand.

Especially considering that for games it is the GPU that is more important.

[Five_of_Eight]

Intel now a days. There faster and use less power than AMD.

[Cloud Strife]

OMG a borg!!

Originally Posted by Gow616

Unless you spend all day doing Benchmark tests and base your decision on benchmark tests and plan on doing benchmark tests...one is no better than the other.

Face it, the processor is meant to get things done with not impress people with benchmark results. Either processor will get the job done.

I have used both AMD and Intel, there is so little difference between the two that it ain't even worth discussing.

As for AMD playing catch up...well Intel has had to do the same with their Quad Cores as they were just dual cores with a little more oomph as opposed to the phenom that accesses all four cores. The Nehalem, no coincidence that that they have a new factory in Israel, is supposed to be the first true Quad core from Intel and guess what...it outperforms their Quad Core 2 Duos. I guess when you can access all four cores at once you get better performance than just doing a sandwiched two core.

AMD's only drawback is that they have been slow to move to the 45nm fabrication, which should be no problem supposedly in Q4 of this year or Q1 of 2009.

Either way...AMD vs. Intel is a joke as a computer user can get by and do well with either brand.

Especially considering that for games it is the GPU that is more important.

That sounds reasonable.

[SilentWalrus]

Yeah. I think that Intel is a better mobile processor and that AMD is a way better processor for a desktop or gaming machine. The AMD processor runs cooler overclocked and an overclock Intel processor. A smaller heat sink is always fun.

[LancerRevolution]

Intel from what ive read i think is ahead of amd in tech,but ive always used AMD because thats what both my laptops have come with.Im not complaining,as long as it help runs my pc im happy.