AMD or INTEL? That is the question.

[vgk1nka1dx]

I was wondering what you have or what you might consider better (in your own opinion). I myself have a simple AMD Sempron 3300+. I have not had an Intel chip YET, but am willing to try one to see how it will do. This is meant to spark a little dibate so have fun with it.

[casey]

I am an AMD guy. All 3 of my machines have them. I've had Intel cpu's with out any problems though. My friend runs the computer maintanance for a large bank and also prefers AMD. Casey

[czwally]

I have always preffered AMD over Intel, But this last laptop I bought has the Intel Centrino Core2 duo processor. and to tell you the truth, My last laptop with an AMD performed faster and didnt freeze up like :bowdown: this one does. It seemslike eveytime I open My explorer it freezes instantly and I have to ctrl alt del it to close it and start again. I really dont know if its defective or its just the intel processor. I know the next one I buy wil be AMD.

[HT_Freak]

This will spark debate.. but.. the new Intel Core 2 Duo processors have been proven to run circles around the AMD X2 processors in most areas.

AMDs are also known to run hotter than Intel processors, thereby making them not a great choice for laptops.

Not to put down AMD as they make great processors and I have no issues with them either.

[Ajax]

Well Intel chips are confusing to say the leased. Why? Well it stems from the fact that you have about 25 different type and name brand MB with Socket 775 but each one can only take one type of Intel socket 775 chip. (ie centrino Pentium 4 Pentium 4 ht celeron Pentium D core2 and the list keeps growing.)

I like the fact that if I have a socket 754 AMD it fits all socket 754 MB's same with 939 and AM2...

So from a PC repair guy point of view I love AMD...

But from a gamers point Core 2 Quad dose kick butt...

AMD's Quad core is going to run on there new AM2 socket when it come out later this year and it looks to out do Intel by 50%...

[DetroitBaseball]

I am an Intel guy. My Intel Pentium 4 3.20 GHz w/HT processor kicks azz!

[ABC]

This will spark debate.. but.. the new Intel Core 2 Duo processors have been proven to run circles around the AMD X2 processors in most areas.

AMDs are also known to run hotter than Intel processors, thereby making them not a great choice for laptops.

Not to put down AMD as they make great processors and I have no issues with them either.

GEEZ ! I was always told that the Intel's ran hotter than the AMD's, now what is the real thruth here ?

I have had 3 PC's with Intel's this one unit here being Dual Core D820 and 2 AMD's and unless Intel improve a lot my next will be AMD again and thats a real easy decision.

[SlyFox 1]

I believe both processors are very good, it all depends on what applications you are running. I prefer AMD for games and the newer Intel Duo for other applications. There are so many processors with different specifications it is hard to tell what is best for you. In most cases a good dual core processor with 1 gig of system Ram is enough, unless you are playing very system intensive games or using applications that are system hogs.

[nedkelly]

I have been reading this with great interest as i have 2 pc"s on my desk , the old one is a pentium 4 and used for downloading and running the printer and scanner the new one is amd x2 and used for burning and games . Both are well suited for what they do , the amd is faster for burning and recording vinyl lp"s {X -fi sound card } . The coms use the same monitor, keyboard and mouse via a belkin switch and are hooked up to cable internet .
As to heat in either i havent had a problem as i have had extra fans in both but i am not a expert on core temp . So what i have found is both good but for different applications.

[Nomadd]

I've used both INTEL and AMD products over the years. I would have to say there is no clear cut one is better than the other.
I can say I've built quite a few high end servers, which are running in large educational and corporate environments using AMD processors.
AMD chips have proven to be highly stable and reliable where ever I've used them.
AMD chips are also the most cost effective (Bang for the buck.) high powered processors available in the current technology market.

[ETP]

My problem is that I am attempting a pure AMD64 build with XP 64 and driver/software support is spotty. Can't find a PCI modem to work but I have not given up yet on that. And over at CDFREAKS they said to get an external modem. Hard to do updates with no connectivity. Catch 22. LOL /// It is definately fast but that could be that I have not loaded it down with updates and Software/hardware yet. Very easy build and so far I like the product that AMD puts out. Still like both but the Gigabyte/AMD system is my new toy. LOL

[GrimSqueaker]

I'm in the fortunate position of typing this on a machine with dual Intel quad core CPUs and it goes like nothing I've seen before. Fantastic.

From a technical perspective it is all down to the software you use and how it is written. If your software is not multi-threaded then you want an older single core CPU with lots of GHz. If you are lucky enough to have good software then dual and quad core is for you. Nero Vision is one piece of software that supports multi core CPU's, I've seen 7/8 of my cores at 100% when coding. A friend with an identical setup holds the record for setiathome on a single system.

Happy trails.

[sigrun]

I was wondering what you have or what you might consider better (in your own opinion).

Blind 'n brainless emotively driven brand allegiance aside, anyone who's been around IT for more than a proverbial 5 minutes will, or should, have realised, AMD vs Intel is neither a static nor simplistic "mine's better than yours" issue. AMD have had suffered triumph (Athlon intro) and disaster (K6-2) series, whilst Intel has suffered at worst from utter mediocrity, exacerbated in the public eye at times with the same emotive disadvantage of Microsoft in not being the underdog.

Generally, Intel CPUs and their accompanying chipsets are the more consistantly hardware and software compatible therefore considered reliably stable. AMD has had mixed results over the years in this regard, and suffered some truly woeful results in its partnership with incarnations of chipset implementations on its compatible motherboards. eg: VIA experiences and horror stories over the years all to readily come to mind.

The truth is that both brands CPUs perform well and are pretty good today, with each implementation offering its own advantageous characteristics in particular. For overall safe or best outcome of compatibility and stability, sometimes at the sacrifice of marginally lesser performance at any particular pricepoint, Intel still wins the "which to buy?" decision hands down.

I currently run multiple systems (home network) featuring both brands BTW including Athlon, Pentium & Celeron CPU based systems (no Semprons). I have run both brands either concurrently or consecutively for many years starting with my first AMD 486DX40 chipset back in about '92 or '93 (?) vs Intel's then 486DX33 when they both still used the same socket. I had both.

These days, I buy on price...versus performance. And that encompasses compatibility as well as the associated cost of primary supporting peripherals such as the mobo. As a rule, AMD mobos today are frequently more expensive, often negating any marginal price advantage in AMD's current CPU segmentation pricing.

[ETP]

Blind 'n brainless emotively driven brand allegiance aside, anyone who's been around IT for more than a proverbial 5 minutes will, or should, have realised, AMD vs Intel is neither a static nor simplistic "mine's better than yours" issue. AMD have had suffered triumph (Athlon intro) and disaster (K6-2) series, whilst Intel has suffered at worst from utter mediocrity, exacerbated in the public eye at times with the same emotive disadvantage of Microsoft in not being the underdog.

Generally, Intel CPUs and their accompanying chipsets are the more consistantly hardware and software compatible therefore considered reliably stable. AMD has had mixed results over the years in this regard, and suffered some truly woeful results in its partnership with incarnations of chipset implementations on its compatible motherboards. eg: VIA experiences and horror stories over the years all to readily come to mind.

The truth is that both brands CPUs perform well and are pretty good today, with each implementation offering its own advantageous characteristics in particular. For overall safe or best outcome of compatibility and stability, sometimes at the sacrifice of marginally lesser performance at any particular pricepoint, Intel still wins the "which to buy?" decision hands down.

I currently run multiple systems (home network) featuring both brands BTW including Athlon, Pentium & Celeron CPU based systems (no Semprons). I have run both brands either concurrently or consecutively for many years starting with my first AMD 486DX40 chipset back in about '92 or '93 (?) vs Intel's then 486DX33 when they both still used the same socket. I had both.

These days, I buy on price...versus performance. And that encompasses compatibility as well as the associated cost of primary supporting peripherals such as the mobo. As a rule, AMD mobos today are frequently more expensive, often negating any marginal price advantage in AMD's current CPU segmentation pricing.
Yep/ The price advantage is not there. But I just had to build one. LOL

[aabbccdd]

i have an AMD (per my sig) but the new Intel chips are kicking AMD butt right now. the E6600 is the best vaule out there with the 4MB cache and it a great OC(er)

[NordicRX8]

AMD vs. Intel?

Which ever you have, use it.

Check out this post:
http://forum.slysoft.com/showpost.php?p=2970&postcount=1
So the oldest technology makes clones in about 18MIN while the new conroe technology takes about 35MIN on average for the same film.


maybe the better question would be... Old (more than 6 months) technology, or bleeding edge technology? :D

[naenyc]

Though I've been only using AMD for years on many systems, and it is still the most bang for the buck, it seems that the Intel core Duo has something to offer.

- For some video applications the Intel is faster.

- For floating point Intel is faster.

- For heat dissipation, Intel is cooler

HOWEVER, the Opteron 165 for $154 is tough to beat.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103588

I purchased the 175 for around $180 and it overclocks like mad, just as the forums stated 3.0 Gig is not out of question, with 2.8 normal. Just be aware that you must have a very good motherboard that can get the FSB up to 300 because the multiplier can only go so high.

So, for my MythTV project this works just fine, but would consider an Intel in the future for the heat reduction. But even that gets confusing because Linux throttles back the processor to around 1000 when it is bored, which is almost always.

[slamscaper945]

It's hard to pick a winner. I bought an OEM system based on the pentium D 820 dual-core back when Intel first released them. I was happy with the system and it seemed to perform well.

I kept hearing about the Athon X2's and how they were so much better, albeit costing much more. I witnessed the benchmarks that showed AMD cleaning house with their whole dual-core line. People talked about how AMD had a true dual-core architecture and that Intel just slapped two cores together on one die. In the end it was AMD's on-die memory controller that helped the X2's perform much better than the Pentium D's clock for clock. Netburst really never saw the performance it was capable of. The architecture was designed for wicked fast clock rates that were never possible because of overheating issues.

When I decided to build my next PC from scratch I wanted to base it on the X2. I was tired of regretting my Pentium D system. I wanted a gaming rig that could multi-task as well. I bought the X2 4800, which at the time was one of the best CPU's out. The only processors that were faster were the FX60 and the FX62, which were priced much, much higher. I bought my components piece by piece to keep from going broke and by the time I assembled my $2500 gaming rig Intel had released the Core2 aka Conroe.

Conroe brought a whole new architecture that was very efficient. The new core was leagues better than Netburst and even spanked all of AMD's current CPU's. Again, I felt bad and regretted my decision to go with AMD. Now, if I wanted to get a Core 2 I'd have to buy a new mobo and ram which would have been too costly. All in all I decided I was happy. The X2 is a very good performer even with Conroe out.

It just goes to show that you can't really go wrong either way. You can't expect to decide based on the current selection because as soon as you make the leap and drop the cash on a fast Intel CPU AMD will come out with a new one that will trounce it. Competition is good though. It drives down the prices for us and keeps both companies on their toes.

[DetroitBaseball]

Who would you rather give your money to? AMD or Intel?

[Bunnyrip2]

AMD was the 1st to develop the on chip memory controller. I used to be an InTel guy, but once I started using AMD, I have never went back to InTel. Maybe that will change someday. But for now, AMD Rules! For ME.Definitely more "Bang for your buck"!

[Herb]

I agree with Slyfox 1, AMD are better for gaming, Intel for different applications?? I have built my last 2 computers and did a huge amount of research on processors. Don't forget the motherboard, choose a board so you can upgrade your processor down the track when they come down in price. I have a AMD 3.2gHz CPU and can upgrade to a 4.0 to 4.6gHz CPU later. AMD was better in size and price at the time.
It's your call. I prefer AMD.

[Bunnyrip2]

I have an AMD X2 4400 2x1meg cache that totally kicks butt! It encodes a movie extremely fast & efficiently too. Love it. I am getting ready to install a X2 3800 in my 2nd machine. Both skt 939. 8)

[Buddy]

I was wondering what you have or what you might consider better (in your own opinion). I myself have a simple AMD Sempron 3300+. I have not had an Intel chip YET, but am willing to try one to see how it will do. This is meant to spark a little dibate so have fun with it.

I've had Pentinum's for most of my "Computer Life" all the way up to a 3.0MhZ. This last unit I built has a AMD 4400+ 64 2X Core 939 Socket, and I got to say this baby ROCKS! FAST,, did I say FAST? Yup I said FAST! I can run multiple programs, numerous windows open, and GAMES??? YYYYYEEEEHHHHHHAAAAA will cover how I feel about it's gaming processing!
Here's the lowdown hooked up to this AMD::clap:
Asrock Dual-VSTA (PCI-E AND AGP Slots !)
BFG Dual Speed 650 Watt Power supply
2 Gig DDR 3200 400MhZ Ram
7900 GTO PCI-E 16X 512MB Clocked to 680 MHZ EVGA Video Card
250 Gig External HD USB 7200 RPM
250 Gig SATA II 7200 RPM
200 Gig Internal 7200 RPM
160 Gig Internal 7200 RPM
Samsung 18X Dualayer/Lightscribe DVD-RW Burner
NEC 16X Dual Layer DVD-RW Burner
XP HOME
22" Widescreen Samsung LCD
Microsofts NV-3000 Life Cam
2 Printers, 1 is a Laser
Label Writer
And MORE,,,,
This processor handels it all without any problems at all, for my FIRST AMD I got to tell you I am VERY Impressed! Anybody need a 3.0 Pent. 4 On a ASUS P4S800 Motherboard?:agree:

[Bunnyrip2]

8) This is the specs on my AMD 64 X2 4400+
Processor Details
AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Details
Processor AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core
Model 4400+
Ordering P/N (Tray) ADV4400DAA6CD
Ordering P/N (PIB) ADA4400CDBOX
Operating Mode 32/64
Stepping E6
Frequency 2200Mhz
HT Speed 2000
Voltage 1.30V1.35V
Max Temp 49-71°C
Thermal Power 89W
L1 Cache 128KB x2
L2 Cache 1MB x2
CMOS Technology 90nm SOI
Socket Socket 939

This Baby is FAST, like Buddy said. Basically, you have 2, 2.2 GHz. proccessors on 1 die, each w/1 meg cache & on chip direct memory access! "Hyper Transport" is more like "Warp Speed"! Mine runs at 29-30 degrees centigrade with stock heatsink & fan. It never even breaks a sweat no matter what I throw at it.:agree:

[Buddy]

8) This is the specs on my AMD 64 X2 4400+
Processor Details
AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Details
Processor AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core
Model 4400+
Ordering P/N (Tray) ADV4400DAA6CD
Ordering P/N (PIB) ADA4400CDBOX
Operating Mode 32/64
Stepping E6
Frequency 2200Mhz
HT Speed 2000
Voltage 1.30V1.35V
Max Temp 49-71°C
Thermal Power 89W
L1 Cache 128KB x2
L2 Cache 1MB x2
CMOS Technology 90nm SOI
Socket Socket 939

This Baby is FAST, like Buddy said. Basically, you have 2, 2.2 GHz. proccessors on 1 die, each w/1 meg cache & on chip direct memory access! "Hyper Transport" is more like "Warp Speed"! Mine runs at 29-30 degrees centigrade with stock heatsink & fan. It never even breaks a sweat no matter what I throw at it.:agree: Thanks for the addtional spec's Bunnyrip, I didn't take the time to go through them all, and yes, mine also runs very cool, with just a slight increase in games, with all games options MAXED Out, The Video Card with this AMD are a perfect match for WHATEVER I do! Have a Great Day. ANYDVD ROCKS!:bowdown: :bowdown:

[Clams]

I might be in a minority here... but I always build my own machines using.
Intel CPU's
ASUS motherboards - with Intel Chipsets.
Kingston or Corsair memory
Western Digital Hard Drives (SATA this round)
Sony Optical Drives (in part to turn thier own stuff against them)
Creative Labs audio cards (Sound Blaster)
Nvidia video cards

I'm on the 3rd generation builds now... and I've always done well with that combo.
-W

[KoRn]

I might be in a minority here... but I always build my own machines using.
Intel CPU's
ASUS motherboards - with Intel Chipsets.
Kingston or Corsair memory
Western Digital Hard Drives (SATA this round)
Sony Optical Drives (in part to turn thier own stuff against them)
Creative Labs audio cards (Sound Blaster)
Nvidia video cards

I'm on the 3rd generation builds now... and I've always done well with that combo.
-W

I agree using this components but I prefer OCZ memory.

[oldjoe]

Both companies produce a good product. I use, for myself and for my customers. nothing but Intel CPU's w/Intel MOBO's.
If you want to get the most from a PC, go with the Core Duo Intel.
I am currently using a 3.2 P4(Northwood).....3.0 P4 630(Prescott) and a E6600Intel Core 2 Duo(Conroe)
If you want a smoker on a budget($100), try the Pentium D 805 2.66GHz Dual Core. They will OC to well over 3G without popping a sweat. I've built 2 of these lately and the customers couldn't be happier.
I would advise waiting until April...........Intel prices will be dropping severely after the 1st.

[oldjoe]

I agree using this components but I prefer OCZ memory.

OCZ has had some compatibility issues lately, especially with the Dual Core CPU's. Corsair has the best bang for the buck.

[KoRn]

OCZ has had some compatibility issues lately, especially with the Dual Core CPU's. Corsair has the best bang for the buck.

I never had compatibility issues with OCZ memory.

[TPLAT]

I never had compatibility issues with OCZ memory.

I just built a new Core 2 Duo set up not long ago and used OCZ Platinum memory with no problems, they now have a revision 2 Platinum memory out that is supposed to address some compatibility issues, they said that they had a bad batch of memory that got shipped out.

[oldjoe]

I never had compatibility issues with OCZ memory.

I didn't say that anyone in particular has problems with OCZ. I said that OCZ has had compatibility issues lately. In particular with ASUS MOBO's and Intel D/C CPU's. OCZ, in the past, has made a very stable product. The issues don't appear with every PC configuration. It is, as always, a good idea to check with the MOBO's manufacturer's site to check for RAM compatibility issues.

[TPLAT]

I didn't say that anyone in particular has problems with OCZ. I said that OCZ has had compatibility issues lately. In particular with ASUS MOBO's and Intel D/C CPU's. OCZ, in the past, has made a very stable product. The issues don't appear with every PC configuration. It is, as always, a good idea to check with the MOBO's manufacturer's site to check for RAM compatibility issues.

OCZ has also had some compatibility issues with GigaByte motherboards. But like you said its a good idea to check with the mobo`s manufacturer website to check their compatibility lists for ram. I bought my OCZ memory on sale localy at Fry`s Electronics and they are really good about returns so if I had a problem I could easily take it back for a refund or store credit.

[TM2-Megatron]

AMD seems to have had the advantage for the last few years, but Intel appears to be making a comeback with their newest lines. If I were building a system today, I'd likely go with the Core2 Quad. However, as it stands, I'll be waiting for the Core2 Extreme Quad-Core to come down in price a bit, then I'll be building a new system.

[Charlie]

A person mainly using his PC for various multi-tasking and transcodeing or encodeing only & for future HD content which is better?

[SlyFox 1]

A person mainly using his PC for various multi-tasking and transcodeing or encodeing only & for future HD content which is better?
This is a very hard question to answer now Charlie, since Intel has released new processors and AMD is not the most powerful anymore. I still beleive that if you are a "gamer" AMD processors are better, but for muti-tasking and encoding I think Intels new Line of Conroe CPUs might have an edge, even though I have never tried them, I am just saying what I have heard. ;)

[Charlie]

That's the way I'm leaning too, thinking on getting the E6600.

[oldjoe]

The only advantage to the 6600 over the 6400 is the L2Cache (4MB and 2MB respectively) and a very small difference in CPU speed.
After the first of April, the E6300/6400 is going to be replaced with the E6320/6420 - double the cache and at a reduced cost.
The price reduction will be across the board - all Core 2 processors - but the Extremes will still be quite costly.

[Clams]

Heh.. my latest machine build was with a P4-3.2G Prescott and ASUS P4P 800-E with 2 gigs of Corsair RAM. Running it OC at 3.5g and cooling adequate.

The thing gets rip/burn/transcode rates as fast as the storage device speeds. Windows XP sees that CPU as duel-core, even though it's not tauted as such by Intel. The machine cost about $500 to build with "last years best" and performs as well as a lot of the generic builds sold at best Buy today.

Making use of duel hard drives and duel optical drives is critical to keep the bit-flow moving at max rates (as well as not beating up a single-drive during transcoding proces.

-W

[oldjoe]

Heh.. my latest machine build was with a P4-3.2G Prescott and ASUS P4P 800-E with 2 gigs of Corsair RAM. Windows XP sees that CPU as duel-core, even though it's not tauted as such by Intel.

XP is not seeing it as Dual-Core. Device manager will show two identical CPU's because of the Dual Ram and Hyper Threading.

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/bc36eabf9b.png (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)

[Clams]

Gotcha... But the thing is still faster than fast. :)

-W

[oldjoe]

Gotcha... But the thing is still faster than fast. :)

-W
I know it is....LOL I have an older 3.2 Northwood on an Intel Perl that will still smoke.

[Scramy500]

I am running BOTH intel & amd d/c cpu's. Through benchmark tests (pc mark '02 & '05) the biggest difference that i see is the memory controllers. The Intel scores MUCH higher on memory than amd.

SPECS
Intel AMD
Gigabyte GA965p-ds3 skt 775 Asus M2N-E skt AM2
E6600 2.4 Ghz X2 4600 2.4 Ghz
2 Gig Corsair DDR2-800 2 Gig Corsair DDR2-800
Gforce 7600 GT OC Gforce 7900 GS
2-80 gig Sata2 Raid O 1-80 gig Sata 2
2-250 gig Sata2 2-250 gig Sata2
1-500 gig Sata2
1-DVD-Rom 1 DVD-Rom
2-Sata DVD-RW 2-Sata DVD-RW

Both are running stock speeds (no overclocking), both have factory supplied drivers, XP Pro SP1.
PC Mark 2002 scores:
Intel - CPU-9,484, memory-30,184 HDD-N/A (don't know why that happened)

AMD - CPU-7,928, memory-11,291, HDD-1387

As far as encoding, burning, and multi-tasking goes, they appear to be about the same! Only slightly noticable time differences. Gaming definitly goes to the AMD, but that one has the bigger video card in it, so it's not really a fair fight there. The last run on PC Mark '05 was as follows:

Intel - 6245 - with all of my normal startup programs running!

AMD - 8735 - with a fresh install and no other programs loaded

Which is better...........
it's just to damn hard to say. Both are smokin' fast, and do any job that i throw at them. Both setups were easy to work with, went together w/little to no problems, and come on when i hit the power button!!!!!!!!

[oldjoe]

Neither is "better"..........it's all personal preference. You can realize benchmarks while using your PC.