AMD or Intel:

By Forge
Feb 24, 2005
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I know this is a heated topic. But I would like to hear some opinions on Pros and cons of both AMD and Intel.

    I want to build my own comp, and I want to use my comp for both Heavy Gaming and for using Applications such as Autocad, Utiliboard, Electronics Workbench and Photoshop. I use all those tihngs I'm studying to be an Electrical Drafter. I need to know which can handle these things best.

    So :bounce: .... which of the two is better for this sort of application?
  2. zephead

    zephead TechSpot Paladin Posts: 2,483

    the amd athlon 64 fx series are the fastest chips out there for gaming.
    otherwise a cutting edge pentium 4 would be a better choice, particularly for the apps you mentioned.
    everyone here has got something to say on the subject and you'll get much more than this quick post.
    as for the AMD only guys who refer to intel as 'overpriced' and 'crap', let's just say that they're throwing rocks from a glass house.
  3. fishhookz

    fishhookz Newcomer, in training Posts: 177

    How about a Pentium 4 Extremely Expensive? :)

    I'd go for P4 in your case. You'll know what I mean if you ever encode video/audio.
  4. Forge

    Forge Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 21

    Making the Choice

    I had been shopping for AMD CPUs & boards because My current computer was a pre built AMD k6-2 system and had lasted me 5 years (although it was slower than most when I got it and is currently suffering from alzheimer's), and It outlasted my cousins' gateways and compaqs...
    I guess i'm going to go for P4 then if it's really best for those Apps. I'm sure it can handle some games too. Maybe go for 3.2 Ghz (best price:speed ratio). I guess I'll have to pick a new MoBo too.... I liked it too... Asus A8N SLI deluxe yummy stuff
  5. ripken204

    ripken204 Newcomer, in training Posts: 315

    definatly go for intel, until the windows 64 bit edition is out and free of the thousands of problems it has is when amd will be good with their 64 bit chips, otherwise intel is the better. the new 755 locket 3.2 ghz chip is in the low $200's at newegg.
  6. scorrie

    scorrie Newcomer, in training

    AMD vs Intel Continued...

    I have Been in both sides of the Processor fence and I have had good speed from both brands. Th AMD's are faster for less $$ and the Intel P4's have Wayyy less bugs. If you like to **** around with your machine and your settings and patch stuff and overclock and get all crazy'n'sh*t with your machine, then your an AMD guy. If you like to sit down and do your work or compile some video or check emails and have fun with your machine, then the P4 is your weapon of choice. Nuff Said
    Scorrie
  7. tbrunt3

    tbrunt3 Newcomer, in training Posts: 495

    This basically depends what you like to do with your computer and it also comes down to the motherboard for each..

    AMD is better know for gamming while Intel better know for multitasking . Right now the top dog in gamming is the FX-55 with the FX -57 to be out soon the problem right now we need a os to support everythign a 64 bit chip can do well Linux will but it does not support a lot of games right now also AMD does two cycles to Intels one.

    Dont get me wrong both are very good chips IF it was not for AMD we all be paying 2000$ for a procrossor .
  8. MrDJ009

    MrDJ009 Newcomer, in training Posts: 78

    A buying decision is a vote.

    From a rational consumer perspective NEVER empower a monopoly or you will pay dearly. tbrunt3 hit upon this by pointing out that we would be paying inflated computer prices if the Intel guys are allowed to rule, unchecked by competition. A little walk down microprocessor memory lane illustrates why.

    Back in the day (mid to late 1980's) the IBM PC was king and it’s top of the line PC/AT was released running a 6 MHz, 16bit, 80286 processor, eventually up graded to 8 MHz (note: 1,000 MHz = 1 GHz). A lot of power for the day but way to costly for the little guy. Even for businesses the prices were almost prohibitive. The prices for 80286 machines remained high until the late 1980's when AMD, NEC and others began to up the ante on Intel. AMD increased processor speed and undercut Intel on price. PC clones at economical prices effectively competed with higher priced IBM/Intel machines. With this threat to their turf Intel brought it’s prices down and countered by upping the technological ante with more powerful processors. Premium prices, of coarse, were demanded for the fastest and best processors.

    The long and short of this story is that unless the 600 pound gorilla feels threatened it will be content to milk the customer with lower performance chips at inflated prices. Buying machines from the competition results in cheaper, more powerful machines for all. So when making a buying decision I choose to vote for the challenger so that we all benefit from better and cheaper technology down the road.

    The following web site has a really good write up how the x86 technology has evolved.

    http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardwarecentral/tutorials/25/1/
  9. Forge

    Forge Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 21

    Well While Consumer Politics might be a good reason to buy the competition, The average Computer buyer, Joe user is not going to buy one because of that. He only wants something that is going to work when he Plugs it in, and will allow him to use the applications that he needs to use, with little or no reasearch he will buy his computer from a ready built seller like Dell, It's a familiar name. While I am not Joe User, I have a specific purpose in mind for my computer, I need it to work, and because I am only a novice I still have a little bit of that consumer fear, I am going to go with the brand I know will work for my purposes - This time around. This is only my first computer. While I trust AMD, My current computer is an AMD k6-2 system which i've had for 5 years, but has always had a personality. It has its preferences and its dislikes. I want to try something different, Intel is a bit morestable from my experience, and even though AMD may outperform it, I want to go with the safer/boring choice this time. Becase i'm spending tons of money on this computer, my first build, and I need it to be right the first time around.

    I lost the point I was going for but ended pretty nicely... My short term memory isn't the greatest. O_o Otherwise I'm told I'm quite brilliant. :cool: big head and everything.

    After a month and a half of research I'm almost ready to buy everything. Just need to find a few mor things on SATA.
  10. nein

    nein Banned Posts: 226

    I suggest you get an Intel machine, built by Intel or by Dell. As long as you didn't get Intel based hardware from the likes of PC Chips, the hardware would typically be built for greater tolerance of user stupidity.

    On AMD side currently you'll get more performance power and the tolerance for user stupidity is mostly up to the users with some exceptions such as compaq/HP.

    If you don't know what you are doing, actually asking yourself "can I do this?" then proceed without comprehension of WTF it is you're doing, AMD hardware typically will let you be as smart or as stupid as you wanted to be. This choice is yours to make instead of being imposed by hardware manufacturers such as Dell or Intel.
  11. zephead

    zephead TechSpot Paladin Posts: 2,483

    that concept can't really be applied here, because intel does not have a monopoly and amd isn't going away anytime soon.
     
  12. Mictlantecuhtli

    Mictlantecuhtli TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 4,916   +9

    Intel is Superior

    :giddy:

    My opinion? It doesn't make much difference - it's often stated AMD is better for gaming and Intel for other things, but since you're building a computer for both, it won't matter.
  13. MrDJ009

    MrDJ009 Newcomer, in training Posts: 78

    Oligopoly is more accurate.

    Technically economists would call Intel an Oligopoly, not a monopoly. One recent article gives Intel an 82% share of the x86 processor market. AMD has about 17%. That leaves 1% for other competitors. Intel is very, very profitable. AMD rarely makes a profit. All the other competitors (Cyrix and others) have bit the dust. My point is that if AMD doesn't gain market strength and is forced to close it's doors, we'd be left with only one alternative.
  14. luvr

    luvr Newcomer, in training Posts: 74

    If I were to buy a 32-bit CPU today, I'd go for Intel. The way I see it, AMD has virtually abandoned the 32-bit CPU market; their Sempron line is pretty low-end, somewhat comparable to Intel Celeron.

    Quite understandably, AMD will want to concentrate on 64-bit computing, where it has a better chance of fighting Intel. In fact, for 64-bit CPUs, it's AMD that set the standard, and Intel had to follow (given its limited success with its Itanium line).

    So, if I were looking for a 64-bit CPU, I'd likely prefer AMD.
  15. NEEKO

    NEEKO Newcomer, in training

    64 Bit (AMD 2.6)-VS-(INTEL 3.73).....?

    Whatzup....The New Guy

    Now that Intel finally has a "64" bit
    http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050221comp.htm
    What do I do ??? I've read about consumers. I sorry, but I really need to know what is right (FOR ME). I got my frist (PC) 18 months ago.
    Middle of the road dell. Now I"m a online Gaming junkie ! I don't have all the
    (PC) foundation. I want to build my first big gaming rig. I'll probably learn to overclock. Ati x850pe vcard... (Sli) Two much ($$$) and I don't want to tweek everytime I turn on the computer...Thanks the lost new Guy
    NEEKO
  16. zephead

    zephead TechSpot Paladin Posts: 2,483

    MrDJ009-
    i agree with most of your post excepting:
    i highly doubt that AMD will be forced out of business, given current conditions. telling everyone to buy AMD on the grounds that they might go out of business is illogical. choosing a processor should be based on it's suitability for the tasks the user will use it for and other circumstances.
  17. Forge

    Forge Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 21

    You're right. People SHOULD choose based on their needs and such. However, that's not always the case, is it? When it comes to technology most people or not all that computer literate. much less educated at all on hardware. The truth is that People will buy from people who sell computers. Many, if not most, of the big computer sellers deal with pentium on the majority of their products. so people will buy What's there. Most people don't buy AMD unless they have a vague idea what it is.

    My sister for an example, all she wants from her computer is for it to turn on and work. She doesn't need to know what's inside. and when upgrading, she will probably take hers to her dealer. She is the paradigm of Joe or Jane User. She doesn't want hassles. and even though both types of systems can give her hassles, she is assured by the quality attached to Intel by media. it's familiar and safe.

    And it IS logical to attempt to organize other's to buy another product to effect a change. In this case to drive the price of the competitor's products down. It's a concept well used in history called boycotting. When sugar got too high people boycotted sugar and bought honey. When people wanted to desegregate buses they walked and gave each other rides to work and school and stuff. Until they effected the change. I'm sure there were some computer sellers out there that decided to go for AMD only just because it wasn't Intel.
    As for AMD being forced out of business... I don't think that's goign to happen anytime soon. It will have to take a technolpgical hyperspace jump by intel to put it out....
  18. Didou

    Didou Bowtie extraordinair! Posts: 5,899

    You do know that the Athlon64(-FX)/Opteron parts run 32-bit software just as fast as 64-bit software, right ?
  19. luvr

    luvr Newcomer, in training Posts: 74

    Well, no, I didn't, to be honest - I haven't really looked at 64-bit CPUs just yet.
    But anyhow, my comment was aimed solely at 32-bit CPUs, for which I believe Intel is currently the more interesting option (except for low-budget hardware that isn't expected to deliver top-notch performance - I'm sure the Sempron line is perfect for common office applications, and would even be tempted to try it out for a cheap Linux server).
    As I said, when it comes to 64-bit computing, the situation is very different; and, if AMD 64-bit CPUs actually perform this well on 32-bit software, then that's a valuable added bonus.
  20. Didou

    Didou Bowtie extraordinair! Posts: 5,899

    That was the whole point to the AMD64 architecture. It is built on top of the K7 (Athlon) keeping all the benefits & strong points of the previous generation & adding full 64-bit support. In other words, at the same speed & in 32-bit an Athlon64 will be much faster then an AthlonXP. It only gets better when you use 64-bit software.

    Intel on the other hand came out with IA-64 on the Itanium which requires a new way of programming & at the same time it could only run 32-bit software via Emulation which is quite slow even though they have improved the speed. Seeing how AMD's way of thinking had potential, they added EMT64 which is just AMD64 with a new name.

    What I'm trying to say is that all current AMD CPUs are blazing fast in 32-bit environment. There's absolutely no reason not to get one if you're planning on running 32-bit software.
  21. zephead

    zephead TechSpot Paladin Posts: 2,483

    forge- i also agree.

    just keep in mind that intel's not exactly robbing anybody and that AMD's marketshare is rising.
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.