AMD or Intel

haha man this is almost as vicious as a PC vs. Apple argument! i take no sides with that debate and im not really sided either way on this one, im just gonna go with the best bang i can get for my buck (and dependable future upgradeability is nice), and it seems in this scenario amd is most suitable.

In gaming, AMD is quite strong...
But not everyone use their computers as video game consoles...

Take business and video-editing software benchies, and compare.

There's room for both companies, and virtually no reason to bash one and praise the other. They both want your money equally

Better or worse ? Pride maybe ?

Basically it comes down to a matter of what I have is better than what you have. My Mustang is faster than your Firebird, my girlfriend has nicer boobs than yours. Why do we do it ? Its human nature to excell and be better than the next guy. I dont care if its computers or collecting rocks you will always in most cases have more pride in what you have than what the next guy has better, worse or a fricken carbon copy. I can get 15 higher fps in doom 3 with my XP 3200+ than my friend with a P4 3.2.using the same GPU But he can convert a 60 minute mpeg into a vcd 15 minutes less than I can. But we come about neck and neck with standard computing. Does he get pissed when i can frag him just a hair easier ? Sure. Do I get pissed when I am late for a hot date and have to wait an extra 15 minutes to convert freshly newsgrouped porn into a vcd to bring with and watch at her house? Sure.

Basically You take the good with the bad. Each CPU has its ups and downs, you need to take those ups and downs into concideration before you choose a CPU platform to build around.

As for the dipsh-- that posted the reply about his intel beating a 3500+ HP system. I think that my XP 3200 system would not have a problem beating it.
Im also pretty sure that the HP would have a $50 motherboard with integrated 64 meg or a low end AGP card. Do not use OEM manufactures as a base of any comparison when it comes to a platform. They are crap and made not to perform and last long for good reason HP, DELL, E-Machine are all in buisness soly on the idea of selling computers, do you really think they are going to sell you somehing that is gonna last years on end ? No they want to continue their revenue by selling you another pc as soon as possible. If that means selling you somthing that is doggy and will not operate new programs in a year or 2 they are gonna do it. If it means selling you a system enclosed in a heavy thick steel case wit poor air movment so componants die quicker. They are gonna do it.......And they do everday.

But yeah read a few reviews before you go and choose your new platform and remember that there are more benchmarks out there than just gamming.
Id hate to say it but gamming isnt what everyone buys a pc for.

Basically why I chose AMD over Intel is because I game. It really dont bother me that it takes 15 minutes more to encode a video ( if the ***** wants me to come over that bad she can wait another 15, gives me time to run to the store and find some triple layer condoms.) Next is cost. AMD offers a high end CPU at an affordable price. With good reason. When was the last time you seen an AMD commercial with some blue dudes that dont say a fricken word running around like they just took some bad acid ? Never....Intel on the other hand is a media giant. I dont watch a whole lot of TV but when I do I hear that bummm bum bumm sound or see the Intel logo atleat once. And that is reflected in the price of Intel products.

My $.02

Jimshady23 you hit the nail rite on the head a very insightful post there. I currently have an intel processor (because i got a really good deal on it) but i do realize that for gaming AMD is better. I myself am a gamer so if i had my pick i would go with an AMD. But for rite now i have a 6800 GT video card and most of my games run at 80+ frames per sec so i personally will not see any video performance difference if i run an AMD or Intel processor unless i run some benchmarks or FRAPS. So when i am ready to make a new computer i will sit down and look at the new benchmarks for dual core or single core and see which company's processors suits my needs and make my decision from there. A person should be unbiased and processor purchase should be based on the needs of an individual and not by "Lets not feed the monopoly" theories or Intel's marketing campaigns.

Nice posts

I agree with you guys. Intels are best for video and amd are a little better for gaming. I myself do alot of editing of game videos for online and for nice little DVD's to show off :giddy: As for Jimshady (what a pitiful pulloff of Slim Shady) whats the dip************** remark about. I mean cmon man can't ya have a decent conversation without throwin punches below the belt. You can use better language than cursing you know. Anyways i that HP had an ATI Radeon X300. Much better than my NVidia MX440 8x. Anyways i beat that HP handsdown on video editing. As for games i don't know(won't let me load a agme on their machine :haha: ). Amd is fine but i myself am set with Intel for their high quality (especially durability as i'm still using my 7 year old 350MHZ PII in a storage and web server) and for innovation such as their new high speed 64bits and dual core (i realise that amd too is coming with a dual core). Baseline get what your comfortable with and do your research on what your gonna do.

Oh for the record i dont promote cursing and i like jimshady's article's content minus the below the belt comment.

i agree. it depends on the application. intel has generally better performance, but perhaps it doesn't make a difference to the user. when i make new builds i recommend intels because they generally please and satisfy customers. amd systems often displease customers or fail.

it is difficult to use benchmarks as a valid performance indicator because of the many variables involved. the last time i put some real stock into benchmarks is when everything ran off a socket 7 (pen-mmx, k-series, cyrix, idt). in said case you're looking at the exact same hardware, software, and settings for each cpu. and the pentium MMX was best in every area, btw.

"amd usually displeases or fails"....??

hey i think what you are mostly overlooking is amd's strength,amd has a much better architecture than intels which untill recntly focused only on increasing clock speeds higher and higher as an answer, making there processor hotter and hotter leading up to presscott which is one of the hottest running processor on the market.they signifacantly increased the transistor count from the northwood and clocked the fsb even higher while adding 64 bit instruction to its 32 bit process calling it emt64.amd on the other hand had been an underdog it might have not had it huge advertising budget or the marketing campaign that intel did but it was a winner in the enthusiast circles and grew fast.with amd64 outon the market months before intel could wake from its slumber to notice that amd has already jumped to 64 bit so the little guy made haste while the giant slept.now with there new campaign of adding 64 bit instruction and pushing presscott core further seems late it atleast got them on there feet.

so what i am trying to say is forget the clock speeds,the bus speed and 64 bit performance and just compare the two equally matched intel and amd,amd will come out on top of intel in most of the applications except a few like video encoding which require better clock speeds to achieve higher rates.amd architecture is designed with better usage in mind overall instead of intels higher and higher clock speeds or recently bigger L2 caches(2 mb),so if you compare there price to power to uasge and features(amd with cool n quiet,3dnow,edb,64 bit ready and overall cooler operation than intels brute force high clock speeds,hyperthreading,800/1000mhz fsb,sse2/3)amd's future seems brighter.

:rolleyes: Forgive me if I find this all a little amusing....

First off, some of us may not be aware that Intel actually used AMD to make some of their very early 8086 chips, which ran at a whopping 8Mhz.

I had one of those, and it still runs. (my dad has it) It's over 20 years old. My brother had an Intel 8088, and it still runs. It, too, is over 20 years old.

And, believe it or not, both the AMD aaaand Intel name appeared on the very same processor; take a look: http://www.ox.compsoc.net/~swhite/history/8086.html

OK, so they both sell bazillions of chips, and neither one sells any chip that runs infinitely fast. (THAT would be a true advantage).

I would that there were 50 different chip manufacturers; obviously the competition (barring any pricing conspiracy), would keep cost down for all of us, and encourage better performace and quality all the way around. Wouldn't that be nice ?

I would suppose that the actual engineers of either company don't become 'fanboys', holding some deep seeded grudge against the other. What would be the point?

They both sell millions of chips that usually last longer than the 'technology curve' would alow. In English, your CPU will be outdated looooong before it dies a natural death.

Pray God, find the best value for you, and get out of the house a little on sunny days....I think I'll go walk the dogs now,

Peace...

Between my post and pizzada's not much more to say....

Perfectly clear with that last post pizzada.....I dont have and machines as old as what you described but i do have a couple DX2 66 mhz machines laying around.....They work fine.....I also have a few k6 233 machines laying around also....The DX2 close to 15 years old and the k6 close to 10....They all work without a hitch.....caked up woth dust......not much you can do with them beides big word processors or maybe a decent mp3 station.

Yeah you said it all despite what you have now, no matter what it is its not going to be worth a snot in two years when you look at the big picture. At the rate of and quality games and programs are comming out at these days your 3.8 Intel Extreme or FX-55 in the long run maybe will give you a 5-6 month edge on an upgrade but you still got to do it.

Seems to me AMD spends a lot of time with innovation and creating new ways to get more performance out of a chip. While Intel can snap its fingers and give umpteen more MHz added to the same old chip.

Seems like, and I haven't followed the AMD/Intel race that closely, AMD comes out with something really cool that people like, Intel just quickly releases a new chip with higher MHz. Then totally goes after the marketing ploy "our numbers are bigger then your numbers." Such as the 800fsb which I don't really think makes any real difference compared with AMDs 400fsb. Not to say that they don't eventually release chips with major core changes, but at least, to answer AMDs call, that is all they can do. And it's only fair to say that AMD probably does the same thing too on occasion.

This raises the question of what CPU should I buy? Is the chip you get just a factory overclocked predecessor? Or a new chip?
I am under the impression that AMDs 3000+ Barton 400fsb is not a real release. As a retail package of it is scarce, and the 3000+ never started with a 400fsb OR being a true Barton. But started as a Sempron maybe? And AMD just factory overclocked it to 400fsb and sold it OEM? And this is how Newegg sells it, with 30 day warranty.
This would make me very cautious of buying an OEM 3000+ "Barton" versus spending the extra bucks to get a "true" Barton 400fsb in the 3200+ which was made for it. Thus I would NOT buy the 3000+ Barton. Though the 333fsb version is the true one, and would safe to get if your mobo doesn't have 400fsb.
I'm sure this kind of thing is done not only by chip makers, but video card makers as well. You just have to wonder which of Nvidia's cards and which of ATI's cards are just repackaged, overclocked versions of the previous chip?

It just goes to show you, do your research and be careful buying a product that was quickly released in answer to a competitors release.
Stick with the true-blue, tried and true.

to be more specific, more amd based systems generally displease customers and/or fail completely than thier intel counterparts.

that wasnt much more specific zep
but whatever, theres good reviews out there for both sides from many people. im not going high-end performance so i dont think it matters which way i go.

if amd made a better product i'd have bought it.

not compared to intel. for example, intel had out of order execution and advanced branch prediction when amd was trying to figure out why thier k-5's burned up. (this goes back a while) intel has brought far more innovation, technological advancements, and performance to the x86 architecture than amd.

Not to be biased or anything this is just a link to support zephead's argument:

http://www.intel.com/standards/case/index.htm

Some of these things intel invented and some of these things intel contributed on inventing. For people that are lazy to click on the link PCI, USB, ETHERNET, IEEE 802.11 are some of the things listed on there. These are not processor related innovations but industry standards when it comes to computing. :wave:

Yes, of course Intel has "contributed" and has been "involved" in creating standards. And they only succeed because there are dozens of other companies "contributing" and being "involved" in the process as well.
I remember when Intel thought they were cool and decided to invent things that were all their own, they bombed. It's only when you get a LOT of companies together and create OPEN standards that this stuff succeeds.

None of that matters anyway, it has little to do with processors.
I'm not saying Intel doesn't innovate THEIR OWN chips. But when was the last time they created something great that they freely let other companies use? And I'm sure there are a few cases where they have. In the PC world, there is NO rule that doesn't have an exception.

Intel is just a strong-arm, big and pushy company just like MS.
To be quite honest, I don't care to bash Intel, I've built a lot of both machines. But it's just one of those biased things, I simply don't like them.

"intel has brought far more innovation, technological advancements, and performance to the x86 architecture than amd."
Lol, not for lack of trying. With Intel's strong-arm tactics and bazillion copywrites, it's a wonder AMD was able to even MAKE a chip. Let alone make it compatible with all the crap Intel was putting out, and changing sockets practically for each new chip.
Just look at Socket 7, when other chip makers could actually make chips for them, AMD stuck with it until it was uterly not possible to get faster. While Intel abandoned it and tried to create new stuff other chip makers wouldn't be allowed to use, forcing AMD to create it's OWN socket.

There isn't a single Intel chip out there that doesn't have an AMD counter-part of the same core speed that can out-perform it on some things. Same goes true in reverse. So it's really a silly argument. I just plain don't like Intel. Same reason I don't like MS. Not because MS hasn't innovated a lot of crap. But what they do innovate is locked down and nobody else can use it or else your dead. Basically, strong-arm monopolizing.

But who cares. I think I've already said, get a CPU based on what you plan to do with it. Simple as that.

you've got to be kidding. the mmx instruction set and the atx form factor, to name two basic ones.

I have an Amd Semphron And I think it is really nice. I think it runs better than P4s i have seen!

Good example zep, and no I'm not kidding! Don't be so naive. MMX was an Intel-only deal which AMD answered with it's 3DNow! instruction set. Intel didn't create that for the masses. Though I have no problems saying it was a cool technology.

ATX , though I haven't looked into it deeply, wasn't an Intel only thing anyway. That WAS created as a standard, which Microsoft had a hand in as well. Plus that form factor was simply adopted. There are a bunch other form factors out there, some still in use.

Anyways, again it's a silly topic and a silly argument. I can hate Intel, you can hate AMD, big deal.

I hate stupid flame war topics, some people thrive on them! Though this wasn't started as that, it'll become that if we're not careful! So I'm outta here, I won't be visiting this topic again.
Feel free to PM me if you have some cool technology history lessons you'd like me to read, I'd be glad to.

ciao