Intel or Amd?
such a bad question...
okay the answer is BOTH
Depends m8, one year intel will be better than amd, the next amd better than intel, theres no real win. as of this year i would say intel because of there core 2 duo, but of next year, amd because of there new cpu torrenza which is supposed to be a lot faster than any core 2 duo and is only a 32 bit core, I'm a amd fan so i would try to steer you off towards that direction. But it simply depends when, and why?, give us more details on your next post
You dont KNOW the next AMD wil be better there just blowing words out of their ***
Intel all the way!
I cant predict what the future holds for AMD or Intel as the performance king, but.......
Today, right now, and for atleast the next 6 months if you want the best bang for your buck your going to want to go with an Intel system. The Core 2 duo and quad core line are the fastest avaliable. And with the overclocking potential of the sub $175 e6300 and e6400 you can easily match them with the speed of the way more expensive e6600 e6700 and x6800. People have gone way farther with them though just on air cooling (past 3.0ghz) and at that speed the Intel line is untouchable by any AMD offering as of right now.
I prefer Intel,it's swell
Best i can add,
Theres more problem posts about AMD then there are Intel.
Right now anyone building a complete mid to high end AMD rig is likely doing it due to personal issues, as Core2 is better for the money. On the low end AMD does offer pretty good bang for the buck though. Even that is going to change April 22 with the release of new Conroe based Celerons and Pentium E series processors from Intel. If you want to build a good AMD rig wait for K10 this summer. As violent as Intel has been with the price war I still don't expect AMD to offer much more in the way of value than Intel even with it's new architecture.
I agree with you, and yes i dont know whether AMDs new cpu (code named Torrenza) will be better than Intels core 2 duo, im just going by what i read on the internet. With all do respects early last year before the release of core 2 duo's nobody believed that the conroe would be better than AMD's fx 62 and yet as you can see even the mid ranged core 2 duo beats it, and everybody thinks AMD is finished. I hate poeple who just go with the winning cpu. When AMD released their amd64 cpu's everyone converted to AMD thinking intel was finished. Now they are with Intel and core 2 duo thinking AMD's finished, and say things like "i was always an Intel fan all the way", which is a load of bs. And its gonna keep going like this, but for what i read on the internet AMD's new (code named Torrenza) cpu's do look very promising.
Well intel was the first company to teraflop with their 80-core cpu.
This thread is going to get heated, that's the problem with asking what's better. Next time Computergeek564, list specific model numbers. It's all down to opinion.
I read about intels 80 core processor a long tima ago, but thanks for the update. But why are you even comparing that to AMD, Intels 80 core processor wont be out on desktops for atleast another 5-10 years. I still remember 10 years ago when Intel said they will be having 10GHz cpu's buy 2002, hah, they havnt even made a cpu which is half that speed at stock speeds and its 2007. Besides "Intel Follows AMD's Lead, Again: Cloning Torrenza",
This just proves that Torrenza really is looking promising. Even intels scared, they have to "clone" it because they know they cant do any better.
I dont see any hard proof of torrenza or w/e this is an actual picture of a physical processor and benchmarks of it.
I have yet to see AMD hit 1.28Tflops Let alone one.
Nvidia on the other hand has a Tflop with a SLI 8800 right now.
I disagree. You can get a highly overclockable AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+ 65nm and overclock it like a monkey. Plus you pay about $160 for that CPU and a good Biostar board. (Yeah I said Biostar, there T-Force board are good OCers)
So what I'm getting at is that AMD is winning the price war, and always will. However last year AMD won the performance battle, and even today they are definiatley behind Intel. I'm not saying that AMD is better because of performance, I think there better because of price. And AMD has always won when it came to that.
There is like 2 CPU's in AMD that is winning the 'price war' and even OC'ed the C2d can OC FURTHER.
Heres another segment to your price war, suck on it.
AMD has something up their sleeves...:looks at stolen top secret plans and laughs madly:...
F1N3ST: Yes there is no hard evidence that AMD will make this new cpu, but there was no hard evidence of conroe at the start of last year either but it happened, and AMD a better at keeping there promises than what Intel are. As for the 80 core, theres no hard evidence of that, they are just saying they have done it, im not saying they havnt, and even if they have, theres no way in the world it will be used in desktops computers anytime soon, or in the near future. I have already read, sry i dont have the link but i'll post it as soon as i come across it again, that Intel stated that 80 cores is possible but never become reality.
As for the 8800, well i honestly dont care, the r600's will wipe the floor with nvidia, especially if your a rich/wealthy person put them in crossfire. (hard to believe, i cant think of any PSU that has 4x6pin connecters). They have already got benchmarks of the r600 with over a total bandwidth 140 GB/s on GDDR4. The 8800gtx only has a total bandwidth of 86.4GB/s. Do you want hard evidence for that too
I kind of lost you on the second paragraph, why are we talking about evidence for a video card that has already had it's specs released?
sry i apologise, F1N3ST seems to think just because there is no hard evidence that AMD is bringing out a faster cpu than core 2 duo that its not going to happen, well they said the exact same thing before the core 2 duo's where even released. He criticized AMD for not being able to produce a 80 core processor with 1.28Tflops, when there is no hard evidence that even Intel has produced them either. He also criticized AMD by saying the 8800 can reach Tflop in SLI, i simply stated that the r600 will be a lot better, and it is owned by AMD, so therefore if the r600 is a lot better than the 8800 than AMD has produced something with Tflop, and there is hard evidence of the r600 of doing so.
Once again i apologize. I just dont like it when people criticize things without backing it up.
The fact of the matter is, either company is going to be ahead on and off no matter what. It just boils down to development and manufacturing process. Development and actual working silicon are two differnt things and it takes a lot of time between the two, even getting a working part doesnt always mean it works the way it should and that takes time to de-bug also.
Its not like both companies start a project at the same time and compete to get it out the door first. There is always going to be a time lapse between who is on top of the performance ladder. Its called inovation.....The problem in the performance war usually is how long said companies inovation will hold up until the other company releases a better product. In this case it could be early as this summer or could flop out until Q1 08, only time will tell.
But as for the fanboy war goes:
It all boils down to pride.....And what you have in your system......If you have AMD and somone is slapping AMD then your going to be pissed. You have Intel and somone is slapping Intel your gonna be pissed to.
Basically you take it as people talking smack about somthing you own and do have some pride invested in. And yeah it hurts somtimes when somone insults your pride.
As I always said, I probably like AMD more than Intel for moral reasons, but I had the cash for a performance system and I went with the best performance avaliable wich is the C2D. Would I have purchased a AMD platform if they where on top ? Probably, but the fact of the matter is that they wernt on top and at the time of my purchase there wasnt even a word of this torrenza cpu...And I wasnt about to wait for a company that didnt even claim to have working parts.
As for the Nvidia vs. ATI thing:
Each company offers great products. In directx 9 the performance is minimally different between to two flagship cards with each having slight advantages over the other in certain games. As for DX10 cards, there are only 3 avaliable and they are all from Nvida....As for the R600, just wait until it is in production before you can smack talk the 8800 because even though the specs look good you have no clue on how it actually performs if it is better than the 8800, more power to ATI....
On another note, intel is releasing Penryn or w/e it is called later this year on a 45NM process, and It will be more overclockable and use less volts because of some new high metal K+ or something gate.
But you do have to agree with my last post right ? Come on there is no real reason to argue except for what I stated.
This thread sucks. I see some opinions and very few links. If you guys want to have a proper argument you should be quoting benchmarks of different types, and price, include release date if necessary.
Right now very little in this thread holds any water because nobody is backing it up. Links to articles really don't even count because its pretty rare that anyone (esp the one that disagrees with you) is going to click through the link and read. So link it, and quote it. Then use what you quoted to make your statement.
Also why must someone be on 1 side? Sticking with AMD just because you don't like Intel is a stupid argument to take in here.
I never once said i don't like intel. When it comes down to it no matter what i say the core 2 duo is and will be the most fastest cpu for desktops at this present time.
But as JimShady23 stated
Is what ive been trying to say. Intel will be ahead of AMD bout 1-2 years than AMD will bring out an even faster CPU that will be ahead of intel for 1-2 years, and than intel will take the lead again, and it will always continue to be like this. Just because core 2 duo is a lot better than amd64's doesnt mean AMD is finished. When the AMD64's where released they gained a lot more performance over pentium4 cpu's than what core 2 duo's do over the AMD's 64 but intel managed to stand there grounds.
I'm patient, i am willing to wait for the r600's and the new torrenza to come out so i can see what they a truly like.
But like i also stated, im not against intel. I just dont like it when people speak rubbish about something they dont even know, or if they do they show no signs of backing it up.
I like both companies. For a hardcore gaming rig go with the Core 2 Duo, for a mid range system go with AMD because of lower prices.