Poll on Athlon vs Intel

Imho

I am new to all this computing stuff, and CPUing, and all those things, and, since I have only ever used Intel, am not qualified to declare a "better." However, since I bought my first system, I have been a tech forum junkie, trying to learn from people in the know, and here is what I think (I know I will get shouted at, but?):
The Intel vs. AMD debate resembles, to me, the Windows/Linux (and all its offshoots) debate. Everybody rails against BigBrotherBill/MS, and praises freeware/shareware/open source OS's, but almost everyone USES Windows. I know- software compatibility, etc. But it seems the geeks use it as they cuss it.

If, as many geeks claim, AMD is not only better than Intel, but also CHEAPER than Intel app for app, why isn't Intel in the "too much money for the performance" scrapheap already? Why would there even be a debate? More value for the price is a no-brainer.

Methinks many just wanna stick with the AMDs and Linuxs as a sort of "rage against the machine" syndrome.

I am certain I will be set straight about this, but it is my impression after a year's worth of open-minded (blank-slate-minded) review. Nuff said. :unch:

Without a doubt, I think that what you said has SOME truth to it. It is always fun to be against big brother, and there is no doubt that INTEL has been big brother for a number of years.

The bottom line is this. Take a look at this chart, ( http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html ) and find an AMD and an Intel CPU that perform at about the same level, then go and look at their relative prices. That's what it all comes down to.

I kind of like people going for intel, as it keeps the AMD prices low. As more and more people switch over to AMD, the prices will only increase.

So, keep on loving INTEL. It works for me. Go intel! Woo-hoo!

I've voted AMD for one good reason, value for money. I am using an athlon xp 2000+ that I've had for over 3 years. It cost me just under £60 and i recon for the money has done me proud. Its been overclocked from 1.66ghz to over 1.8ghz for its entire lifespan and is still going strong. If i had gone for Intel i would have had to spend a fair bit more money to get the performance that i have.

misinterpret

SEE! You are all assuming from my comments that I vote for Intel. As I said, I am NOT QUALIFIED to rate them. The main reason I have only used Intel is this: Say you have never owned a car before, and are planning your first purchase. You look around, you read, and discover that the Honda is a reasonably good buy, and has a long reputation for reliability, but the KIA has a longer warranty, and a lower price. As one who has never owned one, do you buy the KIA? (I am not comparing AMD to a KIA, it's just an example of the thought process of a complete newbie!)

Ah, but now you are just as guilty of making assumption on intended meaning!!

My "keep on loving intel" comment was not directed at you. It was a comment in general to the masses of intel lovers.

Anyways, I think the reason so many people go for Intel at this point, is the momentum behind the company. It's advertising campaigns have been on for years. It is the standard, and it is what everyone knows.

When someone goes to buy a dell or a gateway, I think most have no idea what an AMD cpu is, nor do they care really.

It is the hardcore market that notices these things. Performance vs. dollar. How can I build the fastest system for my dollar. The addiction to frames per second.

Back to your car analogy. What goes in the cars that you and I buy is mostly determined on the race tracks. They push things to the limit in F1, and that technology slowly trickles into the consumer market.

An on the F1 tracks AMD is right on par with Intel. I am the same as you. I am not saying one is better than the other. It all depends on WHAT YOU USE YOUR COMPUTER FOR. Me? Games. And on THAT particular F1 track, AMD is the undisputed champion.

But as AMD is still relatively new (compared with Intel) it does not have the momentum that Intel has to take over the market. Only the future can tell if that'll ever change.

Uh.......

I wouldn't have taken offense in any case, I just meant that I don't necessarily include myself on the Intel side of the debate, but I do have a serious question for you:
OFF TOPIC ALERT!!
Are you SURE that KIA develops their units from what they've learned in F1? I must say, though, that have an adequate source of info in their own backyard. Last I heard, there are more cars per-capita in Seoul than anywhere else on earth. Having spent a few months in S Korea in the 70's, I believe it.
BACK TO THREAD ALERT!!
As you said, the advertising must influence most prospective first-time buyers; add the fact that my ex works for Intel, and my first buy was almost pre-ordained. I "got no game" in me, so it wasn't a consideration. Now, if I had just learned more about mobos before.......... but that's another thread. Appreciate the comments, DonNagual (you're already a Paladin in my book). :angel:

the thing about intel is that they have many contracts with many OEMs (such as dell and sony). most consumers are used to the 'intel inside' badges on thier boxes and have accepted it as good. intel's management was smart and got thier foot in the door back in the 1980's because thier managers foresaw this.

Conroe is comming...shorter pipelines, higher clocks, who knows?

What ever it is, Intel may very well top the podium again on all tracks.

I can't say much about it, but Conroe has been a nice CPU to work with.

Don't forget about AMD's new CPUs too. Should be interesting!

You have a Conroe, Intel just said that it is real and will be ready 4Q this year?

AMD said M2 will have a 10% performance increase over 939 chips.

Do you work for Intel? You live in the right place. (come on, spill the beans)
My hopes are that Conroe is dual 3ghz Dothans for $300. That would be like three times the power of a FX57!

Rick does indeed work for the evil empire, but if any "beans" are spilled from his plate, black suits in black vans with black tinted windows will come to his house and do horrible things to him. They may even take his PC away. His every move is monitored and recorded.....

Yah, that's something like I thought. I'm just a little curious. Something is bound to leak out by the time AMD fixes (seems there are some problems) and releases M2. A little rain on the parade.

Hopefully this newfangled M2 stuff won't be as expensive as the dual cores and FX's, Opteron stuff. Costing us lowly blue-collars upwards of a grand to get one.

The M2 will just be a socket, it won't have a price. On the other hand, there will different CPUs for it, from low-end (Sempron) to high-end (Athlon64-FX,etc.) so the prices will probably be the same.

Well the poll is over guys, thanks for your support. I think that the majority of people voted for athlon (hahaha). See yah round.

Not my AMD computer!

I have a M2 mobo, but it came without the socket...Asrock Dual Sata2.

I realy don't think we will see Sempron for M2 untill it's slated for death. Now M2 comming, 939 Semprons are comming. AMD is not for us blue coller guys now they own the high end. Glad they are here, imagin Intel without them. Might be worse than Microsoft.

EDIT
I'm very wrong about the Semproms
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2587

wow only 3 or 4 months to go and we can get the M2 4000+ Orleans with DDR2.

One thing I wish AMD would have tried harder to get those core clock speeds up. It's kind of depressing to buy a new Athlon 64 4000+ and learn it runs at a ho-hum 2.4ghz. It's fast, yes, but our Intel friends actually ARE getting the 3ghz and 4ghz core speeds.
But then again, hand it to AMD to crank the speeds out of much less clock speed.
Or then my 32bit Athlon 3200+ running at 2.2ghz. Now I am debating to OC or not.

Conroe is going to be a low-clocked CPU as well. But it is getting about 30-50% more performance per MHz than current P4 processors at the same clock speeds.

It seems like the emphasis is no longer GHz, but how fast it actually is. Which can be kind of good I suppose, since your average consumer sees a budget CPU at the same speed and can't imagine why it is slower... But they really need to figure out a standarized rating system.

Not AMD's number system, how many 3200+ are there? Thay don't even write the core on the box so you need to understand the numbers on the CPU. Even the week numbers make a difference. I don't have a clue how thay could factor in speed, cache, socket, cores...on and on. I liked it when it was just speed, and product line. Intel's getting messy too.

I think when branch prediction is correct 90% of the time, my 4 ghz+ prescott is hard to beat. Smoth in windows even multitasking, doing things that make my AMD lag. But in games things are much different.

Sure hope that conroe clocks are not 30-50% slower. Yonah seems clock to clock with X2.

3ghz, sweet. Still no sight of a i975 mobo.