Discussion Locked

The Processor WAR

0 helpful
19 replies
Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Which do you guys think is better?? AMD or Intel? They say, the AMD cannot stand heat very much and needs to keep a cool head (pun intended) .... but I find it all the more cheaper...

Will AMD gain over intel in times to come or will Intel keep its crown locked in a safe somewhere??

19 replies

by confirmedgeek

AMD is the one I would choose dude...Its cheaper and its faster than any of its intel counterparts...Yeah you gotta keep it a bit cool but still....it tops...Intel sucks....AMD and Linux all the way...

by jaqui

I tend to use amd myself.
but it ain't important to me.

as long as the thing works right.
but let one break down and that's it, never buy that brand again, they're crapola.

by roger99a

We use Via chips for thin clients for low power and heat production. The ITX boards have a super small footprint and 1/5 the power consumption of a Celeron. Sometimes we use AMD or Celerons when the Via chips are unavailable. We also have some Via powered TFTP servers. We have some lower end servers running on AMD 64's, and a few workstations, but for mission critical apps I always want Xeon systems. At home I've been using AMD since I got my 486DX2-80 many years ago. I've also has Cyrix and IBM chips, a Winchip and even a Nexgen. I'll use anything.

by stargazerr

I asked around about via...they say that, via processors hang a lot and the chipset ain't very reliable either....what do you think??

by house

...and Intel for business. I'm probably going to get a lot of flack for this one, but I've used Intel chips for a long time... I've only ever had an AMD chip once, but I just snagged an older K7S5A...

http://www.ecsusa.com/products/k7s5a_v3.html

...so I'm on the lookout for some parts here and there. The board was free and used, so I don't really feel like dropping good cash on it.

by stargazerr

I am planning on using AMD right now...AMD is more powerful compared to Intel, if you dont count that you gotta keep its head cool

by choppit

At home the last two I've bought have been AMD,purely on the basis of cost. Heat has been an issue when gaming but I don't game often. For the business I always buy Intel and will not even consider AMD. If the price/spec were the same I'd always buy Intel.

by tomsal

There horrible (or lack there of actually) marketing.

So many people have your mindset...Intel=reliable, AMD=not reliable. Intel=performance, AMD=under performing.

Why? Because Intel is the CPU processor market equivalent of a well-known movie star, while AMD is (for reasons only God knows) still playing as if they are doing high school plays.

Its almost like they are afraid of standing up to Intel with their ad campaigns.

The funny thing is, and several tech sites have done the reporting and testing on this, the AMD Opteron smoked the Xeon, completely and totally in tests and database simulations.

Now of course we geeks know that tests and simulations are not real life -- but still, the results were pretty impressive. AMD smacked Intel around like a red-headed step child to be honest.

Realiably has never been an issue with my experience on AMD processors, in 10 years I've had a few Intel and a few AMD, in that time one AMD burnt out but it was because there was inadequate cooling in my case -- this was several years ago too, when the chips were even worse with the heat. Mean while I had two Intel's fail a P2 and a P3 (just recently actually over at my folks).

Its just a shame that AMD does fight Intel harder, and they don't do the "glitzy" ad thing like Intel does.

by bfilmfan

You'd swear they hired them straight from Novell!

And I enjoyed the analogy of movie stars and high school plays as being most apt.

As for myself, I run AMD in my home systems and where I am given the choice at work.

A point I didn't see mentioned is the relationship between Intel and Microsoft. A larger pair of incestouous twins you'd be hard pressed to discover, yet amonst all the Microsoft bashing online, you seldom see Intel getting mucked as much, while employing a large number of the same tactics.

by choppit

My AMD prejudices originated from years ago in the days of the 486 when I was advised that Cyrix CPUs regularly got cooked, AMD was cheap, but only 98% compatible and that Intel CPUs couldn't be beaten. Whilst these 'facts' are no longer relevant, mud sticks. The glitzy Intel ads never did anything to sell me Intel CPUs and I have to say that I've always been a little uncomfortable with AMDs chip numbering system.

by gunnar klevedal

I was asked the same question many years ago, about AMD vs INTEL.

I asked myself: How is it possible for AMD to construct an X86 , with the instruction set of an X86, without infringing all the patents INTEL had.
Possibly they even used INTEL's MicroCode. I said to my self: - An AMD processor cannot possibly be compatible.

But odd enough, they seem to work

Regards, Gunnar Klevedal

by stargazerr

But AMD seems to be leading the processor war right now....tests are great but they dont really give you the real picture...It is the real world gaming that tells you what's going on inside your processor...

AMD tends to heat up a bit from what I know...other than that...I would vouch for it..

by stargazerr

I thought AMD was better in performance.....was I wrong?? Clarify please.....People keep telling me that AMD 2.0 GHz will work better than Intel with the same processing power...ain't that true??

by choppit

I'm not particularly clued up on CPU benchmarking, but I suspect you'll find that performance for the two varies depending on the usage. Best bet is probably to buy based on the intended usage rather than average performance figures.

by cfk

The thing to remember is that the AMD vs Intel battle is as much for mind-share as market-share.
Intel still produce a plethora of chips and chipsets that most people take for granted because these are not the high-profile CPU chip-sets that grab media and mind-share attention.
AMD is grabbing headlines in the CPU area for the desktops, but have hardly made a dent in the laptop CPU's yet, and have definitely not made much (consistent) impact in printers, embedded controllers, large-scale farms, or scaled-down systems such as PDA's. There are a number of players that are niche in each of these fields, as well as Intel, but Intel does have a head-start on many of them and has the bigger pockets.
Who will win is not really important to me - it is better to see and foster competition that forces continuing improvement in all parts of the computing hardware and supporting firmware.

by tomsal

Performance wise AMD has been outdoing Intel (when compared to systems with similar components/configurations and using processors with similar "performance ratings") for at least a solid 18 months now, if not longer.

Price/performance wise AMD has been the better value for literally years.

Heat? Yep well, its hard to say if AMD is still hotter, as even the higher speed Intel's run pretty darn hot now as well. On this one I'd say at the moment they are pretty close to each other -- perhaps AMD is a tiny bit hotter, but nowhere near the different it used to be. Intel chips used to be like air conditioners next to AMD.

Bottom line, in my experience is they both make good chips. Overall when I take all the benchmark data, through in a cheaper cost and stir...I come out with the opinion I've held for a few years now -- AMD is the best value. Still. And I actually do think, at least for a gaming PC, the FX series is the creame of the crop right now.

But, Intel has some impressive products as well -- even though you pay a bit more for them. When in comes to laptops the Centrino product is simply great for instance. I know very common sense idea, but hey Intel is the one who actually made that idea reality and it works great. Bench marks are still showing that Intel has an edge (although an edge that is getting thin) in number crunching apps. I see database performance and complex spreadsheets (key word is complex, not talking about your little personal expense spread sheet here but hardcore math used in THOUSANDS of cells)
better with the Intel line.

So I think this way..if you never game (or its only a "casual" thing for you) and you mostly do heavy crunching...Intel may be better, if you want to pay more. Of course to be hoenst how many of us, even executives among us, create spreadsheets so huge that you'll notice the difference with a Intel versus AMD solution?

Anyway...just sounding off my 2 1/2 cents.

later.

by roger99a

And nowdays Cyrix is the coolest running chip made, AMD's chips are the most compatable and Intel is faking 64 bit and "hyperthreading" because their high end chips are inferior to AMD's.

This discussion is closed to new replies.