Our forums are currently in maintenance mode and the ability to post is disabled. We will be back up and running as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience!

General discussion


When purchasing corporate desktops, which processors do you prefer?

By jasonhiner Moderator ·
- Intel
- A mix of both
- No preference

What is your preference and why?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Im courious about everyones anser to this

by DanLM In reply to When purchasing corporate ...

Im looking to buy a new home computer, and I have been a die hard AMD fan. Just because it has been a bigger bang for the buck with the same punch.

I just read an article(somewhere) where the new dual processor that Intel offers is alot cheaper and delivers the same punch as the AMD.

Im courious to see what people say because of that.


Collapse -

From what I've seen the new Intel's

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Im courious about everyon ...

Beat the socks off the AMD's without a second look and by the looks of things currently AMD doesn't have a technical answer.

But go and look at the AMD Retail Prices you'll find that they have recently dropped dramatically should have been about 2 days ago now so that new pricing may not as yet have worked it's way through to the buyer.


Collapse -

Prefer Intel

by Crash84 In reply to From what I've seen the n ...

I had always been an AMD advocate because you could get the same proformance and a lower cost. Until I built my first Intel computer. When using AMD chips I was always dealing with incompatibilities with hardware and it seemed like I was always tweaking something to make it run with the AMD chip. With my first Intel computer everything worked together right out of the box, no incapatabilities. I actually get to use my computer instead of working on it all the time. So in light of that fact I always use Intel chips even though they cost more.

Collapse -

That has been one of the problems with AMD for a long time

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Prefer Intel

They only make the CPU's and not the chip sets that go with them so you can have some major incompatibility issues.

It's also something that I've been telling AMD for quite some time as well and finally they appear to be doing something to address this issue with their attempted buy in on ATI. If that works out all the Compatibility Issues that we used to see could be a thing of the past. But even with Intel CPU's if you use a different Chip Set M'Board you can run into problems but when you use Intel Chip Sets things just work without a second thought.

Personally I've lost count of the number of times that I've had to return a Video Card because it prevented a M'Board from doing anything at all and I thought that I had finally found a solution by buying all the same brand components reasoning that if Manufacture A builds a M'Board & Video card they will have tested the components together and they will work. No such luck but what drives me nuts is that the same chip set Video card from a different maker will work perfectly with that M'Board so it has to be the way that the chip set is integrated onto the Video Card and it drives me nuts. Now whenever I build a New AMD unit I first ring the Service Department of my main supplier and ask if there are any known conflicts between different components before placing the order. It's time consuming and should be unnecessary but as yet it isn't.

Although to be fair to AMD when you get one that works it works quite nicely without problems but the original setup can be a killer.


Collapse -

For Mission Critical Appliances

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to When purchasing corporate ...

Intel CPU's on Intel Chip Set M'Boards. They are just plain ans simple more reliable than using multiple suppliers of different parts to do the same thing.

For things that are not Mission Critical I don't care but currently every business that I do work for uses Intel as their Mission Critical Stuff and has Intel so as to keep things standard they tend to retain an all Intel Product Lineup. That's their decision not mine I can work with either without a problem.

Though when it comes to NB's the Intel Centrino is defiantly the way to go they just whip the AMD alternatives with out a second thought.

When it comes to Multi Media Production the Macintel with OSX installed is the only way to fly, I've yet to meet a Graphic Designer who will use a IBM Clone as their preferred workstation as they just lack the ability to do the required job, or maybe the people are so used to using Mac's that they don't want to learn a new product as their current platform works OK for them.

Edited to add the bit about the Mac's.

Collapse -

Some insight

by yobtaf In reply to For Mission Critical Appl ...

I'm in the media business and a Mac addict. This is true of most
of Hollywood and Madison Ave but not the rapidly growing game

You have to keep in mind that most art schools are Mac based
for all graphic work except for 3D. This only makes sense when
you consider that desktop publishing started on the Mac.

Like the the corporate world, we have a lot invested in our OS (If
I switched, which I once considered once, for financial reasons, I
would have to get all new licenses for my software, which would
cancel out the benefit of cheaper hardware). Though some have
always used Windows because Mac never had a good 3D

I happen to know quite a bit about Windows because I need a
few applications that aren't available on the Mac. I also maintain
my wife's PC because she either can't or wouldn't do it. (as you
know, all computers, no matter what the OS require regular

Unfortunately, I like many others, don't have the resources or
time to make a personal comparison of hardware. And now with
the introduction of BootCamp and the probability that BootCamp
will be incorporated into OS X Leopard, we will have even less
reason to use PC hardware.

Some say that the Mac will be faster then Windows on the same
chip set, but I take this as just a lot of speculation and believe
that the performance will be at least very similar.

Again I don't know for sure, but some 'experts" say that a
comparable PC costs just about the same as a Mac.
If the Mac is more expensive, I and many others Mac addicts, are
willing to pay more because we feel that the Mac is just more
fun and easier to use (but this can be debated).

There are two PC platforms that are attractive to me: The BOXX
Technologies machines because they are incredibly powerful
workstations optimized for 3D work, and HP, because they are
doing some revolutionary development with their compression
technology [in beta now] to allow 3D artists to work with shared
files on a remote server in real time.

Apple, in the mean time, has further solidified it's domination of
the 2D world by introducing FinalCut Pro (which is eroding
Avid's market domination of nonlinear offline editing),
purchasing Shake (the industry standard for compositng), then
dropping the price to an unbelievable $499 (the PC equivalents
are close to $2,000) and introducing Aperture (a direct challenge
to Adobe's domination of the photo editing world).

Things are looking good for Mac addicts like me.

I hope this is informative to someone.

Long live Apple!
Long live Windows!

Collapse -

Intel Celeron

by HereInOz In reply to When purchasing corporate ...

For a desktop which is used, as most desktop machines are, for office applications, internet, email, and not much else, I have found the latest Intel Celerons to be very good performers, and good value for the money.

The boards to support them are relatively inexpensive, and the machines really do move along quite nicely.

I used to be an AMD advocate, particularly after they got the fans quieter and the heat output lower, but the latest Celerons, for a destop machine, are hard to beat, and run quiet and cool.

Collapse -


by NOW LEFT TR In reply to When purchasing corporate ...

Now - Intel Duo for Desktops (P4 before this)
Stable and reliable

Pentium M on Laptops - Now Duo as well.
More powerfull than the AMD.

Intel Xeon for Servers.
Just works.

Collapse -

Hardware benchmarks only as good as the software.

by SilverBullet In reply to Intel

I purchase corporate micro devices depending on the applications and user's abliliy. The corporate secretary's requirements and the AUTO-CAD draftsman will never see the same environment. My hardware choice will always complement the software first. The desire for sitting on the edge of the most current technology is not a fiscally sound "business" practice.

Collapse -

Either, as long as you buy enough of them ...

by Too Old For IT In reply to When purchasing corporate ...

... to run a managed environment.

That is the biggest thing, standard hardware, standard software, the ability to ghost a machine when you have to.

Related Discussions

Related Forums