AMD VS INTEL

[dim505]

I got my self a phenom 955 cause it was a cheap quad core and it has a unlocked multiplier. I would of went with the i3 2100 if its was overclockable ohh well. LET the trolling begin!!!

[dre009]

I got my self a phenom 955 cause it was a cheap quad core and it has a unlocked multiplier. I would of went with the i3 2100 if its was overclockable ohh well. LET the trolling begin!!!

I was about to create a thread like this, as i need to buy a new laptop. Last one burned up friday and it was an AMD killing me with overheating problems.

so lets see indeed ^_^

[toyo]

I doubt this poll has any use whatsoever. Why don't you ask for help in a thread? People might advise you what to buy with real arguments...

[Veboy]

I Like'em Both.

[shought]

It all depends on your budget. If you want the greatest 'bang for buck' I would recommend AMD most of the time, but if you're looking to spend quite some money on a powerful system then Intel might be my preference.

[Frosticles]

if your on a strict budget then i would go AMD (i have a 965) but if you could then i would recommend spending a little more and going intel.

[anuraag]

Intel

[tipo]

AMD

[dre009]

I've made up my mind, Intel for my money B)

[Tarik]

INTEL

[lordi]

with the cheap price compare than INTEL , I can get fast speed and unlock proc :dance2:

AMD for me :wub:

[Sonar]

AMD.

Even though im sat on a intel laptop.

[maniac2003]

I have a hard time to choose. -_-

Intel has a performance advantage but somehow I have a weak spot for AMD. I think my old Athlon XP and later on my FX-53 are the reason. :D

Now we have a all Intel infrastructure at home, so time for AMD to strike back :ph34r: :lol:

[SnakeMasteR]

Can`t complain about Intel because i have AMD at moment so there is no competition

for me on that poll, dunno which one i would prefer, because i haven`t tested Intel. :lol:

[R0H1T]

As pointed out earlier -

If you're on a tight leash go for AMD otherwise Intel's mid range(not the exotic EE line) is good bang for buck ! AMD though has been improving lately & even though its gonna lag Intel on pure CPU performance it has more than offset that gap with the GPU cores that are now bundled in its latest processors & as we're seeing lately that next gen graphics are needed by alot of apps these days my money is on the underdog in this race cause the days of x86 dominance is definitely gonna come to an end with ARM catching up as well.

P>S> Wising them luck I do hope AMD FX line of processors alongwith their APU's do better going forward ;)

[LeetPirate]

Even with this new APU thing from AMD they were predefeated by Intel i-series so it's not even a competition anymore. AMD can't get any significant performance boost without changing the architecture and this is where Intel is ahead of them by 2 generations of CPU already and Bulldozer is nowhere in sight. That APU is the same K10 architecture from Athlon II except that they integrated a GPU, the K10 was already defeated by the first generation of Intel i-series processors.

Since there are only few apps that make use of 4 independent threads it is easy for most users to get better performance from a dual core Sandy Bridge cpu with hyper threading than from a quad core Athlon II apu. I heavily weight price, performance, and power usage when deciding what cpu to buy. Most people confuse TDP for power usage but in reality Intel Sandy Bridge uses less power than AMD APU despite both processors having the same TDP rating. When I consider that I could pay 20 bucks more for a dual core Sandy Bridge with HT and it will perform faster than Athlon II quad core for all my favourite apps and games and it will reduce my electric bill by more than the extra 20 bucks over the 3 years I intend to keep it and that I can realistically get more work done with my time if I use the Sandy Bridge then it justifies the cost for me.

Of course I still have an Athlon II system around and I do recommend the AMD cpu to many people because it is widely available in my country and the prices are good. For my own system though I tend to do a deep analysis before purchasing. My last 2 processors were AMD Athlon X2 and AMD Athlon II X2 but my current one is Intel because it works out better for me based on my analysis.

[kacangijo]

AMD. And in my next desktop I would choose (still) AMD. :dance2:

[R0H1T]

But when you take into consideration that everything today needs power hungry graphics, that is the real bottleneck rather than an x86-64 CPU not to mention even the most advanced apps available aren't fully optimized for dual core(let alone quad core) processors even less for the 64 bit extension to the x86 architecture. Going forward AMD is betting on that GPU side of things as they're trying to move as much computing onto the GPGPU/parallel processing side as possible. Majority of PC owners(desktop/notebook) out there, like me, depend on IGP where AMD beats anyone in sight hands down. The overall power draw/efficiency could well be in favor of AMD not Intel, if you take todays graphic intensive apps/platforms into consideration, perhaps one of the reasons why AMD/Nvidia/Via walked out of that benchmark alliance for the PC industry !

[T0nyB]

Both. AMD is best for bang for the buck, but Intel in best for it's performance. My choice would be AMD though... (Because I'm not rich enough to afford Intel :P)

EDIT: I got AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Black Edition in my desktop computer (which I use mainly for gaming) and AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-58 on my ancient and often frustrating Dell Inspiron 1521. (For which I still haven't found the optimal OS for the best performance for (seems to be Win XP, but Win 7 runs with some problems but smoother on it, so I'll stick to Win 7 on it for now...))

[FreeRyde]

AMD provides the best dollar value, and is quite satisfactory for most applications.

You get what you pay for. I've always been happy with AMD.

It depends on your intended use.

For video processing, etc... under load my Intel i5 2500 leaves my daughter's AMD Phenom 2 X6 1100T CPU in the dust.

[hackerz14]

I vote for AMD... its cheaper!!! but good...

[zeon22]

Intel always :dance2:

[dim505]

AMD provides the best dollar value, and is quite satisfactory for most applications.

You get what you pay for. I've always been happy with AMD.

It depends on your intended use.

For video processing, etc... under load my Intel i5 2500 leaves my daughter's AMD Phenom 2 X6 1100T CPU in the dust.

actually 1100t does pull out in front of i5 in video editing only because it has 6 cores and the i5 has 4

[payday]

I choose intel. is undoubtedly the best! Anyone here ever seen an intel burned? :fear:

Detail: I do not work on intel... :lol:

[RadioActive]

I choose intel. is undoubtedly the best! Anyone here ever seen an intel burned? :fear:

THAT's your reasoning? No offense, but that's just sad! And yes, I've seen plenty of CPUs get burned INCLUDING Intel. Be it a bad batch, lousy ventilation, or even a busted fan. It happens regardless of the brand!

I don't care about the performance difference as opposed to Intel products because I don't really *need* it, neither most people. Most people simply *want* more performance regardless wether it has any actual impact on their day-to-day use.

AMD offers the biggest-bang-for-the-buck and that's what I always look for when it's time to upgrade. Intel products on the other hand are costly and usually a dead-end when it comes to upgradability since Intel like to release a new chipset every so often.