Honesty Rocks! truth rules.

Amd Vs Intel see which brand of processor is more popular

HOME      >>       Science and Technology

farsiscript

i have not any info about hardwarebut when i want buy cpu , i buy intel cpu . i think intel cpu is better i saw intel make dualcpu in one cpu its work faster and ontime for example config 2 cpu at one and they work parallel , for example add 2 , 4H CPU at one = 8MHZ :rolleyes: its very new technologic :lol: it make cpus faster and high power ;) is it true ?


Gondero Werkus

Gondero - I have used AMD since the supposedly 'doomed' k62 450 with its 'heat issues' (never had one, and ran that box for 6 years)

I DEFY you to find a current Intel processor that will outcrunch my AMD. My computer at work runs dual Xeon 800's. While it was in the shop a while back I took in my home machine, which uses an Athlon 64 x2 3800+. Result? Our office is moving to new machines with AMD dualcores. Intel CANNOT compete at any price point with the current AMD line.

Oh, BTW - I am a mortgage broker, so I crunch hard math and use a ton of spreadsheets and other 'pure applications'.



There is reason for that issue you just brought up. See 2 separate processors are slower than a dual core processor because of the architecture connecting the 2 cores. With 2 spearate CPU there is a alot of space between comparativly speaking, with the a dual core processors the CPU's are practicaly on top of each other. And with parallel processing like that the close the two CPU's are the faster they will run and the better they will perform. Not to mention an Intel Xeon is not as good as a Pentium class processor.

But also you were running AMD 64 in the other system. A 64 bit processor definitly handles precision better than a 32 bit like an Pentium it has more space inside to handle longer decimal points. What a long number is to a 32 bit processor is almost default length to a 64 bit. So you take 2 64 bit processors and place them so close together (i.e. on a single chip) you will definitly outmatch a pair of Xeons.

Now try taking an Intel Itanium 2 against your AMD 64 x2 3800+. The Itanium would kill even 4 Xeons.


And as for Pricing:
The AMD 64x2 4800+ is priced at about $632, the AMD 64 FX62 (Which is better than the X2 4800+) retails at $1199

The Pentium D 960 is priced at $564, the Intel Itanium 2 which is the best Server Processor in the world right now does not list a price because it is very expensive.

But AMD does not make server processors.

delivi

Intel will be my all time favourite producer of Processor Chips, since they have involved as an inventer of ICs late in 1950's. AMD is a new kid came into limelight by producing the processors from the processor blueprints released by Intel. Intel spends millions of dollars on its resarch for developing their processors so their processors were priced higher, but as AMD was copying Intel they didnt involve any research costs, so they were able to provide their processors at cheaper price. But now AMD they too have started developing their processors on their own, which are priced higher. I am sure that AMD will never come in par with quality and performance in all aspects like Intel. Long live the Intel.


harad

But now AMD they too have started developing their processors on their own, which are priced higher. I am sure that AMD will never come in par with quality and performance in all aspects like Intel. Long live the Intel.

go away man :)

amd has already beaten intel in terms in overall price / quality / performance ratio! damn those people, if you don't know - don't say it!

it's like saying "Intel is always better and i don't give a f*ck if it's slower and more expensive than AMD." conroe may change many things, but we can't say intel is better than amd, that's just unfair...

The Pentium D 960 is priced at $564, the Intel Itanium 2 which is the best Server Processor in the world right now does not list a price because it is very expensive.
But AMD does not make server processors.


;):(:(

ever heard of opteron man??? amd doesn't make server cpu's??? itanium 2 the best server processor????? what did you smoke that day B)

people if you're so opiniated don't talk, because it ain't even funny... amd doesn't make server cpu's hahahaha...

jamson

I LOVE Intel processors! Its all i can say. I used to have an AMD Athlon 1400 and it always overheated, i replaced fans and heatsinks and it still overheated. It does it in summer and winter, sitting on windows with nothing open and it does it.Right now im sitting on an Intel Celeron 2.4 and have never been happier, its reliable and never overheats.


bakuryu

This is a good article that I found on Intel Vs. AMD ...... (both performance and business related .

 

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

One of the best lines I found there :

But was it really due to Hector Ruiz?s enlighten that AMD?s shorter-pipeline / lower clock-speed architecture beat higher clock speed design of Intel Pentium 4? Probably not. AMD Athlon / Opteron microarchitecture was the only one possible and feasible given AMD?s lagging manufacturing process capacity. AMD?s inferior manufacturing process (i.e. larger transistors) did not allow clock speeds as high as Intel?s without CPUs catching on flames. Therefore AMD?s engineers were forced to purse architectural improvements to achieve performance parity. Hence shorter pipeline, inherently lower clock speed and thus lesser power consumption. How ironic that such manufacturing handicap produced a superior micro architecture!

Should be a good article to read

hajneken

AMD processors are cheaper than Intel's while performance is very similar so that's why many people choose them. But I have three computers with Intel CPUs and I've never had any troubles with them.


plantacja

'm using an AMD cpu. I used to use Intels exclusively, but a friend persuaded me to switch over. Intels while being more expensive really didn't offer me much more that the amd cpu could not fulfill.I suppose the biggest temptation to switch back then was the price, but now I'm noticing a bit superior performance in some of my multimedia applicaitons and games.


masterleous

I have one AMD & 1 Intel Pentium Machine, I check the purformance of AMD Machine with same configuration of Intel Machines and found AMD Faster for graphics works and in Installation and in Gaming and in Processing of different softwares.When i opend several softwares on AMD And Intel Both Machines, than found Slowest purformance of Intel Processor, it looks like a Hang-up PC.So i preferred AMD among Intel


Gondero Werkus

go away man <_<
amd has already beaten intel in terms in overall price / quality / performance ratio! damn those people, if you don't know - don't say it!

it's like saying "Intel is always better and i don't give a f*ck if it's slower and more expensive than AMD." conroe may change many things, but we can't say intel is better than amd, that's just unfair...
:ph34r::(:(

ever heard of opteron man??? amd doesn't make server cpu's??? itanium 2 the best server processor????? what did you smoke that day :(

people if you're so opiniated don't talk, because it ain't even funny... amd doesn't make server cpu's hahahaha...



No I say the Itanium 2 server processor is better because it actually is a true 64 bit processor. The AMD 64 sitting in your computer right now is actually only a 44 bit CPU. The Itanium proved that a real 64 bit processor could be made, and by the way Intel did make the first 64 bit processor, AMD just m,ade the first windows compatible one because it was only 44 bit instead of 64. So yes a 64 bit processor is definitly better than a 44. And if AMD is so much better than Intel how come mainstream merchants like HP, Dell, and Compaq use Intel?


And the whole reason people post here is because they have an opinion and obviously you just said Intel sucks in all forms because AMD is better so why not follow your own advice?

cbm

thanxxx man


williamm

I agree with alot of you, i am an AMD fan, I upgraded my single core amd to a dual core amd ,and i noticed the difference right off.


prithvi

Traditionally AMD processors have been good for pixel-rendering and bitmap-buffering purposes.This includes gaming (faster pixel generations), compositing, video editing, presentations and some multimedia applications.Intel is more geared towards calculative and computing purposes..........e.g. vector applications like Corel, Illustrator, Flash work better on Intel processors. 3D application batch-rendering also works better with Intel CPUs.These are calculated and computed processes.Also for server-based usages, Intel is preferred over AMD.HOWEVER, with the latest processors in both brands, these differences are not much noticeable, regardless of the benchmark tests.........unless the task at hand is of a large scale (where loss of few seconds per frame could result in a loss of many hours/days when you have thousands of frames to be considered).


TetraUK

I have to disagree with you AMD fans, I am an Intel Fan. Been Intel since my first 286.I feel, that Intel Processors are superior (from what I have seen) in almost every task. Such as Word Processing, Photo Editing, Video Editing and Gaming.I Think AMD Processors take to long to initilize when using windows. I am using an Intel Based MacBook and it is great, everything I do runs smoothly and it never freezes (but thats not really down to the processor). I also find that the Intel Dual Cores work better as I think it has a better process management than the AMD which fills one core and then moves on to the next while the intel distributes it evenly.


rpgsearcherz

I prefer intels but just because it's what everyone recommends...In the past my understanding was that AMD was best for gaming but lately everyone says Intel is so it's hard to really know what is really better.At the moment I would just hang out with the dual core instead of quad core though due to prices....Quad costs more now but when it's actually needed it will be much much cheaper.


Accure

Im currently using an AMD 64 X2 5600+... its doing its job and its a very decent processor for games... It can make some noise when its hot inside, but it wont make it run slower... I voted for "the best performance".. since they're both good processors and I didnt have any big complaints while using one of them.


Erdemir

AMD processors are maybe good at playing big games. But AMD is not good enough to run big programs like Solidworks or the other graphic programs. So I decided to stay in Intel processors. My old Intel Core 2 Duo T7100 is still running every programs and games. :)


klusk

I don't really think there is much difference between the two in processing normal jobs (or at least i can't see anything as such), but as far as gaming is concerned,(it is one of the few fields where there processing power can be compared), i think AMD is better than Intel...i have seen it myself... i stay in a hostel and we all have our own PCs...most of us do not use graphics cards, and we all have 1Gb of ram..so now it comes to the processor and of course the motherboard graphics chipset. I have seen that AMD PCs run games better than Intel one's. (almost the same configuration except the processors) NFS most wanted was run by most of the AMD PCs satisfactorily...but intel one's failed to load it..even at lowest graphics config... even FIFA08 is run better by AMD PCs. but the credit may also go to the asus motherboard in AMD PCs used here, which has NVIDIA graphics controller while the Intel PCs have their own integrated intel graphics controller...but anyways i am an AMD fan....


iGuest

Intel is betterAmd Vs Intel

Not to make yall mad but this is the truth... Intel is best performance. AMD is cheap and works fine but if your looking for MAX performance , get the intel. They got the fastest in mobile and station cpus. I.E  (Desktops- now intels has made a corei7 which is to run as a 8core processor but it is a quad core with hyper threading which used to be in the old pentium 4s (reason why pent. 4 rocked so good) some reason they stopped hyper threading but now its back =3. Speeds up to 3.33ghz x8 will deffinatly woop any AMDs azz. For mobile... Intel has the core 2 quad Q9300. Speeds up to 3.06ghz makes is the best mobile cpu. But the cons about Intel is the prices. If you want much expect to pay much. Intel is expensive for what they have to offer. AMD is WAY CHEAPER and would be the best BUT they don't have the technology intel has. ATM AMD has a 6 core optron for their lead. IF AMD had reseached and required 8-core procossers like intel they would own item cuz they would be alot cheaper. Its like the Expensive brand can offer up to the best and the Cheap brand can offer up to mid-way performance. So if you think about it... Intel is in the lead. I always stuck with intel since they made Pentium 4 (awesome cpus) now I got a core 2 quad q6600 and I'm good.


xboxrulz

usually I tend to stick with AMD for a variety of reasons. One of them is that they tend to be cheaper to complete my tasks at an excellent speed. Ideologically speaking, I support AMD because I support competition in any industry. If it's not for AMD, Intel won't really be that innovative and would have processor cost a lot. That or we all go to other architectures if it gets ridiculous.AMD's the only x86 competitor left.