Which Do You Prefer Amd Or Intel?

[Cerebral Stasis 0]

I have to agree with the gamers here. Intel, from what I've been told (never used AMD, myself), is better for gaming, whether it be due to their processor builds themselves, or due to game optimization for certain Intel chips. Since I don't run servers or anything like that, I've never had a reason to try anything besides Intel, and I don't plan to, either, since it's walys worked very well for me (although the Intel CPU fans are weak and loud).

[DeveloperX 0]

I well prefer INTEL for workstations and gamestations.

Why AMD-MHz don't equal Intel-MHz?

 

Ever make this off-the-cuff comment? "AMD is only clocked at 2.8GHz, while Intel is at 4.0GHz! Intel is much faster." Learn why it's not such a good idea to say that in the company of those who know.

 

Full article about this MHz (AMD) with that MHz (Intel) on Geek.ChipGeek.

 

Some facts for gamestations on Intel components (from ExtremeTech)

Many of us are familiar with standard gaming benchmarks. Whether you're testing Doom 3, Half-Life 2, or Far Cry, most gaming benchmarks are made from the "Quake Timedemo" mold. They run through a sequence of recorded gameplay or simply walk the player through parts of the game, counting frames and time to give you an average frame rate.

This is good for benchmarking graphics cards because it provides repeatable and predictable results. Every time you run the benchmark, the same thing is displayed on screen. Eliminating variables introduced by normal gameplay is a very useful part of performance evaluation. Ideally, you want to eliminate every variable except the one you're trying to test (a graphics card or CPU, for instance), right?

 

The problem with these gaming benchmarks is that they don't test the true gaming experience during gameplay. When playing back a standard "timedemo" style recorded benchmark, many of the game's systems either don't operate, or function in a controlled, pre-determined fashion. AI, physics, and much of the core game logic are often disabled when playing back recorded benchmark demos. These are CPU-intensive tasks, and removing them from the picture can be useful in graphics benchmarking, but what if you want to see which CPUs perform best in real-world gaming scenarios?

 

 

In this feature, we'll be using a popular program called Fraps to measure performance during real gameplay in six different games across multiple genres. We'll look at how the games run faster and slower over time, and get into a bit of a discussion about "how many frames-per-second is enough." The point is to figure out whether Pentium 4 or Athlon 64 processors make for a better gaming platform, and to this end, we'll compare two CPUs that are easy on the checkbook

Notice from jlhaslip:

non-original material needs to be quoted. please review the Xisto readme.

Edited January 9, 2006 by jlhaslip (see edit history)

[mukund 0]

never used AMD but still i prefer it over Intel. Intel got so many probes.

[PS2-Promods.com 0]

AMD all the way!/...man you can overclock the heck out of this. I dont like intel cause they're already got the corner on the market. What a monolopy!!. GO AMD!!!

[Cerebral Stasis 0]

I'd just like to point out that Intel is hardly a monopoly, and if they would become one, it would not be a result of unfair business practices, but instead by simply driving their competitor out of business due to the quality of their products/services.

[LoTech 0]

Well I'm just about to recieve my nice new computer with a nice AMD 4400+ X2 core I hope it runs as good and they say it does I do lots of image and video editing and I find my current computer being so damn slow and buggy while running so many applications that are power crazy, so the 2x cores and the 2gig ram should help If you can't tell I really am looking forward to this computer and also, a little more on topic, AMD are the way to go for gaming aswel, another hobby of mine

[redhatlx9 0]

Sorry AMD for the win. Fast processors at cheaper prices. Only reason intel is so highly priced is because of the marketing. You will never see a AMD on a dell commercial. The greatest way to compare a AMD and a intel is this. Intel - Covertte, fast car and it can deliver a person to the destination at a amazing speed.AMD - Bus, slwoer mode of transporation but in the end who will deliver more people? The corvette or the bus. By the way that analogie is the way intel and amd work. This is why a amd 3200 is acually only 2.8 ghz the 3200 is its intel equivalent. Higher numbers dont always mean better hardware.

[Chez 0]

AMD for sure. They can't be beat for gaming and my Opteron overclocks like made! I have essentially an FX-60 for only $240 that runs at 60C load on stock cooling. You just can't beat that! CAN'T!

[DonSadarini 0]

I prefer AMD because AMD is cheeper and faster. I have AMD 64 3000+ and of course cpu is overclocked. I cannot image having INtel CPU in my PC. mY amd is cooler and quieter.Intel should bring Pentium M arhitecture to detskop PCs immediately.

[webmaster_2006 0]

I prefer Intel. I never have really worked with AMD. I have only used Intel. How is it faster? Is AMD really better than Intel is? How do you guys know this? DonSadarini, how does it manage to keep your PC cooler and quieter? I know, I sound like a total newbie, but I really do not no much about AMD.

[delivi 0]

I prefer Intel over AMD.Most of you are saying that AMD is Cheaper. I'd like to remind you that It was Intel which did a lot of research and developed the X86 Platform and gave the world the First microprocessor 8085 and it is constantly developing processors and got up to such high level. So there is nothing wrong in Intel Processors being expensive, as they've to get the reward for their hard work.But AMD was not like Intel. They started by producing processors based on the Processor developed by Intel. Their processors were based on the Intel's Processor Blueprints. So there is no wonder their processors based on the Intel Processors are cheaper than the Intel's. The just do some modification on their processors and sold them.Only in the recent years now AMD has started doing research on its own and developed their own processors like the 64Bit core for the desktop users. These products are still steeply priced than the Intel's Desktop products.Intel is the desired brand of Major organistions worldwide like Dell, IBM, HCL etc. and even Apple has stated including Intel processers in ther Mac's. So Intel will remain the undisputed leader of the X86 platform.

[sm00nie 0]

Only in the recent years now AMD has started doing research on its own and developed their own processors like the 64Bit core for the desktop users. These products are still steeply priced than the Intel's Desktop products.
Intel is the desired brand of Major organistions worldwide like Dell, IBM, HCL etc. and even Apple has stated including Intel processers in ther Mac's. So Intel will remain the undisputed leader of the X86 platform.

If you compare 64 bit processors Intel vs AMD, you will find amd cpu's are cheaper as long as your comparing the same specs (dual core vs dual, 64bit vs 64bit and range of course). AMD has been in developement for 10+ years, not just recently.

Dell is planning to offer AMD cpu's soon aswell, IBM was not using Intel cpu's until fairly recently as their primary chipset was their own Intel core cpu, which Apple has been using for years, until the new agreement in the 3rd or 4th quarter of last year.

It's not easy for a newer company to get a large foothold in the community when there is already an established vendor, but so far AMD is doing a fair job. In october they passed Intel in sales quantity for pc users. This margin Intel has on AMD will undoubtably keep decreasing as AMD cpu's are less expensive than Intel. Not to mention the dual core performance that AMD has shown with their cpu's vs Intel's.

Here's a relevant tidbit --

"Recently, Fujitsu-Siemens Computers and Hewlett-Packard—AMD's biggest proponents in the corporate client space thus far—have signed contracts to deliver tens of thousands of AMD-based clients to the U.S. Air Force as well as the German and Mexican governments."

from eweek (http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/HP-TouchPad-Needs-68-Weeks-for-Additional-Shipments-142584).

Also, another article on AMD's gains until the 45nm chipset which will be up for grabs -- http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

AMD is gaining ground quickly and by no means will Intel stand by and let them get it. Both companies have shown a great amount of innovation, and we will have to wait and see if the quad cores bring the performance taht what Intel is hoping for, in comparisson to AMD's.

I have both cpu's: An Intel 3.8GHz (work) and my own AMD 4400+ x2 both run extremely well, but for cost I purchased the AMD simply due to cost and performance compared to Intel's comparable cpu, which ends up saving me a bit of coin.

[PDG 0]

I prefer intel. It would be more relable, cheaper in case of quality, and best technology have been used to making that.

[Vegikachu 0]

This debate has been going on for so many years now. I agree that AMD is cheaper for faster speeds and it can be overclocked and all that fun stuff, but Intel is much more reliable and less prone to failure, at least in my experience. I haven't spent too much time researching the newer additions to each company's product line but for all the systems I've had to maintain, the AMD systems seem to have more problems than Intel. This may be due to the compatibility issues with some hardware and software and how each user (ab)uses the system, but there still is a definite difference in reliability between them. I'll take Intel over AMD any day, whether it's on my systems or on the systems I have to fix.

[Kioku 0]

My entire PC-usage--uhh life I guess I could call it? I've been using an Intel and it's been working fine for me. I see nothing wrong with it in all actuality.