What Processor Do You Prefer?

[bonniecool 0]

What processor do you like to use?These processor has their own functions in every uses which processor do you prefer to use. Even in work or just in gamin?

Notice from BuffaloHELP:

Edited title's grammar.

Edited October 25, 2005 by BuffaloHELP (see edit history)

[Rubyducky 0]

If I am gaming, I like AMD. If I'm going to do everyday work, then I'd choose Intel. Intelis more compatable with more programs, but AMD works games better.

[E-Sector 0]

IBM Power PC IS the Best processors. Then I think AMD is on the second place, intel is so slow.

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

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

[gotenx 0]

AMD beats intel and powerpc all the way. Much more stable and fast. Theres nothing else I can say but try it yourself.

[grnjd 0]

Amd is better because my notebook has it So im bias, but it is truly better since its more stable, has more power, but its sad that its not that compatible. Intel is like the internet explorer of processers, while amd is like mozilla

[hulunes 0]

interesting,after my voting the result is deuce(both are 42.6%).although its huge amounts of transistors make huge quantity of heat...from the market foreground,intel will be the winner furthermore last to the real 64bit time(having to admit that AMD is powerful in CISC family indeed).

[mayank 2]

I have AMD Athlon 64 bit 3000+ and it is working for me and giving me the performance i want and that too at a lower rate. The only downside of this processor is that it is having less l2 cache and that is of only 512 kb...i would have been better if it was either 1 mb or 2 mb. I dont know how it is possible that processor of speed of 2.0 Ghz is able to compete with Intel's 3.0 Ghz and that is the reason why they call it 3000+..strange huh?

[electriic ink 1]

Notice from cmatcmextra:

Malish and tdktank59 both your posts in this topic have been deleted because the majority of the content of the post was clear plagerism. This is your last warning, next time none of you will have this message to warn you.

[DreamCore 0]

I am using Amd and I agree, I think its more stable with games than Intel. Intel I think its more for work and programms, not games. So I would preffer AMD if you like gaming. And Intel if you are spending most of you time with C and C++ or making websites or other things.

[T100 0]

I will stick to Intel. Although Athlon outperforms Intel's counterparts in many of the PC mark tests and even Super Pi test, Athlon is not as good in Front Side Bus and memory management. Intel P4 can take up dual channel bandwidth but Athlon is a little bit slow in Ram test. Another bad thing about Athlon is the L2 cache. While intel can provide 2MB cache, most of AMD CPUs only provide 512K, which is only that povided by Athlon. I think CPU's performance depends much on L2 cache and frequency, so I still sticking with Intel. The worst thing about AMD is that it is trying to market its CPUs by a performance value, say 3000+, but the clock speed is much lower then 3G. I really don't like this strategy. If AMD is so proud of its CPUs, why not compute with Intel on the same ground?

[amhso 0]

I will stick to Intel. Although Athlon outperforms Intel's counterparts in many of the PC mark tests and even Super Pi test, Athlon is not as good in Front Side Bus and memory management. Intel P4 can take up dual channel bandwidth but Athlon is a little bit slow in Ram test. Another bad thing about Athlon is the L2 cache. While intel can provide 2MB cache, most of AMD CPUs only provide 512K, which is only that povided by Athlon. I think CPU's performance depends much on L2 cache and frequency, so I still sticking with Intel.

 

The worst thing about AMD is that it is trying to market its CPUs by a performance value,  say 3000+, but the clock speed is much lower then 3G. I really don't like this strategy. If AMD is so proud of its CPUs, why not compute with Intel on the same ground?

197821[/snapback]

The reason why they put 3000+ because they run on a different theory. AMD's specialty is making them run at lower clocks and emulate the actual speed they run at, conserving energy. AMD's have 2mb L2 cache as well, maybe you should do a little more research on a topic. Almost every new AMD 64 cpu provides 1mb L2 cache now. And the biggest difference between these 2 processors, is that for 3000+ you get at the same price as an Intel 3.0ghz, you get 64bit capabilities. You don't seem to get that's the whole new thing. In a few years, most computers will probably be running 64bit. Most servers nowadays run on 64bit processors, but AMD has made the headstart to have them at home for the same cheap price. Xeons and Opterons have used 64 bit for a while, but to get one of those for home use is a waste of money. That's why AMD has their Athlon 64's.

[ChonChon 0]

in fact, AMD Athlon 64 3000+ is cheaper than Intel P4 3.0GHz (comparing AMD socket 939 and Intel socket 775). that's always been the case, yet AMD has always had, and always have better performance than Intel, thats just the way it is. I have an AMD processor and will NEVER purchace a different type of processor. even when Intel P5 comes out, AMD will unleash such a beast, and it will be cheaper, and have better performance!ChonChon

[punkgamr13 0]

The reason why they put 3000+ because they run on a different theory. AMD's specialty is making them run at lower clocks and emulate the actual speed they run at, conserving energy. AMD's have 2mb L2 cache as well, maybe you should do a little more research on a topic. Almost every new AMD 64 cpu provides 1mb L2 cache now. And the biggest difference between these 2 processors, is that for 3000+ you get at the same price as an Intel 3.0ghz, you get 64bit capabilities. You don't seem to get that's the whole new thing. In a few years, most computers will probably be running 64bit. Most servers nowadays run on 64bit processors, but AMD has made the headstart to have them at home for the same cheap price. Xeons and Opterons have used 64 bit for a while, but to get one of those for home use is a waste of money. That's why AMD has their Athlon 64's.

197960[/snapback]

wow.. i was about to say the same thing... i cant believe that people actually say something without knowing what theyre talking about... it may be 2.0 or 2.2 GHz AMD, but its name is in comparison with the intel model's speed

thank u amhso... alas! a smart person!

[srbempire 0]

I've heard that the P4's architechure makes it slower than the Athlon, even though it has higher clock speeds. Evidently the Athlon can do more instructions per cycle or something like that...is there any thruth to this rumor?

[_TyIzaeL_ 0]

AMD processors render graphics with amazing speed. Also, the new 64-bit processors are amazing. I cannot believe the speed I've experienced with them. Not to mention that AMD is one of the "Underdogs" in computer chips. AMD prices are much lower vs Intel. I have experienced more reliable computing with AMD than any other processor I've tried.