Amd Vs Intel see which brand of processor is more popular

[bakuryu 0]

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 0]

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 0]

'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 0]

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 0]

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...


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 0]

thanxxx man

[williamm 0]

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 0]

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).

Edited July 31, 2008 by prithvi (see edit history)

[TetraUK 0]

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 5]

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 0]

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 0]

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 0]

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 3]

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 0]

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.