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.
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 --from eweek (http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/HP-TouchPad-Needs-68-Weeks-for-Additional-Shipments-142584).
"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."
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.
I prefer intel. It would be more relable, cheaper in case of quality, and best technology have been used to making that.
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.
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.
am using an amd i like it because mine came with a 3.8 processor and its very fast and thats the bauty of having an amd
amd is not profesional cpu , every body buy that , say its not good ,i think intel is better than amd
i personally like intel the best. I have never had an amd but i 100% satified with intel so would just sitck with them.
Intel definitely. Although AMD has been marketing on their high instruction per cycle feature, their more efficient use of power and their being the pioneer in affordable 64 bit CPU, AMD?s CPU fail to deliver what a good CPU should deliver, a large clock time and a good RAM bandwidth. AMD?s CPU generally outperforms Intel?s in terms of floating point and computing power, but when high clock frequency is needed, e.g. during movie compression, AMD?s CPUs generally become much slower. Its limitation on on-chip cache is also preventing its CPU from getting a higher performance. Although AMD?s FX series has been the gamer choice for many years, with support from nVidia highend chipset and SLI, these advantages are not very marked when the price is considered. When you talk about mobile CPUs, then AMD?s market share is even smaller. I don?t know why AMD has not been in the mobile market for so long and I think the reason is that they are not able to produce CPUs with a large amount of cache. Intel?s mobile CPUs generally has a slower clock frequency but owes to its size of cache, their CPUs are usable in low-voltage environment. This is something that AMD should work hard on. Also, I don?t like AMD labeling of CPU using CPU benchmarks instead of clock time, FSB and Cache. CPU benchmarks are very vague thing, with different benchmarks giving conflicting results. On the other hand, clock speed and FSB are more objective readings of performance of CPUS. There is no reason why AMD is afraid of competing with Intel on this front.
I also use amd, they are far cheaper then intel with the the equal amount of performance and speed. Even if amd can't be overclocked very well, i wouldn't overclock it because i'm satified with the speed that im getting from amd
I'm using an AMD Athlon XP, wich has been working perfectly for more than three years. Yet, I have found while asking other people that Intel endures more, but they're really more expensive. As some say about AMD, they are gaining on popularity and so far, are a serious competitor.
AMD, First reason: Is cheaper than Intel.. (huge diference between prices in my country)And 2nd: if you are going to buy Intel, you are going to pay the Intel logo sticker, thats all the diference..... The rest is the same quality and performance.... AMD works really good for me and I recommended it ti everyone to have a reliable computer. AMD rockz!
I perfer intel over amd simply becasue intel don't go:AMD Sempron 2600+! Super fast! That makes it sound like its a 2.6ghz when its probably closer to 2.3ghz.Intel are honest about what you get.
I have always had a an intel but i think i would like Amd a lot better. They have a good reputation and they are known as the best.
|VIEW DESKTOP VERSION||REGISTER||GET FREE HOSTING|