AMD or Intel?
- Thread starter havass
- Start date
Recommended Videos
AMD: Higher overclock ranges, better bang for your buck
Intel: Lower power consumption (and thus heat), high spectrum of performance
That's pretty much it. I'd say go for AMD unless you're looking for something higher than it's top of the line, in which case Intel.
Intel: Lower power consumption (and thus heat), high spectrum of performance
That's pretty much it. I'd say go for AMD unless you're looking for something higher than it's top of the line, in which case Intel.
I'm using an AMD PhenomII 945 Processor, quad core, 3 Ghz. It works wonderfully, and is as fast as I would ever need it to be in the foreseeable future. If you're looking into getting a new processor, I would check out newegg.com and look for bundle deals with motherboards. You can get some great parts for really cheap.
I always went with AMD.
While Intel usually has the most top-of-the-line parts available, I always found AMD to have more bang for yer' buck.
Plus their tech support is fantastic. When I was having problems with my CPU fan, I called them up and they sent me a new one free of charge (I didn't even have to send the old one back).
While Intel usually has the most top-of-the-line parts available, I always found AMD to have more bang for yer' buck.
Plus their tech support is fantastic. When I was having problems with my CPU fan, I called them up and they sent me a new one free of charge (I didn't even have to send the old one back).
It depends on your budget. If you have several hundred dollars and want a stupid fast quad core, pick Intel. Was looking at their Core i7s a year ago, and those thing are quite amazing. http://bit.ly/6aIl4l If you're looking for a relatively fast, cheap processor, AMD. Budget forced me to pick up a 2.7 GHz dual core AMD last spring for $80 (mobo included). Run great so far, and its designed to overclock well. Haven't done it yet, but with factory fan (and the multiple fans on my case) I estimate I'll be able to run it at 3.2 GHz with little problem.
Go with what your budget lets you get.
Go with what your budget lets you get.
Always been AMD and will always remain so. Other than my complete dislike of Intel, AMD has always served me well regardless of what I've thrown at it. Currently own a Phenom II X4 955 (3.2Ghz Quad) and I've never seen it above 57C at full load, even when the ambient here hits 45C (No aircon either). Got a full kickass system for under $2000!
My only gripe is the lack of support for their overclocking software and features (I bought Black Edition Memory RAM and can't get the feature to work at all, and AMD wouldn't help at all). I understand not helping with suggested overclocks and problems caused by overclocking but if you're gonna make your software a selling point at least support it at stock conditions like every other software company!
Grand Admiral
My only gripe is the lack of support for their overclocking software and features (I bought Black Edition Memory RAM and can't get the feature to work at all, and AMD wouldn't help at all). I understand not helping with suggested overclocks and problems caused by overclocking but if you're gonna make your software a selling point at least support it at stock conditions like every other software company!
Grand Admiral
Intel I guess. Intel doesn't really have a good overclock range, but sometimes some models (like my Q9450) seem to overclock as easily as pouring a glass of water and can OC huge amounts.
AMD is nice bang for your buck, but like the guys/gals above said AMDs crash more often.
AMD is nice bang for your buck, but like the guys/gals above said AMDs crash more often.
Neither.
MUHAHAHAHAHA
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kMs_q1g_CmQ/SHVRUpZmhhI/AAAAAAAAB-g/zmKqdgXgrFo/s400/Mr%2BBurns%2BEvil%2BLaugh.png
But, intel.
MUHAHAHAHAHA
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kMs_q1g_CmQ/SHVRUpZmhhI/AAAAAAAAB-g/zmKqdgXgrFo/s400/Mr%2BBurns%2BEvil%2BLaugh.png
But, intel.
just used that one since it was closest, i agree with the sumup.veloper said:
and since i have always had budget restrictions, i've always had AMD.
it's not that i need too much prosessing power anyway, i just don't need to be able to open 200 browserpages, start and play Avatar and lending my CPU power to 5 different scientific research studies worldwide... at the same time.
(and just for chuckles, i run a AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+)
Last I looked was two years ago when I bought mine.
What I saw is that AMD is cheaper enough that for the same price AMD gives you the next step of what Intel gives.
However AMD at same levels consumes more energy.
But that's just something you can see yourself looking the models to buy.
So... why did I post? I've not really helped.
What I saw is that AMD is cheaper enough that for the same price AMD gives you the next step of what Intel gives.
However AMD at same levels consumes more energy.
But that's just something you can see yourself looking the models to buy.
So... why did I post? I've not really helped.
AMD was king, but now it's Intel all the way. If you want something awesome for a decent price, find a list of CPU batch numbers from Intel that have been downclocked and sold as a lower range model, then OC them yourself back to what they're meant to be. It'll save you a fortune.