Was just wondering what the Escapist's opinions are.
I prefer Intel because of the high-caliber processors.
I prefer Intel because of the high-caliber processors.
AMD vs Intel Processors (Intelligent Discussion)
- Thread starter MazeMinion
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I prefer AMDs cause it gives me a bang for my buck, so I can spend more on a GPU. What else could there be to discuss about it, that's intelligent?
Allow me to break the mold here and get technical (Read: Literal).
Intel builds processors with more grunt at the core itself, while AMD focus' on BUS speed and on-core Cache with slightly wimpier core speed.
Intel is stable, but difficult to Overclock. AMD is easy to tweak about with, but isn't as stable.
Carry on.
Intel builds processors with more grunt at the core itself, while AMD focus' on BUS speed and on-core Cache with slightly wimpier core speed.
Intel is stable, but difficult to Overclock. AMD is easy to tweak about with, but isn't as stable.
Carry on.
I like how he claims 'intelligent discussion' but does not post anything that shows research on either subject. Just an opinion.himemiya1650 said:
AMD has always been "the underdog", initially designing well-made chips that weren't necessarily as good as their Intel equivalents, but they were cheaper so budget conscious system builders used them. And then came the original Athlon, and for once AMD had a product that was clearly, ridiculously superior to what Intel was selling at the time (the craptastic Pentium 4) - this would be when the enthusiast crowd first started paying serious attention and the entire concept of an AMD vs Intel thread originated.
These days though Intel is putting out a very solid product and AMD seems to be playing catch-up most of the time. Their chips are still cheaper though, so I still use them when I'm building systems, even if they're not necessarily the "best". Thanks to their very different core architectures, determining whether any individual model will be slower/faster than the competitor's equivalent offering tends to be tricky without benchmarking, as the 'measuring factor' means very different things depending on which chipset you are looking at.
And that's about all I really have to say on the topic.
These days though Intel is putting out a very solid product and AMD seems to be playing catch-up most of the time. Their chips are still cheaper though, so I still use them when I'm building systems, even if they're not necessarily the "best". Thanks to their very different core architectures, determining whether any individual model will be slower/faster than the competitor's equivalent offering tends to be tricky without benchmarking, as the 'measuring factor' means very different things depending on which chipset you are looking at.
And that's about all I really have to say on the topic.
I'm an AMD fan. Sure I'd love an overclocked i7-920 running at a reliable 4ghz, but there's no way I could justify the cost when I already have an AMD X6 that I could O.C. to a pretty repectable 3.6ghz (slower clock speed, but two more cores).
I love the fact that AMD exist, decent competition can only be good for the consumer.
I love the fact that AMD exist, decent competition can only be good for the consumer.
I do like AMD's "bang for your buck", and it's budget-friendly processors.
But I think for more serious PC gaming, Intel is the way to go. But AMD makes decent processors.
But I think for more serious PC gaming, Intel is the way to go. But AMD makes decent processors.
Personally I have an intel i5 processor and that thing runs like it was made of black magic. I don't really have any technical experience as to WHY it runs so well, but there you have it. I want to marry it.
From every chart I've seen in the last 2 years, AMD is the best bang for you buck if you are a gamer. They are neck-and-neck with similar rated Intel processors while being nearly half the price. The edge Intel has is in number crunching. Any process that involves compressing data or calculations the AMDs fall flat on. You have to go back a generation or so just to get similar Intel performance.MazeMinion said:
So bottom line, if you are a gamer and ONLY a gamer, AMD is the way to go. If you are an all-purpose PC user (I am), then Intel is what you need.
I have only built one rig so far and like many went with AMD due to it's generous price.I'm very satisfied with the performance it's a classy product great quality at an even greater price.
Although when I go to build a new and hopefully I'll have a real job by then,I'm gonna go with Intel.
Although when I go to build a new and hopefully I'll have a real job by then,I'm gonna go with Intel.
I don't hold to brand loyalty, I'll buy whatever is the best at the time I buy my system. I have a QX9650 that stubbornly refuses to be stable over 3.7Ghz, and a HD 4890 GPU. The QX was second hand from a video guy who was upgrading to 1366 and was oh so cheap, cheaper than the e8500 it replaced. I'll wait for the dust to settle from the launch of Sandybridge and Bulldozer, but the locked down CPUs Intel is planning is nudging me towards AMD.
Just a quick addition to the thread.
Tonight, I downloaded AMD Overdrive, wound my CPU voltage up by 0.025v and then proceded to overclock it to just over 3Ghz (AMD Phenom 2 X6 1055t, originally 2.8Ghz).
Might not sound like much, but it's a six core processor, running on standard cooling! I saw 41 degrees during a 5 minute 100% load test, apparently 55 degrees is safe, so I can still wind it up a little. I'd like to see 3.4Ghz.
This is why I like AMD. I've never ever overclocked anything, and within two nights of research and some half-informed fiddling, I've instantly got a faster machine!
From what I hear, Intel are being right bastards to the OC'ers.
Tonight, I downloaded AMD Overdrive, wound my CPU voltage up by 0.025v and then proceded to overclock it to just over 3Ghz (AMD Phenom 2 X6 1055t, originally 2.8Ghz).
Might not sound like much, but it's a six core processor, running on standard cooling! I saw 41 degrees during a 5 minute 100% load test, apparently 55 degrees is safe, so I can still wind it up a little. I'd like to see 3.4Ghz.
This is why I like AMD. I've never ever overclocked anything, and within two nights of research and some half-informed fiddling, I've instantly got a faster machine!
From what I hear, Intel are being right bastards to the OC'ers.
I've always been an Intel/Nvidia fan. I've had bad experiences with ATi and zero experiences with AMD. I grew up on Intel, so I'll most likely stick with it.
I've never used an ATI GPU. My first card was an 8600GT and I'm now running a GTX 460.naughtynazgul said:AMD is great for their costower ratio IMO.
As for GPUs, Nvidia has better support by a long shot. ATI drivers are a pain to setup and they take forever to be released.
The only problem I have is that it runs quite noisy when being pushed hard. Although I think my standard cooler on the CPU is a bit whiney too. But overall, I'm really happy with the NVidia stuff, I just wish the dual screen setup option wasn't gimped when running FSX and FRAPS, I just can't get it running right :/
Against the highest AMD the highest Intel is superior, but nowhere near superior enough to warrant the difference in price. For 1/4 the price I will get a processor from AMD that will have a negligible difference in pure power to the Intel equivalent, at least in regards to anything that anyone would do on a home PC.