# AMD or Intel



## jimnyc (Oct 2, 2003)

Until my recent debacle, I've had nothing but good luck with my AMD Athlon. It's also starting to look like the problem is motherboard related.

Anyway, I'm going to get a new motherboard, processor & memory down the road. Just trying to get an idea on preferences and why.

Gonna make it a poll, so vote! Give opinions if you have them too!


----------



## janeeng (Oct 2, 2003)

Can't vote on something I know jack shit about!  go with the other one if you had so many problems...


----------



## Jack (Oct 2, 2003)

Hey Jim,

I always fought with Dennis and said I would only use Intel. The past three computers have had AMD CPU's and I love them. The price is so much better and I can't find any fault. If you can remember days before AMD, Intel was always screwing the public because of no competition.


----------



## Jackass (Oct 2, 2003)

I totally agree with Jack. For the price diff..you can get 2 AMD's no??


----------



## jimnyc (Oct 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jackass _
> *I totally agree with Jack. For the price diff..you can get 2 AMD's no?? *



Just about, yes! I'm looking around in the 2GHz range and most AMD cpu's are around $80-120 dollars. Similar Intel processors are $159 and up. Bigger difference with older chips. My 1.53GHz cpu can be bought for $45 where the comparable Intel P3 is around $100


----------



## janeeng (Oct 2, 2003)

Too bad, had I have been working at the place i used to I could have gotten you one of each for FREE!!!


----------



## 5stringJeff (Oct 2, 2003)

I voted AMD, for the price, and because I've heard so much good about them.


----------



## eric (Oct 2, 2003)

Jim, don't go crazy comparing the two. There is no right answer to the question. Go with the better value.  We have had this discussion many times and we allways arrive at the same conclusion.  They are almost equal as far as performance, AMD has a slight edge most of the time, but it really depends on the type of code that is running and the OS in use. More importantly the chipset in use can make or break the processor.  This is the problem with the comparison, it all depends on the chipset/processor combination.

This rule of thumb holds true UNTIL you get to the 3.0Gig and faster processors. At this point Intel is clearly the winner.  In every benchmark (independent, not manufacturer) Intel outperforms AMD as long as the chipset are comparable.


----------



## nbdysfu (Dec 24, 2003)

Great article on when you should go for AMD or Intel, high end or low end, specs and tests:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031223/index.html


----------



## SinisterMotives (Jan 12, 2004)

Believe it or not, I'm running Windows XP Pro on a 450 MHz K6-2 and had no problems until I started running out of drive space recently. I'd never consider paying Intel's outrageous prices for an equivalent CPU.


----------



## wonderwench (Jan 12, 2004)

I'm a Mac user.

I hate WinTel machines.

My G4 is 4.5 years old and ever since I upgraded to OS X, it is a lil speed demon.  I'll get another year and a half out of it at least.


----------



## 5.10 leader (Jan 13, 2004)

Wenchie,

I have always used Intel without any problems and with sufficient processing speed for my needs; until recently.

I am  using digital photography more and more, against my better judgement in many ways as I still prefer colour positive film for quality. But for transferring images etc, the digital medium wins hands down and, undoubtedly, the quality is improving almost month by month

And this is where the problems are starting. Even though I have a comparatively new PC, Intel 2.6GHz, 512 ram, it does not exactly scream through photoshop tasks.

Therefore I am looking to join you in owning a Mac, the question is which model. Macs tend to be expensive in the UK due to low volume sales and I am still trying to decide on my budget, bearing in mind software upgrades etc.


----------



## SinisterMotives (Jan 13, 2004)

5.10, are you sure it's not software bloat rather than CPU performance that's causing your imaging software to run slowly? It would be interesting to see a comparison of PowerPC chips vs.  Intel chips using similar Unix-based operating systems. I think everyone will agree that MS Windows is slower and more bloated than the Mach Unix kernel; therefore, comparing Windows to OS X is really an apples-and-oranges comparison.


----------



## wonderwench (Jan 13, 2004)

> _Originally posted by 5.10 leader _
> Therefore I am looking to join you in owning a Mac, the question is which model. Macs tend to be expensive in the UK due to low volume sales and I am still trying to decide on my budget, bearing in mind software upgrades etc. [/B]



The best advice I can give you is to go to an Apple dealer and find out about system performance for the apps you want to use.  I have been using Macs at home sine 1987.  And I am 4.5 years into my third system.  I try to buy the best machine I can afford with a view to using it for several years.  I have a G4 with which I am incredibly happy.  You may want to try buying a used refurbed machine.

I am not to keen on the iMacs, personally.  They do not have enough horsepower for me.


----------



## 5.10 leader (Jan 14, 2004)

> _Originally posted by wonderwench _
> *I have a G4 with which I am incredibly happy.  You may want to try buying a used refurbed machine.*



Thanks Wenchie.

I have been looking at either the Powermac or EMac G4 machines. I would like a G5 but at approx $3000 dollars here for the lowest spec it is too expensive. I have been trying to find a refurbed unit, but with Mac having such a small market share here, they are virtually non-existant.


----------



## CrazyLiberal (May 8, 2004)

Intel IMO.. AMD has some nice processors at good prices, but Intel is here to stay, and AMD's future is more hazy.


----------



## waltky (Oct 21, 2012)

Sagging market demand threatens AMD viability...

*Advanced Micro Devices to slash 2,340 jobs: source*
_Sun, Oct 14, 2012 - DEEP CUTS: In the face of sagging demand for its processors, AMD is looking to trim costs and sources reckon that 30 percent of its workforce could be cut_


> Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD), the second-largest maker of processors for personal computers, plans to cut as many as 2,340 jobs, or about 20 percent of its workforce, a source said.  The cuts are expected to be announced as early as next week, said the source, who asked not to be named because the plans have not been made public. According to the source, at least 10 percent of AMDs staff of about 11,700 will be affected.
> 
> AMD is striving to trim expenses to help it cope with sagging demand for personal computers that rely on its processors. Sales in the third quarter will decline about 10 percent from the previous period, a bigger drop than previously forecast, the Sunnyvale, California-based company said on Oct. 11.  With PC demand being so weak, we dont think the company has any choice but to do some considerable cost-cutting measures, said Betsy Van Hees, an analyst at Wedbush Securities Inc in San Francisco.
> 
> ...


----------



## kacunxx (Nov 5, 2012)

Intel IMO.. AMD has some nice processors at good prices, but Intel is here to stay, and AMD's future is more hazy.


----------



## nitroz (Nov 12, 2012)

The Intel ivy bridge quad core can run a safe overclock of 4.5 GHZ just on air cooling!!
And remember, Intel processors don't have the big GPU in them, so they have more processing power. Which means can crank out more graphics and processing overall. With the intel HD 4000, thats quite the jump from the intel HD 2000 on my i5 sandy bridge.

Quad core with the most processing power accompanied by a 4.5 GHZ clock thats stable?
Yeah, that will get shit done real fast.

Add 32GB of 1600Mhz DDR3 ram, a 64MB cache, high performance 7,200 rpm HDD, and an overclocked GTX 660TI and you got one hell of a beast. You can have an SSD and a few 660ti's in SLI for even better results.


----------



## Bleipriester (Nov 14, 2012)

My Notebook has an AMD Athlon X2 @ 2GHz. It is not as fast as an Intel Core Duo @ 2 Ghz, but for the same money, I would only get an Intel graphics adapter. So I have an ATI HD 3470 Hybrid X2 coming with the Athlon CPU. That´s very fine. You can always call on AMD.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Nov 19, 2012)

What the...who are all these people?


----------



## Bleipriester (Nov 19, 2012)

iamwhatiseem said:


> What the...who are all these people?


??


----------



## emptystep (Nov 19, 2012)

AMD I have picked AMD over Intel given other equals. I don't know if it makes sense my old computers with AMDs seem to perform better than equal Intel equipped machines. Get better with age? Most of my boxes go from Windows to Linux as they age.


----------



## Trajan (Nov 19, 2012)

waltky said:


> Sagging market demand threatens AMD viability...
> 
> *Advanced Micro Devices to slash 2,340 jobs: source*
> _Sun, Oct 14, 2012 - DEEP CUTS: In the face of sagging demand for its processors, AMD is looking to trim costs and sources reckon that 30 percent of its workforce could be cut_
> ...



Intel will never let amd go down.....


----------



## Bleipriester (Nov 19, 2012)

Trajan said:


> Intel will never let amd go down.....


So? What advantge does Intel have maintaining competition?


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Nov 20, 2012)

Bleipriester said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > What the...who are all these people?
> ...



All of the unregistered guest posts.


----------



## devonte (Nov 22, 2012)

I'l go with Amd.


----------



## retro (Dec 12, 2012)

I've used AMD for 10 years and never had any problems.

If I bought new tomorrow I'd choose AMD again


----------



## Mushroom (Jan 1, 2013)

I would buy an AMD, which I did a few weeks ago when I built my wife a new computer.

There are 2 main reasons why I stick with AMD.  And that is "Bang per Buck", and upgradeability.

I know that many of us are wonks who upgrade specific components inside our custom built boxes.  Myself, I built an AM2 computer back in 2007.  In 2008, I replaced the slower 3000 dual core with a 6000 dual core.  Just a CPU swap, nothing else.

This highlights one of the biggest advantages I have found for AMD, socket lifespan.  Intel makes motherboards, so it is in their interest to get people to buy new motherboards.  So you will have multiple sockets curing the lifespan of an Intel processor, each incompatible with the other.

With AMD, I have rarely had that problem (although sometimes motherboards-BIOS have not allowed an upgrade).  Buy a Socket A Sempron 1000, later drop in an Athlon 2400, no problem.  Pull out an AM3 Sempron 150 and throw in a Phenom II Hexacore.

And I doubt that AMD is going away any time soon.  Remember, they also own what used to be ATI, one of the top video chip makers.


----------



## johnstephen1 (Jan 28, 2013)

I always prefer to use AMD instead of Intel.


----------



## Ringel05 (Jan 28, 2013)

iamwhatiseem said:


> What the...who are all these people?



Spammers, read the messages, they're either the same or very similar and their post count is generally under 5.


----------

