Which processor do you prefer? Why?

Whichever is faster at the time of purchase.

When I bought this one, it was pentium, when I bought the last one it was AMD.

There's no reason to pick favourites, just pick practically. Processing power per dollar. Since it's impossible to tell without looking in the case (or system properties), there's no reason to get sentimental over brands.

An AMD chip will out-perform an equivalent Intel chip nearly every time in almost every test, and costs up to $300 cheaper. The 1.8 GHz AMD processor out-performed a 2.4 GHz Intel P4 in every test I read about in all my computer and gaming mags.

Needless to say, I support AMD over Intel chips. ;)

Well why'd you start this thread, then?

I disagree, though. At the current time, AMD edges out Intel for games, but gets killed on applications, and synthetic benchmarks (which are good tests of when the chip will go obsolete).

I'm basing this on the P4 3.4Ghz 800 and AMD XP 3500+ (which is priced $75 more or so).

Currently using Intel, but only because AMDs mobile chips are kind of meh when it comes to battery life and quiet operation.

I like that AMD's typically have a larger cache than Intels, making AMD's typically faster than Intels. However, I do not know if there are any compatibility issues to consider, in that I'm not certain if everything runs as it was written to run on an AMD.

Well why'd you start this thread, then?

I disagree, though. At the current time, AMD edges out Intel for games, but gets killed on applications, and synthetic benchmarks (which are good tests of when the chip will go obsolete).

I'm basing this on the P4 3.4Ghz 800 and AMD XP 3500+ (which is priced $75 more or so).
Bah! Many benchmarks are crap. The two keys to speed, currently, are cache and pipeline bursts (Von Neumann principle).

I prefer AMD not only for their general tendencie to rule in performance since the 600MHz days of the first Athlon, but also because they seem to always be interested in genuinely innovating new ideas, not just throwing more blind MHz at the problem.

All 4 machines in my house run AMD procs.

An AMD chip will out-perform an equivalent Intel chip nearly every time in almost every test, and costs up to $300 cheaper. The 1.8 GHz AMD processor out-performed a 2.4 GHz Intel P4 in every test I read about in all my computer and gaming mags.

Needless to say, I support AMD over Intel chips. ;)

My thoughts exactly

Dr.

I have a P4 2.4g on the laptop and an XP2600+ on the desktop. I've got more ram and better video on the desktop, but I pretty much run the same apps on both. For what I normally do I don't se much difference between the two, but I'm pretty sure I'll stick with AMD on my future desktop upgrades.

Mainly because I got raped by Intel so bad in the pre-P3 days. :(

I have bought AMDs for their better perf/price ratio, since CPU heat was not an issue for me . Anyway, the best is to overall sustain both on the market, so they can go on racing against each other, both in matter of performances and price (a competition we are the winners of ...)

I am seriously considering buying an AMD Athalon 64bit processor for my PC. Im just trying to figure out which motherboard to get. There is too many to choose from.

Well why'd you start this thread, then?

I disagree, though. At the current time, AMD edges out Intel for games, but gets killed on applications, and synthetic benchmarks (which are good tests of when the chip will go obsolete).

I'm basing this on the P4 3.4Ghz 800 and AMD XP 3500+ (which is priced $75 more or so).
Pray, which processor are you talking about? AMD XP 3500+? is that an athlon? The highest Althlong XP is the 3200+ which costs $190 The P4 3.4GHz cousing costs $5 shy of a grand. I think somebody needs to recheck their info.

AMD works better in everyday applications, and Intel excels in heavy duties.
Intel also develop rapid temperature raises in the room.
need a heater for the winter? buy intel

The poll is so ... 2004. Need a new one. Results should differ a lot now. Intel make processors, AMD make good copies.

The poll is so ... 2004. Need a new one. Results should differ a lot now. Intel make processors, AMD make good copies.

It depends on what you are doing Gorak.......er......lothar.......er......goran. In all honesty AMD isn't "copying" anybody anymore and haven't for a long time. They are making their own architectures now. If anything, intel is doing a half assed job of copying AMD just to stay on top. AMD still rapes intel on things like gaming but intel rapes AMD in the corporate world when it comes to more practical applications.

It entirely depends on what you are doing.

I don't even know why people try to argue this point. Every Benchmark I have seen says the same thing. AMD for Gaming and intensly 3D applications and Intel for Practical every day operations.

If I could choose my processor I would get the cheaper one, whichever that one is.

They're about even nowadays in costs.

I still like my AMD. They've served me well.
And Elmo is right, AMD does NOT copy intel. If anything, it's the other way around.

AMD comes out with x86-64 procs, then later Intel came out with x86-64 procs. AMD made dual core procs, then intel scrambled to push out the worthless Pentium-D's. Only later did they fix their **** up and release the Core2Duo. AMD caught them with their pants down twice. I expect more of that to come too.

Another thing to think about is that in general (there are exceptions), If you are going to run linux, boards or intel chips have fewer hardware compatibility issues nowadays since most AMD specific distros (AMD64) are still under development for compatibility. They are compatible it's just that you may or may not have to add a ton of drivers after the install or even before or during the install. Unlike the hardware that goes with AMD systems, the stuff systems is really a bit more basic if you are making a workstation. all in all, I guess you can think of AMD as being only slightly experimental in the POSIX world.

on the upside, server motherboards make things much easier for compatibility.

They're about even nowadays in costs.

I still like my AMD. They've served me well.
And Elmo is right, AMD does NOT copy intel. If anything, it's the other way around.

AMD comes out with x86-64 procs, then later Intel came out with x86-64 procs. AMD made dual core procs, then intel scrambled to push out the worthless Pentium-D's. Only later did they fix their **** up and release the Core2Duo. AMD caught them with their pants down twice. I expect more of that to come too.

more than twice. this has been going on since the creation of the AMD Athlon. the Slot A athlon ****ed intel's sales for about 6 months.

the CPU manufacturing business became an art form at that point. if you look at the achitecture betwen the slot A athlon and the P3 the difference is just amazing. even beautiful. the P3 was sloppy.

P4 was even worse. I remember a few articles about how a 1 ghz P3 was faster than a 1.3 ghz P4. Where was the improvement?
When they released the Pentium M, it was able to do more than a p4 at the same freq because they rolled the tech back to something more like a p3.

Meanwhile T-Birds were knocking the crap out of em.:nice:

P4 was even worse. I remember a few articles about how a 1 ghz P3 was faster than a 1.3 ghz P4. Where was the improvement?

first, generation.....there was none. they tried to boost megahertz but made architecture even sloppier. then they cleaned it up and it was ok but AMD was still ahead for about a year. then it evened out and AMD attacked the celeron with their duron. they were about the same, but the problem was that celeron was already established and the AMD fan base was mostly performance whores and duron's and celerons were not performance.

the second part of post #23=spot on. :nice:

I will see if I can pull some ultra close up pics of the athlon and P3 and P4 and Thunderbird later today. I am waiting on a package right now. that way people can see the difference. I dunno if everybody will understand it though.

The Core2Duo rocks, just the best there is at the moment.... you can just over clock em like mad.
AMD was kings before but not anymore.

The Core2Duo rocks, just the best there is at the moment.... you can just over clock em like mad.
AMD was kings before but not anymore.

you're right, quad cores and DualCore opterons are crap. :rolleyes:

I don't think he's saying they're crap. Even I gotta admit Intel spanked AMD with those Core 2 duos.

I don't think he's saying they're crap. Even I gotta admit Intel spanked AMD with those Core 2 duos.

eh, maybe I'm a bit biased. I think spank is a stretch. for my purposes, intel don't work out. I would however use one for an HTPC.

I think of intel as an evil corporation much like the semiconductor version of microsoft.

And you guys saw the thing after Athlon is out soon. 4 real cores per proc, and some boards soon in the works that have two sockets for these, hence 8 cores.

:: drool ::

And you guys saw the thing after Athlon is out soon. 4 real cores per proc, and some boards soon in the works that have two sockets for these, hence 8 cores.

:: drool ::

:werd: :drool:

Big deal. I get to work on six-core machines every day, 27 of them to a board. No, really. What's the point of having a job like mine if you don't get to brag about your toys?

Anyone who likes AMD is clearly a corporate lapdog.

You base this on...

The fact that Cyrix is the greatest microprocessor company ever.

Well, in my defense then, my home server is a C3. It's a VIA C3, but still... it's a C3.

Anyone who likes AMD is clearly a corporate lapdog.On a lesser level than Intel at least...

I was just playing with you anyways man, I'm an AMD guy. All of my computers are built with AMD processors.

Except for my Cyrix 686.

I never liked VIA's raid stuff so I never thought about using their processors.

I'm not a huge fan of VIA stuff... Cyrix WAS indeed great, but I love AMD now.

I like AMD just because they are Intel's competitor and Intel was bigger.

Lack of competition means we lose.

I buy both. But I have a preference for AMD as they have a better price.

I've never had a problem running Linux with my AMD chips using the Intel-based distros :shrug: