Intel vs amd

[computergeekguy]

I was wondering what is the difference between intel and amd?

The intel i7 i beleve is just a fancy name for a six core cpu. some prices i saw for it were as high as $1000 :shock: And the mobo's that took them were expensive to.

So i went with amd phenom II six core. it cost me $200

But people still say they would have gotten the intel anyway.

So is intel special for some reason?

Thanks for responses ill probly get alot on this subject

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Fan boys of one stripe are another aren't plentiful on this forum. Not a lot of trolling, either.

 

[mickey megabyte]

the simple answer is that they are two different companies producing different products.

bit like asking what's the difference between burger king and mcdonalds (sort of).

 

[Konceptz804]

Intel is going to give the best performance period, but also costs the most. AMD is cheaper and not as fast, but the differences may or may not be noticeable in what you do. That being said, your budget should determine what you want. Most gamers go with AMD because the cost is lower, and when utilizing an ATI card the system is better tied together (AMD chipset, AMD CPU, AMD/ATI GPU).

 

[mickey megabyte]

Intel is going to give the best performance period, but also costs the most. AMD is cheaper and not as fast, but the differences may or may not be noticeable in what you do. That being said, your budget should determine what you want. Most gamers go with AMD because the cost is lower, and when utilizing an ATI card the system is better tied together (AMD chipset, AMD CPU, AMD/ATI GPU).

i beg to differ.

a fast amd is faster than a slow intel.

 

[Wallonn7]

Simplify: if your products are better than the competition, what do you do? - EU Completes Intel Antitrust Case Investigations, Likely to Find it Guilty: Sources | techPowerUp

 

[computergeekguy]

thanks for your answers the reason i asked was because i herd that the i7 could talk directly to the ddr3 ram and didnt need to talk through the chipset or something to that effect. Thus making it faster than older versions of intel.

I didnt know if amd did the same thing

Can amd phenom II talk directly to the ddr3 ram like i7 intel?

 

[Everlong]

thanks for your answers the reason i asked was because i herd that the i7 could talk directly to the ddr3 ram and didnt need to talk through the chipset or something to that effect. Thus making it faster than older versions of intel.

I didnt know if amd did the same thing

Can amd phenom II talk directly to the ddr3 ram like i7 intel?

Yes. AMD has had that longer than Intel have. Both CPUs now both have their memory controller on-die, and talk directly to the memory. Intel used to use the FSB, but obviously removed it.

 

[user417]

This is what I think about it if it were not for AMD Intel would have a monopoly in the CPU market with that said everyone knows when there is no competion the price will be higher for product.
With that said if you play games surf the web and you don't do 20 things at a time a AMD II quad core is all you will need the price around $100 you want to spend the money saved for a better video card.
Then you have people that use their PC to edit videos burn movies crunch numbers at the same time there a doing a video conference and in the back ground running a virus scan you would need to have multi thread Intel has multi thread and is the fastest at doing them things but you are working with your PC making money so the price don't matter both CPU's are great I hardly hear of either one going bad unless overclocking is involved.
Conclusion both are great at what they do a smart person would know why spending more money for speed that is not needed is dumb.

 

[Ivan the SoSo]

The main thing I don't like about Intel is every new chip they put out uses a different number of pins(the last change was one pin).....so new motherboard time....

 

[Konceptz804]

Intel is going to give the best performance period, but also costs the most. AMD is cheaper and not as fast, but the differences may or may not be noticeable in what you do. That being said, your budget should determine what you want. Most gamers go with AMD because the cost is lower, and when utilizing an ATI card the system is better tied together (AMD chipset, AMD CPU, AMD/ATI GPU).

i beg to differ.

a fast amd is faster than a slow intel.

But why would you compare an older intel to a newer amd? the newest intels are faster then the newest amds, you might not notice the difference in real life, but bottom line intel is faster. I test this daily....

 

[DeaconFrost]

If you didn't know the difference, you weren't ready to buy. At the $200 price range, Intel will make faster cheaps. AMD, right now, specializes in the low budget, decent performance area, around $100 or so. Once you get up to your price range and beyond, Intel outperforms AMD.

The reason I always go Intel is for one reason...chipsets. Say what you want about the processors, but when it comes down to chipsets, the Intel side wins hands down. Intel's own chipsets are rock solid, easy to set up, and run very well.

 

[pparks1]

The Core i7's are not all 6 core CPU's. In fact, only a couple of them are. As far as the $1,000 price tag on the Intel, that's just for the highest model CPU they produce. It's always crazy expensive.

AMD makes fine CPU's...and years ago....we dominating Intel as far as price and performance goes. (P4-vs-Athlon 64 x2). Since the days of the Core 2 Duo though, Intel has been ahead of AMD, IMHO. If you compare similar chips, you will find that Intel isn't always more expensive or only a few bucks more expensive (maybe $20-$40). If your budget dictates you cannot spend an extra $30, then stick with the AMD and I'm sure you will be happy in the end. If you can spend a few bucks more on the Intel, you will "likely" have a machine that is just a tid bit quicker. Whether it's really quantifiable day to day, is the question...or if the benefits will only present themselves in benchmarks.

 

[bobdude11]

I was wondering what is the difference between intel and amd?

The intel i7 i beleve is just a fancy name for a six core cpu. some prices i saw for it were as high as $1000 :shock: And the mobo's that took them were expensive to.

So i went with amd phenom II six core. it cost me $200

But people still say they would have gotten the intel anyway.

So is intel special for some reason?

Thanks for responses ill probly get alot on this subject

I certainly won't pay that for a CP - it would be nice to see those come down from the stratosphere. I will say this: As a former AMD CPU advocate (brink of fanboi-dom) - I recently decided to upgrade. I priced out the AM3 motherboard/CPU/DDR3 RAM combo and the Core i7/X58/DDR3 RAM based combos - there was only about $100 difference with what I was looking at (i7 950 vs. the AM3 quad core I was looking at (don't remember the exact model, but it was a Black Edition) - I decided to go ahead and go with the Intel setup.

I was absolutely BLOWN AWAY by the performance increase! I never realized how much the AMD processor was holding me back!

I am looking at at least 50 - 75 percent increases across the board and I inadvertently had a VM server running (with 4 cores and 8 MB of RAM) and I was playing a game (C&C 4) - it was only getting around 45 fps (FRAPS) - I didn'tknow why, but found the VM running and killed it - fps jumped to around 60 - 65 - keep in mind, this is with EVERY setting cranked up to the highest level!

I am an Intel convert - no doubt!

 

[linnemeyerhere]

It is true even to this AMD proponent with the Sandy's the price gap has narrowed a lot. I still like the value the AMD offers and we all benefit from the AMD/Intel war's. But that being said if one can afford the fastest then Intel is currently the favored. For me....on a budget the bang for buck allows me to value add like premium mobo/SSD and PSU so it's still a no brainer for me. But others that can spend the extra $300-1000 for the banging Intels and OC them are getting really strong scores. But like all things computer only mean something for about 15 minutes and you have to use your system at 8 tenths to 10 tenths a lot and really most of use never exploit our systems to this level and it seems more like bragging rights, IMHO.

 

[ezeht]

I think it more depends on your needs. A old 9 year old p3 can do 98% of what is needed and can run office or even convert video with just a 400 or 450mhz cpu and 512 memory. New os and or hardware is forced on us. So for general computing any cheap system or dell or mac what ever is fine.

If gaming or you have to run cad or something- then you are talking a more powerful system and or video cards. I have and used both amd and intel. I will break it down from a gamers point of view. Yes both intel and amd have 6 or more core cpu's and if talking more than 4 cores the intel cost more- but you get what you pay for they are the most powerful and fastest etc.

Being a gamer on a budget cost wise and say now I am running intel p55 and a quad core cpu and at the same price as a alike amd system with a 6 core cpu my system will smoke it and so will the new p67's- bench marks etc speak for them selves. The p67 will smoke my system but my p55 will smoke any amd system system out now and with its most powerful 6 core black and at the same price in all bench marks other than a few programs that use more than 4 cores and the 1 game dirt2. That is at both systems over clocked or not. And my system even smokes amd in some programs that do use more than 4 cores. It is just the facts and a million threads and bench tests to prove so- and again the costs are the same for am3 and p55 and p67 plus or minus 20 to 50 bucks maybe- catch sales any is lower cost than the other.

Soon amd will come out with its dull dozer stuff and should be pretty good. Another thing lots of folks do not know about amd say am3 is they buy and run or over clock the memory- the controllers on the cpu's can burn up fast- You really should not run mem on a am3 over 1333. It is well noted and posted at amd sites and even at some mobo sites. Intels on cpu controller is a lot better at oc the memory. Again it is just facts.

I buy what is said the fastest or best out at the time and fits my budget. If a better intel system only cost 50 bucks more- well I will save another week or month or what ever- or the same for a better video card. Say if a 570 cost 50 more than a 560- well I am going to save that extra 50 bucks and then buy.

So to say a intel cost more than a amd is not all true. If talking the upper most high end products than yes. Who knows what the bull dozer cpu's are going to cost they too might be 1000 bucks and or the intel prices will drop to match or try and edge out amd.

The best bang for your buck right now and if you are a gamer is p55 or p67 period. Ya you can get some am3 4 cores for less money but way less performance also- and can get for the same price the last intel chip set and smoke them lower cost amd's too- what is it c2d? A gamer is going for the most powerful he can afford- which is am3 6 core or intel p58 or p55 or p67. And even then you can buy mobos with less fetures no sataIII or no usb3 etc and cost less. Work around your prices with memory or hdd's or a vid card etc.

Intel has smoked amd since the c2d until the 6 core amd cpu's maybe or amd edges out the intels in a very few things. But amd has no match out now for a p55 or p67 and at the same price point. I would love a p58 but they are way out of my price range..

As for video cards again I have used both ati and nv. The facts are ati has more problems over the total of games ever sold and ati can not do physx. ATI might be better at running 50 monitors but that is about it and well my 1 monitor is enough for me. Cost wise generally nv does cost a lil more but normally with in 50 bucks- again catch sales are cheaper- but again you get what you pay for. The nv cards are just better and was not until maybe 2 years ago that ati cards started getting life time warranties- xfx and bfg jumped ship to ati and its warranties also..

Fan boys can argue over what is said. ATI does less work as did back in the sm3 days- Bench tests can be fudged or made to lean one way or another- or ran at lower aa or af to make a lower card look better or even bench better [560ti vs 470] up the aa and af the 470 should naturally do better etc. It has more mem more cores and a larger interface. Same things are done ati vs nv or games picked that more favor one card over the other. The facts are ati has more probs over the total of games and can not do physx. Folks can argue ati has more driver probs- but the last few years nv drivers have sucked a lot too. So I buy nvidia.

The p67 came out like 2 weeks after I bought and built my p55. In one way I am glad to have my system and being intel jerked folks around and sold its first p67's knowing they was faulty- I was glad I missed that head ake. But the new p67's are bad ass for real. They over clock like monsters have same features or even better at the same price and most of the p67's have 2x 16x slots. So really I should have waited. I did not even hear about the p67 until it came out. I was a lil pissed about it- but my system is pretty sweet. If I can ever afford a better video card and maybe a ssd and learn how to over clock it some it will be awesome- it is now. I am happy with it.

Hope it helps some..

 

[gazz9496]

if only it was this clear cut, just had my cpu/psu/gpu die on me so i'm now looking to replace the whole computer, at the moment i'm back to my old backup intel quad core but it's by no means a slouch i was surprised just how little improvment i seen going from the i7 950 to an old quad core.

i've been looking at the amd 1100t black edition.
multi threading it's only getting beat by the i7 980x which isn't favoring intel in my view the extra cost is just insane and while the score is stupidly high for that cpu i'd have to be doing something that would actually warrent that spend.
single core apps it isn't as good as some of the 4core i7's but then neither is the £700 6core intel offering so why pay 4 times the price. the 1100t suffers just like all multicore cpu's on single core apps where the moderate dual cores still do well from 5 years ago.

apps that use single cores prefere higher clock speeds so intel usually does better but not so much now, the 1100t can go from 3.3ghz to 3.7ghz under load as needed and can be overclocked to 4.1ghz.

there are some great comparison reviews out there but the one thing they do is make it harder to decide, granted the setup i'll be using will be better but then according to there scores this old heap of crap beat all the i5's when i ran the same benchmarks and some of the i7's so i'm not so keen to ignore amd this time around.

if you do go the route of amd invest the small extra cost and get the black edition which allow overclocking of the northbridge, this can net some serious performance increases.

if you go intel consider your choices and pick the best you can but be prepared to spend more to net the same performance of the 1100t.

intel do great cpu's and i'm no amd fan boy i've never owned one, but the results of the 1100t did turn my head so much so i'm really considering switching.

the thing is i know for my needs i can't get a better cpu for that price from intel there is no way i'll fork out the £700 for the 980x or 990x it just isn't happening regardless of the performance of that chip.

so to sum up, go for either the intel i7 950 or above or the 1100t both offerings are amazing untill you hit multi threaded apps where the 1100t will win and you can gaze from afar at the 980x results and ponder the price of one of those, the gains on intel are so small they really aren't worth mentioning, were talking 1 sec at best for a video decode/encode or half a second to render a pic in photoshop..miniscule differences.

i still currently prefer intel but then i don't yet own an amd to compare, my view is purely objective.

 

[ezeht]

A am3 mobo or intel p55 or p67 mobo loaded with everything cost say 140 to 200 bucks and depends on brand etc and not even the most high end mobos. The low end am3 or black 6 core or i5 750 or 2600 cost about 170 to 200 bucks catch a sale either cost less than the others. Work your prices out with how much memory or brands or other parts the costs are the exact same and the intels will smoke the amd.

It is only a few programs that use over 4 cores and even less folks that use those programs. Most use is 4 cores or less and most games use no more than 2 cores- the amd's can not compete. The p55 and p67 will even smoke some i7's in some benches.

If you are using programs that use over 4 cores- well you have that need and maybe the money. For my needs and gaming Intel and nvidia rules. It is what it is..

You can research for your self- check prices and reviews and bench tests.

See ya.

 

[ezeht]

That is very true gazz. Mobos and or cpu's with in 3 years of each other you really see no great gains in a lot of normal use. Folks think they are going to get some big jump but its not really or not at most things and normally the gains are lil.

Going from say my abit kn8 or abit fatality an9 32x to my p55 is a big jump- or in gaming any way. But my fatality is still a pretty strong mobo and cpu. I still prefer xp sp2 over w7. But w7 and this system being more powerful more cores and memory is a better gamer. Other stuff converting videos what ever seems about the same. I guess my p55 is faster but not like rocket faster or anything much or really noticed.

Most newer systems if with in a few years of each other are more like miro seconds faster at most things. But at a few things ya maybe you really notice a big difference but not many things or for most people.

Some times it is just upgrade time and if you can afford it or before a old system out of warranty dies- so.

 

[MadSupra354]

The way I look at it: AMD = Gamers. Intel = Heavy usage.
Some people will say "Intel are more stable than AMD because they have more pins" not true.
I think if you demanded the fastest desktop CPU, Intel would come out. But who knows, Bulldozer could change that...