Intel vs amd

[Nemix]

IMO Intel runs the game when it comes to mobile PC notebooks mainly because of battery life/performance/heat ratio in which Intel has a pretty big gap on the market share. But on the desktop where power consumption and heat does not matter as much the price/performance ration between a AMD and Intel CPU is pretty close. I have to say AMD on the desktop is very competitive especially considering the price/performance ratio of their line of X6 and Black Edition CPU's with unlocked multiplier.

 

[mickey megabyte]

The way I look at it: AMD = Gamers. Intel = Heavy usage.

but gamers = heavy usage

so, according to your logic, intel = amd

 

[Wallonn7]

The way I look at it: AMD = Gamers. Intel = Heavy usage.

but gamers = heavy usage

so, according to your logic, intel = amd

Very well observed, Mickey.

 

[DeaconFrost]

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....

That's not quite true at all. Socket 775 has gotten a ton of life out of it, through several generations, and the Sandy bridge sockets will be around for a while, too.

The way I look at it: AMD = Gamers. Intel = Heavy usage.

How could that be true if Intel typically outperforms AMD at each level? AMD serves one purpose right now....to keep Intel's prices down and their innovation up.

Some people will say "Intel are more stable than AMD because they have more pins" not true.

If "some people" say this, "some people" should be banned from ever discusing technical details again. The reason many, including myself, choose Intel is that aside from the performance, the Intel chipsets (not the processors, for the record) are easy to use, easy to set up, and run rock solid. The chipsets determine my processors choices, and Intel has owned this segment for years now.

 

[linnemeyerhere]

This always turns into Ford versus Chevy.......always ! I say viva la difference baby .... we all benefit for the chip wars, let them reign for all time

 

[Archmage]

This always turns into Ford versus Chevy.......always ! I say viva la difference baby .... we all benefit for the chip wars, let them reign for all time

Well said.

 

[pparks1]

I choose whichever I feel is the best bang for the buck at the time. I've owned quite a number of Intel machines and AMD machines. I've bought both and I've built both.

However, the last AMD I built was an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+. Since then it's been Intel. Because dollar for dollar, I've felt the performance has been better in the $200-$300 price range with the Core 2 Duo, the Core 2 Quad, the Core i3/i5/i7 and now Sandy Bridge Core i5/i7 cpu's. And while some will say the AMD has a 6 core and it's cheaper, I find that the 4 core Intel performs evenly, if not better for most tests and is in the same price range.

I don't care at all about pins and upgrading CPU's, I've never upgraded a CPU without changing the motherboard. For me, it's always a new build, case and all every 2-3 years.

 

[noobvious]

This always turns into Ford versus Chevy.......always ! I say viva la difference baby .... we all benefit for the chip wars, let them reign for all time

Ford vs. Chevy? Aim higher than that....Ferrari vs. Lamborghini!

 

[jimbo45]

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.

Well a fast Honda might be better than a Slow BMW but I'd prefer any day the BMW.

However that aside it really depends on what you want the computer to do.

These days most Video processing for serious Gaming is done in a separate GPU so all you need is for the main CPU on the Mobo to be fast enough to handle the data stream coming from the GPU.

I would tend to go for the cheaper CPU if there is as much as 800 USD difference in the price -- I can buy TWO decent laptops for that amount of money !!!!!.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[MadSupra354]

The way I look at it: AMD = Gamers. Intel = Heavy usage.

but gamers = heavy usage

so, according to your logic, intel = amd

What I meant by heavy usage was if your doing allot of video editing and 3D rendering.

 

[FredeGail]

Intel all the way!

 

[MadSupra354]

How could that be true if Intel typically outperforms AMD at each level? AMD serves one purpose right now....to keep Intel's prices down and their innovation up.

But AMD are cheaper than Intel. That's why allot of people choose them.
You can't get a 6 core from Intel for under £250 ($300)
Also, Intel aren't outperforming AMD in their price/performance.
Intel Core i7's are better than most of AMD's desktop CPU's because it has 6 threads, and Intel are equivalently 200MHz faster anyway. That's why some people choose to spend £50 ($80) more. (Excluding the motherboard price.)
P.S. I'm not biased in any way towards AMD. I support it but I'm happy for people with Intel.

 

[DeaconFrost]

But AMD are cheaper than Intel. That's why allot of people choose them.

They have some cheaper processors way down at the bottom, but that doesn't mean they are better. If you truly lay the products down side by side, in almost ever category it is hard to make a case for AMD. Add that to the fact you can get a great price on an Intel chipset board from several reputable manufacturers, and that's a combo you can't beat for performance, easy of setup, and stability.

You also need to remember that a budget 6 core processor isn't always going to outperform a quad-core processor. You are just sipping the marketing juice AMD is serving. Look at unbiased, raw comparisons.

Also keep in mind I am talking about desktops here. On the laptop side, Intel owns the game completely. AMD makes some cheap budget mobile processors, but sit down and use one sometime. Painful.

 

[MadSupra354]

On the laptop side, Intel owns the game completely. AMD makes some cheap budget mobile processors, but sit down and use one sometime. Painful.

What about AMD Fusion?

 

[DeaconFrost]

The laptops running the Fusion technology are just hitting the market, so time will tell, but the Sandy Bridge laptops have been available for a little while now, so as has been the case, AMD is playing catch up.

You seem to be thinking I'm anti-AMD. I'm not, because competition benefits the consumer more than anything else. My point is, whenever I'm looking for new systems for my company, or building something new for a friend or family member....the best use of their $$$ is almost always an Intel based system, either for all out performance, or for performance on a budget.

 

[MadSupra354]

The laptops running the Fusion technology are just hitting the market, so time will tell, but the Sandy Bridge laptops have been available for a little while now, so as has been the case, AMD is playing catch up.

You seem to be thinking I'm anti-AMD. I'm not, because competition benefits the consumer more than anything else. My point is, whenever I'm looking for new systems for my company, or building something new for a friend or family member....the best use of their $$$ is almost always an Intel based system, either for all out performance, or for performance on a budget.

I see. I might have built an Intel system but all I had was a quad core Athlon, and a pretty tight budget. And I can't switch motherboard just to get an Intel CPU, so I'll buy a 1055T.

 

[Capt.Jack Sparrow]

Nice debate ... I heard Intel shipped Sandy Bridge Chipset faulty. Is that resolved now ?

 

[DeaconFrost]

I see. I might have built an Intel system but all I had was a quad core Athlon, and a pretty tight budget. And I can't switch motherboard just to get an Intel CPU, so I'll buy a 1055T.

That's where cost comes in. It doesn't mean all AMD systems are crap. You were going for your best usage of money...nothing wrong with that.

Nice debate ... I heard Intel shipped Sandy Bridge Chipset faulty. Is that resolved now ?

It's been resolved for quite some time now, maybe even as much as two months. The chipset weren't compltely faulty, and likely wouldn't have caused issues for more than 1-2% of the systems running them. However, Intel worked quickly to resolve the issue, and so did the major board partners.

 

[Capt.Jack Sparrow]

It's been resolved for quite some time now, maybe even as much as two months. The chipset weren't compltely faulty, and likely wouldn't have caused issues for more than 1-2% of the systems running them. However, Intel worked quickly to resolve the issue, and so did the major board partners.

That's good ...

 

[pparks1]

How could that be true if Intel typically outperforms AMD at each level? AMD serves one purpose right now....to keep Intel's prices down and their innovation up.

But AMD are cheaper than Intel. That's why allot of people choose them.

Yes, some of them are.

You can't get a 6 core from Intel for under £250 ($300)

So?

What if you can get an Intel for under $300 that is only a quad core, but it outperforms the 6 core from AMD. Just because it has more cores, doesn't mean it's faster;
PassMark Intel vs AMD CPU Benchmarks - High End

Look at the chart in the link above. The AMD 1100T 6 core ($210 from NewEgg), gets outperformed by the Intel Core i5-2500 ($210 from NewEgg).

Also, Intel aren't outperforming AMD in their price/performance.

Please see my above comments.
These two chips are very close, with the edge in performance going to Intel, and they are exactly the same price.
Newegg.com - Intel Core i5-2500 Sandy Bridge 3.3GHz (3.7GHz Turbo Boost) 4 x 256KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache LGA 1155 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor BX80623I52500
Newegg.com - AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition Thuban 3.3GHz, 3.7GHz Turbo 6 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 125W Six-Core Desktop Processor HDE00ZFBGRBOX