AMD vs Intel......My thoughts...

[DerrickDJ]

I own an HP DV6045nr AMD Turion X2 TL 56 (1.8GHz 512 L2 1600HT) laptop with 2 GB, 100GB SATA HD, Geforce 7200 mobile. The company I work for is using Compaq NC 6320 (Core2 Duo 1.83GHz 2MB L2 667FSB) and we also purchased a Compaq NC8430 Core2duo 7200 (Core2 Duo 2GHz 4MB L2 667 FSB) laptop. I had to send my laptop to repair and had a chance to use one of the Compaq NC 6320. I was excited to finally get to use and play with a piece of hardware running a processor that has been kicking AMD in the groin recently. I used it for a week and was very very disappointed. I know the Intel fanboys are going to start their flamethrowers, but hear me out. I am a big fan of AMD products; however I am a bigger fan of performance and price. The Intel based laptop actually appeared to run slower using XP Pro then my personal laptop running Vista business. I didn't run any professional benchmarks, however using the Intel based laptop for over a week; I felt the laptop was not very responsive. I didn't want to appear bias so I ask my colleague running the NC 8439, to try my personal HP (which I got back from repair) and compare it to the NC 8439 he is using and give me his overall opinion. He also said he was not impressed with his Intel based laptop (he doesn't have a preference for either processor) and that my AMD based laptop was more responsive and appeared to run faster than his. I know this is going to sound crazy, but could the Intel cpus be designed just to run benchmarks faster? On paper the Intel design looks like a better processor, however after using them both, the AMD ran better. The only advantage to using the Intel was the longer battery life. That's my 2 cents. I am braced for the assault.

NC 8439 (2.0 GHz) 2GB, SATA http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF06a/321957-321957-64295-321838-3329741-1839150.html

NC 6320 (1.83 GHz) 1GB, SATA http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF06a/321957-321957-64295-321838-89315-1839146.html

DV6045NR (1.8 GHz) 2GB, SATA http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/genericDocument?docname=c00718847&cc=us&dlc=en&lc=en&jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN

 

[BaldEagle]

Your not comparing apples to apples with the Hp and the Compaq the HP has more memory and a better graphics controller which means it appears to run the processor faster. The Compaq processor has a higher throughput for the processor but it is bottlenecked on memory and video access.

 

[darkangelism]

ram and hard drive performance are going to be more of the factor here then the difference in the processors.

 

[dsquad]

BaldEagle is right, and so many other factors come into play, especially software. So many programs are loaded at startup, who can really compare two computers by their CPU alone nowadays ?

 

[underbyte18]

Amd! It is kickazz. For some reason I have always disliked intel. It's not anything else. I know dell uses them. And I hate dell. So that means I hate intel. THATS my 2 cents.

 

[BaronMatrix]

This is funny .... your experience is exactly what AMD what's you to believe:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/15/amd_turion_bench/

C2D is far superior.

I think that would be "WANTS" Brood Queen. Remember what I said about your "problem?"

 

[sickofsoyo]

Amd! It is kickazz. For some reason I have always disliked intel. It's not anything else. I know dell uses them. And I hate dell. So that means I hate intel. THATS my 2 cents.

you do know dell uses AMD too now right?

Whatever guys, you can argue who is better, but I will always go for bang for buck when I buy.

 

[bberson]

There are so many variables - especially with laptops - that I can't even begin to count how many insufficiencies there are in your seat-of-the-pants evaluation. It's not your fault and you could be entirely correct about the relative performance of the machines as-is, but even disregarding the hardware differences you really need to get a clean OS install on each before you even begin to compare, and you need to turn off the various power saving functions too.

 

[InteliotInside]

Did you actualy check things such as:
- Amount of system RAM
- Speed of system RAM
- Hard drive speed
- Hard drive fragmentation
- Viruses
- Background tasks
?

Good thing not all benchmark/review sites conduct things like you. Otherwise we would have sites claiming that a Celeron D is faster than a Core 2 Quad.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

Ahhhhh stupid hired Shill.

 

[MU_Engineer]

There are huge differences in speed that are not attributable to the processor. Just today I used a horribly-configured Core 2 Duo iMac with 1 GB RAM that my 5-year-old P4-M could run circles around. The iMac had so much background gunk going that the lack of RAM wasn't letting the chip run worth a darn. Never underestimate how software can affect performance- just ask a Windows guy who's got a bunch of viruses that question before and after he nuke-and-paves his HDD.

 

[randomizer]

lol

 

[runswindows95]

LOL! Nuff said, InteliotInside.

 

[gr8mikey]

 

[randomizer]

Thats good :lol:

 

[runswindows95]

Best post on this topic!!!!!!

 

[DerrickDJ]

It amazes how some people tend to purposely misread a post.

I stated I DID NOT run any professional benchmarks. The reason I put that statement in there was to point to people like you, that this was my feeling, my experience.

I linked the specs of the laptops I used.

This was not a hard core review, I stated these were my thoughts.

It is a good thing reviews/benchmarks are not done by people like you, because you apparently do not read very well or you choose to ignore what is stated.

 

[Heyyou27]

It amazes how some people tend to purposely misread a post.

I stated I DID NOT run any professional benchmarks. The reason I put that statement in there was to point to people like you, that this was my feeling, my experience.

I linked the specs of the laptops I used.

This was not a hard core review, I stated these were my thoughts.

It is a good thing reviews/benchmarks are not done by people like you, because you apparently do not read very well or you choose to ignore what is stated.

What a horrible review, as system specs were completely different, as was the pricing. HEY MY QX6700 IS FASTER THAN YOUR X2 3600+, AND MY 8800GTX OUTPERFORMS YOUR X1300.

 

[gloppppp]

:arrow: Dell has been on the AMD bandwagon for a while now dude.

 

[Therlian]

It amazes how some people tend to purposely misread a post.

I stated I DID NOT run any professional benchmarks. The reason I put that statement in there was to point to people like you, that this was my feeling, my experience.

I linked the specs of the laptops I used.

This was not a hard core review, I stated these were my thoughts.

It is a good thing reviews/benchmarks are not done by people like you, because you apparently do not read very well or you choose to ignore what is stated.

I have to agree with DerrickDJ here. He was not saying AMD was better than Intel, nor was he trying to represent actual benchmarks. He was only stating that he used a laptop with and AMD processor and one with in Intel processor and found more performance in the laptop with the AMD.

It is a shame that someone tries to post an article, not bashing anyone or anything, and is flamed for their thoughts. Everyone has an opinion, whether right or wrong, they deserve to be treated with respect. I have seen this happen more often lately, where if someone deviates from the common following, they are flamed.

I don't believe some of our older posters like Wusy would respond so negatively.

 

[qcmadness]

I don't think you have made a fair comparison. :?
Core 2 Duo mobile processors give higher performance with a lower power consumption than Turion64x2 processors. I am sure about that.

 

[p05esto]

The smartest comment so far was from the guy that said he buys the best processor for the buck when it comes time to build. Next January when I build my new rig I'll research the best CPU for the money and then buy that one...I've owned both Intel/AMD.

I do hope both companies survive, so I'm rooting that AMD pulls through OK. At the same time, I think Itel needs to stay on top for a couple years as they are the real innovators with the money to burn on development. When AMD was on top Intel wasn't as strong and able to innovate. But right now they are moving at light speed which is pretty cool for us end users!. By next year I should be able to get a smokin cpu for a great price! can't wait.

Good luck to both companies. Fight for my dollar!!!

 

[randomizer]

It amazes how some people tend to purposely misread a post.

I stated I DID NOT run any professional benchmarks. The reason I put that statement in there was to point to people like you, that this was my feeling, my experience.

I linked the specs of the laptops I used.

This was not a hard core review, I stated these were my thoughts.

It is a good thing reviews/benchmarks are not done by people like you, because you apparently do not read very well or you choose to ignore what is stated.

I have to agree with DerrickDJ here. He was not saying AMD was better than Intel, nor was he trying to represent actual benchmarks. He was only stating that he used a laptop with and AMD processor and one with in Intel processor and found more performance in the laptop with the AMD.

It is a shame that someone tries to post an article, not bashing anyone or anything, and is flamed for their thoughts. Everyone has an opinion, whether right or wrong, they deserve to be treated with respect. I have seen this happen more often lately, where if someone deviates from the common following, they are flamed.

I don't believe some of our older posters like Wusy would respond so negatively.

 

[randomizer]

You know thoughts arent really that important, they dont prove or disprove anything. I know thats not what you're trying to do, but it's kind of a waste of time posting thoughts and experiences if they dont say anything.

I like this too: "I am braced for the assault"

You got forsight or something? :lol: