Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why? - A Long Time Intel user switches to AMD!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 12, 2007 9:22:49 PM

Any noobies looking at intel and amd systems and wondering which too buy - amd is by far the better value today. Read on and see why!


I only joined THG a few months ago, some of you may know me as a hardcore Intel fanboy here on THG forums. If you read some of my past, harsh remarks on the "over rated" single core athlon chips or that "amd is just 2nd" remarks you know me. If not - i am an intel fan boy as they say here at THG! Today is my first day as an amti-ite.


Why Intel, until may of 2005 (amd x2 release) Intel was just the better multitasking choice. As a "micro" system builder, I have always built both amd and intel systems, and intel systems are #1. It has always seemed to me that intel systems are the better real world multitasker. I will admit it was mostly just Intel preference on my part. Intel is the caddy and amd the lexus.

It seems today AMD has really messed up by forgetting their long time partners and supplying Dell with all the chips they wanted. The result AMD has a over supply of chips and the prices have fallen each week for what seems like months. Today 80-90% of my cpu purchases are AMD!

I am typing this topic on intel 3.0c (3.5ghz shuttle) system i built in 2003, it still works great! Its still moderately fast for simple tasks, and limited multitasking, next to me is e6300 gaming system @ 2.8ghz, next to that is one of our WSZ Xtreme 4.1 gaming systems (3.6ghz 560j clocked to 4.1ghz built in 2005). Next to that is modified hp with an intel 2.4c (oc of coarse with an asus mobo) - demo mod system - lights fans etc in hp from 2001 or so. Whats my point i am an true intel user (fan boy) - a true, long term intel customer.

This month i am building 2 micro atx gaming systems for us in house, one was going to be an x6800 and p5b-vm and the other a e4300 - i am switching to amd!

The x6800 will be replaced with amd 6000+ since the p5b-vm does not overclock much (next to none)) the result will be about the same.

The E4300 will be replaced with am2 3800 overclocked.

I can help but find great value in AMD dual core cpu's at these prices. Hopefully this signifies that other much larger system builders will once again turn to amd for the mid level systems.

A true IFB turns into an amtiite. Definition: amti-ite or amtiite is any person who after amd bought ati is a true amd fan boy or one who blindly uses amd, or who loves amd no matter how much better intel is.


The yin and yang - i gladly run the #2 systems for $100's of dollars in my pocket!

:evil:  AMD is always #2 (accept for their new integrated graphics solutions) :twisted:

the ad: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&ss...
April 12, 2007 9:28:50 PM

The X2 is sooo tempting, I must agree. However, the upgrade path is a little murky & X2 is already choking DX10 GPUs.

Nah, I'm still going e4300 @ April 22 for my system.

Yes, cut prices to 25% or lower margins = more sales. :lol: 
April 12, 2007 9:31:37 PM

well part of the decision is these are micro atx cases with limited overclocking capabilities with the available mobos.

the e4300 with a good oc mobo is a better choice - my fav is the e6600 i have shipped a 4 systems in last week or 2 at 3.37ghz they do kick azz.

10000 3dmark06 with oc 8800 gts 640
Related resources
April 12, 2007 10:00:22 PM

I have 3 rigs in my house that I've been debating on upgrading - wifes, HTPC, and my studio rig. (A fourth rig, a San Diego A64 3700+ was on the list but it's my kid's PC and they play very few taxing games and that one does fine for them)

All of them were originally slated for C2D's of one flavor or another but now I'm holding off because of AMD's cuts. They're so deep that unless Intel can do some serious drops on the 22nd then I'm going to move forward with them using the fastet procs I can get for less than $100. If whatever Intel has at that price point dominates AMD's procs then I'll go that way, but if they have nothing that compares to the price/perf value then I'll go AMD for these boxes.

Great time to buy stuff it just makes the decisions harder.... :S
April 12, 2007 10:11:45 PM

i have a 4200+ OC to 2.5GHz and a core 2 6400( system isint built yet ), i much prefer amd, less power also, hopefully they will get back in form
a c 132 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
April 12, 2007 10:43:28 PM

You have surcome to the dark side of the CPU.

After all your AMD dogs this that BS. I mean my athlonXP owned P4. My A64 Smashed it to bits(and this was in multi-tasking).

What gives?

If i was building a system on a budget there is no way to overlook AMD's offering(they are by no way slow). I am just surprised with your sudden change.
April 12, 2007 11:21:21 PM

NEWS FLASH!!! The cow just jumped over the moon, pigs have been spotted flying, and DragonSprayer has gone to AMD! Am I tripping out, or what?

Ok, it does seem that you have acknowledged the there are legitimet reasons for buying an AMD cpu. Hope you enjoy the chips and welcome to the green side.
April 12, 2007 11:29:48 PM

So when you can't afford to buy the best, buy less. I get it.
April 12, 2007 11:38:00 PM

Yes, i have fallen prey to the green side of the cpu force.

enticed by ever lower prices - sure last year the fx-60's systems were nice but at $800 a cpu not that nice.

wow how things have changed - $120 X2's running 2.4+ghz really do run vista nicely. Sure i laughed at a $600 6000+ - i made fun it of it calling it an oven. But at $239 its a 3.0ghz bargain - even though i can cook my breakfast with it at 3.4.

So for u newbies - com on a Pentium D or X2 at these prices???? its a no brainier - amd X2 is the bargain

plus with asus messing up all the 680i mobos, ever poorer support from asus and lack of oc on the 945G chip set micro atx or even any good micro intel atx chipset - well - i got to go green. i am dumping asus for evga, abit and intel. well thats another story .....

might as well switch over to amd cpu's while i change mobo venders
April 12, 2007 11:49:51 PM

What makes this funny is that you were one of the biggest Intel fannies IMO! :lol: 
April 12, 2007 11:59:10 PM

Why not the E6600? Lots more OC, not an oven, similar performance.
April 13, 2007 12:03:29 AM

You always have to go with what works best for you > when < the next time comes to build...and the longer you can put off an upgrade the less it will cost.
a c 473 à CPUs
a c 119 À AMD
a c 115 å Intel
April 13, 2007 12:09:50 AM

Quote:
i have a 4200+ OC to 2.5GHz and a core 2 6400( system isint built yet ), i much prefer amd, less power ...


Actually C2Ds are less power hungry than Athlon X2s, unless you got one of those Athlon X2 35W TDP versions.
April 13, 2007 12:12:43 AM

Quote:
Why not the E6600? Lots more OC, not an oven, similar performance.


Because Dragon isn't aware that Intel will be cutting their own prices in a week and the E6600 will be even better value than the X2 6000+. You would've thought an Intel fanboy would know that. :lol: 
April 13, 2007 12:43:00 AM

Quote:
Why not the E6600? Lots more OC, not an oven, similar performance.



For the record, don't get me wrong for $300 the e6600 is the best chip, and every thing you said is true. My 2 exceptions:

1) micro atx - no good oc chipsets for intel. so the 5200+ or 6000+
is a good choice - really any amd is a better choice.
2) below $120 the X2's are a bargain - e4300 are still $170



Anyone can save $80 to $120 with a 6000+ or 5200+ vs the E6600. amd mobos are less too in some cases, additional savings.


Quote:
What makes this funny is that you were one of the biggest Intel fannies IMO! :lol: 
i


HeHe I am still the "IFB" if want a high end system go qx6700 at 3.2-3.6 ghz

if want the better gamer go E6600 at 3.4ghz

But if you need a nice system the amd X2 chips at $200 and less are a true bargain. You can get a X2 3800+ and a mobo for a little more then $150 - its the way to go on the low end.
April 13, 2007 12:43:46 AM

Quote:
Intel is the caddy and amd the lexus.


So the Intel is high performance with good styling, but the AMD is better quality and lasts longer?

Anyways, I'll bet that most people here could only tell the difference between a C2D and an X2 in a benchmark.

I had an HP with a P4 540; the CPU fried, and that's when I switched to AMD. Also, price matters to me, so if I were buying now, I'd go AMD.
April 13, 2007 12:51:29 AM

intel is the old standard and the old high end - but revived and hot hot hot!

cts with the vette engine is like an overclocked 965 -lol

amd is the new high end - more sophisticated - with its integrated memory controller and hypertranport auto control. but its lost its luster, lexus are kinda boring looking. the xlr is way cooler !

http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/model/gallery.jsp?m...
April 13, 2007 12:57:34 AM

Quote:
intel is the old standard and the old high end - but revived and hot hot hot!

cts with the vette engine is like an overclocked 965 -lol

amd is the new high end - more sophisticated - with its integrated memory controller and hypertranport auto control. but its lost its luster, lexus are kinda boring looking. the xlr is way cooler !


The only problem with your analogy is that Lexus are more expensive than Cadillac, whereas Intel is more expensive than AMD. But the rest is spot-on; Intel is old-skool muscle; AMD is high-tech 1337-ness.
April 13, 2007 1:00:58 AM

How much do you expect any board to push the 6000+? I wouldn't expect the best AMD boards to push it any significant amount, not much different than a dud Intel mATX OCer. In the end, both OCed should still be about the same. At $224+65W, I'd have to say the E6600 is going to be a better buy in a few days.
April 13, 2007 1:32:20 AM

ya your right - i probably use a lower end chip the 6000+

what should i use a 5200 or 4800?


why is a fx-62 50% higher in cost then a 6000? AMD does not make sense to me.
April 13, 2007 1:34:10 AM

Quote:
NEWS FLASH!!! The cow just jumped over the moon, pigs have been spotted flying, and DragonSprayer has gone to AMD! Am I tripping out, or what?

Ok, it does seem that you have acknowledged the there are legitimet reasons for buying an AMD cpu. Hope you enjoy the chips and welcome to the green side.

Is it 420 yet? Cause I must've hit a bong to be reading this...
April 13, 2007 1:38:56 AM

More appropriate analogies:

Intel = Saleen S7 Supercharged (Brute strength and a helluva lot of speed... and it handles nicely)

AMD = Ferrari 360 Modena (Fast, but not as fast as the S7, but has more finesse and handles like a dream)
April 13, 2007 1:54:05 AM

I am typing on 3.0c in shuttle - which came out a year before yours (the single core) i believe?

i got music playing - spy sweeper is sweeping and avg is doing its free thing. I can run dozen tabs on ie7 no problem no lag.

Quote:
NEWS FLASH!!! The cow just jumped over the moon, pigs have been spotted flying, and DragonSprayer has gone to AMD! Am I tripping out, or what?

Ok, it does seem that you have acknowledged the there are legitimet reasons for buying an AMD cpu. Hope you enjoy the chips and welcome to the green side.

Is it 420 yet? Cause I must've hit a bong to be reading this...


hit the bong its really me
April 13, 2007 1:57:45 AM

**Lights a giant spliff**
April 13, 2007 2:08:14 AM

Take all the money you save buying the bargain-basement AMD X2 and put that into the GPU and some good RAM.

I got myself an X2 3600+ and a M2A-VM for my HTPC. So far, I've been using a pair of 512 MB, 533 (4-4-4-12) sticks in it, borrowed from my older desktop. I really want to set that up with 2x1GB DDR2 6400, but the price of those modules would be more than the CPU and mobo together. I'm hoping DRAM prices come down some more.
April 13, 2007 2:09:10 AM

i quit when i hit 44 - lol! careful u might get a ban again - they frown on that - but of coarse u mean flavored arabic tobacco - a religious right
April 13, 2007 2:19:48 AM

I could claim to be a rastafari. And no, its THC for me. Tobacco is bad.


Disclaimer: Kids, don't do drugs. Much.
April 13, 2007 2:40:44 AM

Quote:
NEWS FLASH!!! The cow just jumped over the moon, pigs have been spotted flying, and DragonSprayer has gone to AMD! Am I tripping out, or what?

Ok, it does seem that you have acknowledged the there are legitimet reasons for buying an AMD cpu. Hope you enjoy the chips and welcome to the green side.

Is it 420 yet? Cause I must've hit a bong to be reading this...

I understand the feeling. I had a long day yesterday, driving back and forth across the Nevada desert. Thought I was seeing camels running around by 11 pm last night. Didn't know if some loco weed got in the water or what, but I gunned my Cobra and left them behind. But ****, how did they get in front of me again?

I need more sleep. Next thing I read might be about the Baron buying a C2D.
April 13, 2007 2:46:26 AM

Quote:
How much do you expect any board to push the 6000+? I wouldn't expect the best AMD boards to push it any significant amount, not much different than a dud Intel mATX OCer. In the end, both OCed should still be about the same. At $224+65W, I'd have to say the E6600 is going to be a better buy in a few days.


3.2GHz tops? It's not a matter of the board, it's just that the 90nm K8 architecture is maxed out.
April 13, 2007 2:46:52 AM

It is true that with AMD's heavy price drops, it's very hard to resist a $240 6000+.

Also, most CPUs from either Intel or AMD will be able to get the job done for most things (games, office stuff and net surfing). The difference is only there if you're involved with your PC on a professional level (eg you're a 3D renderer, you wants to save as much time as possible).

However, the AMD path, right now, isn't very clear. AM2 looks to be coming to a stop with AM2+ and the its compatibility with DDR3 is quite unsure. Intel's roadmaps, however, are much more clear and one can be sure about his/her purchases when looking toward the future (whether it be Penryn, Nehalem, Bearlake and etc...).

But, again, factors such as DDR3 and PCIE2 aren't very important to the average PC user. :/ 
April 13, 2007 2:49:37 AM

Quote:
Ive never used or even seen a C2D high end system, I upgraded from a Athlon 64 single core 3400+ still a awesome chip, and saw a huge difference! I have the right balance for the money, so far every game maxed settings at 1920 x 1200 no problem. I bet I couldnt tell a visual difference with a C2D in place of mine...


You're right in that the 8800GTS is 'balanced' with an X2, at 1920 x 1200 you're mostly GPU bound anyway. With a 8800GTX you *may* notice the difference in some cases.
April 13, 2007 2:54:34 AM

Quote:
NEWS FLASH!!! The cow just jumped over the moon, pigs have been spotted flying, and DragonSprayer has gone to AMD! Am I tripping out, or what?

Ok, it does seem that you have acknowledged the there are legitimet reasons for buying an AMD cpu. Hope you enjoy the chips and welcome to the green side.

Is it 420 yet? Cause I must've hit a bong to be reading this...

I understand the feeling. I had a long day yesterday, driving back and forth across the Nevada desert. Thought I was seeing camels running around by 11 pm last night. Didn't know if some loco weed got in the water or what, but I gunned my Cobra and left them behind. But ****, how did they get in front of me again?

I need more sleep. Next thing I read might be about the Baron buying a C2D.
If I see that I'll give up smoking and become a monk.
April 13, 2007 2:56:45 AM

Quote:
Take all the money you save buying the bargain-basement AMD X2 and put that into the GPU and some good RAM.

I got myself an X2 3600+ and a M2A-VM for my HTPC. So far, I've been using a pair of 512 MB, 533 (4-4-4-12) sticks in it, borrowed from my older desktop. I really want to set that up with 2x1GB DDR2 6400, but the price of those modules would be more than the CPU and mobo together. I'm hoping DRAM prices come down some more.


That's the thing with AM2 though, performance suffers horribly with slower RAM. Right now, with DDR2-533 you're losing out on about 10 - 20% in 'potential' performance compared to DDR2-800.

AM2 chips may be cheaper (not for much longer though), AM2 boards are cheaper too, but the savings nullified somewhat by the fact you need DDR2-800 for decent performance.

With C2D, you lose 2 - 5% performance by using DDR2-533 over DDR2-800, not 10 - 20%. So it sort of evens out the price/performance advantage AM2 has, especially once Intel cuts their own prices later this month.
April 13, 2007 3:55:17 AM

Yeah, I've been aware of that. I take it into account for my price/performance analysis. When I got my media centre hardware, I was on a pretty tight budget, which is why I've borrowed some memory from a different computer for now. I could get 2x512MB now, but I can only use 2 DIMMs since the HSF blocks the other two. I want 2GB in the end, so I'm going to have to wait it out until 2x1GB is affordable (budget grows with time or parts get cheaper).

I figure that it's about $20 extra per GB for the 800 MHz ram over the 533/667. The latter two speeds tend to be about the same price. If you're getting a system with 1GB RAM, then the premium for the RAM is about equal to the savings on the MB. At 2GB, AMD starts to lose the argument. However, I wanted either an X2 or C2D, and the cheapest C2D was still more than the price of the X2+MB. This will change over the next month.
April 13, 2007 4:03:42 AM

Quote:
More appropriate analogies:

Intel = Saleen S7 Supercharged (Brute strength and a helluva lot of speed... and it handles nicely)

AMD = Ferrari 360 Modena (Fast, but not as fast as the S7, but has more finesse and handles like a dream)


Currently...

AMD = Ferrari Enzo...with Eddie Griffin driving it.

Oh yeah the S7 is twin turbo not supercharged.
April 13, 2007 4:09:57 AM

Correct. I'm thinking of the Koenigsegg.
April 13, 2007 4:13:21 AM

Quote:
Oh yeah the S7 is twin turbo not supercharged.


You do realise that "turbo" is short for "turbo-supercharged", right? Turbocharged is one type of supercharging, where the power to drive the compressor is taken from the exhaust pressure (via a turbine). Standard supercharging takes this power from the accessory drive belt/chain.
April 13, 2007 4:53:16 AM

the price of ddr800 is almost same as low ram 4-4-4-12 patriot and corsair are $150 and less for 2gb
April 13, 2007 5:16:55 AM

Quote:


You do realise that "turbo" is short for "turbo-supercharged", right? Turbocharged is one type of supercharging, where the power to drive the compressor is taken from the exhaust pressure (via a turbine). Standard supercharging takes this power from the accessory drive belt/chain.


Turbo is short for turbocharger, not turbo-supercharger. I can only assume that you came up with that name by looking at the principles on which both turbochargers and superchargers create power i.e. forced induction.

Turbocharging is not supercharging, nor vice-versa.
April 13, 2007 5:38:27 AM

Is AMD greasing somones pockets?
April 13, 2007 6:02:23 AM

if that isn't a 1-st april joke(you're late 13 days), we who knows(what's better) salute you. Somebody wrote that allready - welcome to the green(right) side.
April 13, 2007 11:16:52 AM

There is no "right" side. Just the side that serves my pocket the best.

@r0x0r
Technically, it is turbosupercharging. But its semantics. No one likes semantics.
April 13, 2007 12:07:10 PM

After being a 20 year buyer of intel and big on nvidia ive decided to switch to amd and ati ASAP.
As far as nvidia i dont have any propblems with but catching up on a lot of news from intel and there scams with amd and intel forcing many companys to support them or suffer i say srew them, reminds me of microsoft kicking everyone else around but in this case i can buy something else just as good or maybe better.
I also trade shares with amd and intel but ive made 90% more money with amd so why not support them i say. (for me)

"thats all i have to say about that"
not really :) 
April 13, 2007 12:39:09 PM

Quote:
intel is the old standard and the old high end - but revived and hot hot hot!

cts with the vette engine is like an overclocked 965 -lol

amd is the new high end - more sophisticated - with its integrated memory controller and hypertranport auto control. but its lost its luster, lexus are kinda boring looking. the xlr is way cooler !


The only problem with your analogy is that Lexus are more expensive than Cadillac, whereas Intel is more expensive than AMD. But the rest is spot-on; Intel is old-skool muscle; AMD is high-tech 1337-ness.
Wrong, Cadillac is more expensive and BETTER.
April 13, 2007 1:01:54 PM

Well, we can agree on everything except terminology. [heavy Russian accent] Good enough for government work. [/accent]

Have we tracked down the reason why Ninja's posts keep getting rated 1-star?
April 13, 2007 1:31:18 PM

..... not that im an intel fanboy or anything but i dont see your logic in switching to the x2 6000 because it isnt much of an overclocker, and you seem like an overclocker to me. however, if you plan on future upgradeability amd is the way to go because am2 is forwards compatible with am2+ and am3 and am2+ is backwards compatible with am2 and forwards with am3. I see the am2+ as a great upgrade path because it has all the bandwidth needed to supply future amd processors at the expense of not supporting ddr3- which basically means youll want to buy fast ddr2 to ensure enough bandwidth to future am3 processors.

Personally i prefer amd, i used to be an intel fanboy also, but ever since athlon 64 came out i switched to amd as my preferred processor brand. I agree that amd provides great deals on its current processors, but as far as overclocking is concerned you wont see much when it comes to the higher end models such as the x2 6000 and the x2 5600 because they max out at around 3.2ghz... if you are lucky. Some people can get them to go higher but that is at the cost of heavy voltages which requires serious cooling. So right now intel has the best product in terms of performance. In the near future i see amd rising again and even seriously overtaking intel if intel doesnt do something about its fsb. Its fsb is limiting its processors, especially on the overclocking and quad core front.
April 13, 2007 1:37:13 PM

Quote:

Wrong, Cadillac is more expensive and BETTER.


Damn you Papi4baby; I was just thinking ''I won't post anything else about cars'' but you have to tempt me! :wink: :lol: 
April 13, 2007 1:39:08 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Wrong, Cadillac is more expensive and BETTER.


Ummm.... wrong and wrong... Cadillac is cheaper than Lexus and not nearly as good quality.
April 13, 2007 1:43:49 PM

..... not that im an intel fanboy or anything but i dont see your logic in switching to the x2 6000 because it isnt much of an overclocker, and you seem like an overclocker to me. however, if you plan on future upgradeability amd is the way to go because am2 is forwards compatible with am2+ and am3 and am2+ is backwards compatible with am2 and forwards with am3. I see the am2+ as a great upgrade path because it has all the bandwidth needed to supply future amd processors at the expense of not supporting ddr3- which basically means youll want to buy fast ddr2 to ensure enough bandwidth to future am3 processors.

Personally i prefer amd, i used to be an intel fanboy also, but ever since athlon 64 came out i switched to amd as my preferred processor brand. I agree that amd provides great deals on its current processors, but as far as overclocking is concerned you wont see much when it comes to the higher end models such as the x2 6000 and the x2 5600 because they max out at around 3.2ghz... if you are lucky. Some people can get them to go higher but that is at the cost of heavy voltages which requires serious cooling. So right now intel has the best product in terms of performance. In the near future i see amd rising again and even seriously overtaking intel if intel doesnt do something about its fsb. Its fsb is limiting its processors, especially on the overclocking and quad core front.
April 13, 2007 1:47:58 PM

..... not that im an intel fanboy or anything but i dont see your logic in switching to the x2 6000 because it isnt much of an overclocker, and you seem like an overclocker to me. however, if you plan on future upgradeability amd is the way to go because am2 is forwards compatible with am2+ and am3 and am2+ is backwards compatible with am2 and forwards with am3. I see the am2+ as a great upgrade path because it has all the bandwidth needed to supply future amd processors at the expense of not supporting ddr3- which basically means youll want to buy fast ddr2 to ensure enough bandwidth to future am3 processors.

Personally i prefer amd, i used to be an intel fanboy also, but ever since athlon 64 came out i switched to amd as my preferred processor brand. I agree that amd provides great deals on its current processors, but as far as overclocking is concerned you wont see much when it comes to the higher end models such as the x2 6000 and the x2 5600 because they max out at around 3.2ghz... if you are lucky. Some people can get them to go higher but that is at the cost of heavy voltages which requires serious cooling. So right now intel has the best product in terms of performance. In the near future i see amd rising again and even seriously overtaking intel if intel doesnt do something about its fsb. Its fsb is limiting its processors, especially on the overclocking and quad core front.
!