Which do you prefer Intel or AMD??

  • Intel

    Votes: 91 73.4%
  • AMD

    Votes: 33 26.6%

  • Total voters
    124

mychael616

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2007
57
0
18,630
I have a quick question. Now, I am not someone with vasts amount of technical pc knowledge but...
Intel has some of their CPU's priced at the $1000 mark while AMD's highest dual core right now is $180. Is Intel completely insane or is those high end processors really that much better. I understand there are some tech specs of the Intel ones that some people consider them to be superior to AMD but really... If anyone could break this down I'd love to hear it. Thx!!
 

djgandy

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2006
661
0
18,980
They are not worth the money. Last time I checked though Intel has a range of processors from $80-$999.

There is a nice market of enthusiasts who will buy those $1000 cpu's. AMD wishes it could charge $1000 for a cpu.
 

exit2dos

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2006
2,646
0
20,810
The $1,00 chip is an Extreme Quadcore. With Intel, if you see an "X" in the name - it stands for "Extreme Edition". These are a little faster and have unlocked multipliers. However, they cost twice what they're actually worth - they're pretty much for people which money is no object.

To compare dualcore prices, look for the Core 2 Duos that begin with an "E", as "Q" means quadcore and "T" are for mobile.

In general, Intel overclocks better than AMD. However, if you're not overclocking, and you're just in the market for a dualcore, the two companies are fairly comparable in price & performance.
 
The fastest processors always command a premium. But as already stated, there *is* a small market for these.

Now - The best processor AMD has(n't) shipped is Phenom. The best Phenom costs in the mid 200's, and the initial tests showed it performs a little worse than Intel's low/mid placed Q6600. The Q6600 can be bought in the mid-200's.... So price to performance is roughly equal at that price point, should the user not be interested in the superior overclock~ability of the Q. Looking at the more expensive models: Intel simply has better/faster processors than the Phenom/Q6600 for which they can charge a premium.
 

Grimmy

Splendid
Feb 20, 2006
4,431
0
22,780
Both Companies are insane when the have the better product on the market.

Looking back in the past when AM64 X2 rule, AMD did charge a vast amount. I remember when the X2 4400+ was around 500 bucks (prolly higher) when it came out. Now I knew at that time, I wanted to get it, but couldn't afford to. Even some of the guys I knew who wanted a new rig, ended up getting the cheapest they could get, and wait out for something to push the other prices down.
 
Intel isn't crazy. AMD was the first to have $1000.00 plus CPU's with there FX sieries and there so called quad core setup where you had to buy 2 special FX CPUs with a mobo. But sense the core 2 duo and quad CPU's came out AMD had no choice but to lower there prices. I just checked tiger direct and found there quad phenom running at 2.4Ghz is almost $100.00 more than ther Q6600. but that was just one website
 

zenmaster

Splendid
Feb 21, 2006
3,867
0
22,790
New Egg has Core2Duo based processor ranging from $73.99 all the way up to $1000+ for the Extreme Edition Chips.

Considering the Cheapest Core2Duo based chip will OC to faster speeds than any of AMD's Black Edition Chips which cost far more, the Intel decision seems wise to me.

However, for very specific applications that need more memory bandwidth than processing power, AMD could be the better choice.
 

michiganteddybear

Distinguished
Oct 4, 2006
325
0
18,780
Hell no Intel is not crazy.. there is a market (albiet a small one) for them 1000 dollar chips. they would be crazy to NOT supply that market.

I agree with everyone who posted previously, when it comes down to the mainstream market, their products are very similarly priced.
 

chookman

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2007
3,319
0
20,790
As has been mentioned... to cover a huge market, different price rang/performance is needed. Thats why we have $80 cpus for low budget all the way through to the freaks that want the 1k+ performance chips

EDIT: Personally ive only ever seen the eXtreme CPU's as, the campanies that make them saying "HAHAHA look at what we can do"
 

VTOLfreak

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2006
77
0
18,630
I don't really see the point in paying extra for an unlocked multiplier. Intel's latest chipsets can be overclocked to almost double their stock speed. Combine that with the fact that you can set the multiplier between 6x and the cpu's default, I think you have enough flexibility and headroom to push the CPU to its limit.
 

ches111

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2006
1,958
0
19,780
By the way!

Many people who are getting the crazy OCs on the Intel chips are (decreasing the multi) on regular non-extreme chips. They are decreasing the multi and upping the FSB... Many are at 400+ using x8 multi.

I can provide links if needed.
 

wolverinero79

Distinguished
Jul 11, 2001
1,127
0
19,280
Where's the poll option for "I don't care about either company - I just buy what's the best at the current time?". It's not like the companies are giving us kickbacks or care if we live or die (intel and amd employees on this msg board excluded).
 

MarkG

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2004
841
0
19,010


Neither company is insane; they charge what they can get for their products. It's the people who pay four times the price for 20% better performance who are insane (or rich).

If Intel wasn't selling chips at these prices, they'd reduce the price. But while AMD can't compete, they can charge high prices for the fastest chips... and get them.
 

NMDante

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2002
1,588
0
19,780


You neutral fanboy, you.

Oh, and to the OP -

The people who are willing to pay the crazy prices for the high end CPUs are the ones that are a bit crazy. Not 100%, but just a tad.
And, yes...I am jealous that they can afford one. But even if I could, I doubt I would buy one.
 
I can say that the EEs are worth it once they are a generation behind as they tend to drop in price. Like the first P4 EE(3.4GHz Northwood) I got for $140 bucks. I upgraded from a P4 3.2GHz(Northwood as well) and the upgrade cut my DVD9 to DVD4(5?) from 40 minutes to 7 minutes. And that was stock.

I remember when AMD released their first high end FX series when A64 was dominating and it was roughly 1k-1.2k so its not just Intel. Whoever has the best chips can price the high ends for a premium. But Intel does have a good range to choose from withgood prices and newer stuff coming soon.
 

imrul

Distinguished
Jun 22, 2007
446
0
18,810
intel's owns the fastest processor so they can charge anything for it, but its price per performance compared to mainstream processors is almost double
 

mrmez

Splendid
Its called the law of diminishing returns.
Its like with cars... u can spend $60k and get 300Kw
So why cant i spend $180k and get 900Kw?
An M5 will cost u about that much.
 

spaztic7

Distinguished
Mar 14, 2007
959
0
18,980
Most crazy people are revolutionaries. But If you would have asked this question a year or so again I bet we would have had drastic differences in the poll.