Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

So why are you Intel or AMD?

Last response: in CPUs
Share

So why are you Intel or AMD?

Total: 57 votes (6 blank votes)

  • I'm Intel through and through!
  • 10 %
  • I'm an AMD fanboi!
  • 16 %
  • I'm not either, I get the best value CPU at the time....
  • 75 %
a b à CPUs
July 20, 2010 9:46:53 PM

Hello,

I notice on here alot of people recommend AMD CPUs for value reasons and Intel for performance. But I know some of it boils down to what people prefer and like more.

I personally edge towards Intel, I have however built and owned a couple of AMD based PCs, but this is why....

My reason for prefering Intel is because my very first PC was a Mendicino based Celeron, Great little CPU and ran really cool.
I then moved on to a Thunderbird based AMD Athlon, that idled at 67C and ran underload at 79C!! That put me off AMD a year or two.
After the AMD I built my first PC, a Tualatin based Pentium 3 1.2GHz, I managed to OC it to 1.4GHz. It ran nice and cool and stablely too.

I then built an Athlon XP2200 system as I wanted more speed. It was a good system and cheap too!

After the XP2200, I 'upgraded' to a Netburst CPU skipping Willamette and went for a Northwood based Celeron, that system turned out to be a slow git, so I spent abit more and went for an Abit IC7 and Northwood Pentium 4 2.4GHz that overclocked to 3GHz!

That was my last PC, as I went to a Mac in 2004.

But in 2009 I decided the Mac was getting too old and slow, so I bought a old AMD system off a friend with an XP3000+. Which turned out to be dog slow and really quite poor.

So recently when building a PC I decided to go for Intel due to my past experiences, I want Socket 775 for value and am quite glade I did.

So why do you go for AMD or Intel?

Cheers

Craig

More about : intel amd

a b à CPUs
July 20, 2010 10:01:34 PM

dude i cant use any expletives so i will just say you are !@$#W^%$^&%^*^&*%^&*%^*(&^&*^&%**&%^&*%^&*%^*&%^&*%^&*%^&*%^&*%^&*%^&*%^*&%&*%^&*%^&*

why you might ask, because you bought a computer with a cpu that was released in 2002 in 2009 and say thats why you dont like amd

now that thats out of the way, im an amd fan because of the low pricing, but recently ive been getting some good deals on intel hardware, i buuilt my firat intel rig this year (e5200) and i must say it just feels better, and morover, evrything just seems to work, i dont understand it, it just seems so stable, i cant xplain it, but it even got me to thinking maybe microsoft was bias toward intel because even windows just seemed to work better, ive had amd dual tripple and quad cores, but itjust never seemed so easy to own and maintain a pc, but i gess i must digressand admit that ive never had a 65watt cpu before

after my E5200($50), i bought an E8500($50) which i could swear runs better than my x3 425 did, i then got an i3 540($85), but to tell ya the truth id get rid of em all if i could lay my hands on my former love x4 620 C3 that thing was cool
a b à CPUs
July 20, 2010 10:04:03 PM

Err I didn't say I went from an XP3000 to Intel because the AMD was slow. I knew it was old.

I went Intel because from earlier experiences they were the better ones for me way back to the days of the Pentium 2 based Celeron!
Related resources
a b à CPUs
July 20, 2010 10:05:22 PM

Also FYI the Barton XP3000+ was released in 2003 not 2002. :-P
a c 105 à CPUs
July 20, 2010 10:13:23 PM

neither, i use an Abacus...quad core Abacus
July 20, 2010 10:32:41 PM

ct1615 said:
neither, i use an Abacus...quad core Abacus


ROFL : 32nm Quad core Abacus with Turbo boost !!
July 20, 2010 11:00:49 PM


For a long time I had a soft spot for AMD since building my first machine ever with a AMD K6 in around 1998. However when building my second machine ever now in 2010 it became an Intel. ;)  My vote then for the "best value" option of course.
a c 79 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 20, 2010 11:05:33 PM

There is no need to have a preference for either, they are both good. I have owned multiple varieties of both. Just got whatever was the best in my price range at the time.
a b à CPUs
July 20, 2010 11:10:35 PM

this is dumb. im not sure if im alone here, but i buy what suits my needs for the lowest price. That usually happens to be AMD, but thats also because i dont need massive amounts of performance from a CPU, nor have 250$+ to blow on a cpu. If intel gets into the $150 cpu range, and keeps an upgrade path open, ill be buying an intel cpu in a second, assuming it bests the AMD equivalent, but until then, i buy what works the best, at the best price, no matter if its ARM, VIA, Intel, or AMD. fyi, i am currently using a x4 955 @ 3.8 GHz (4.1 for benching) and i love it, I cant imagine needing much more in the near future. my highest CPU usage is about 30-40%, and i do some serious multitasking.
a b à CPUs
July 20, 2010 11:14:07 PM

btw, i doubt this will show a forum favoring AMD or whatever you are trying to prove, as most fanbois wont admit to it, or dont care enough to see reason. and there is a difference between customer loyalty and fanboism. for example, i love MSI, i have used several MSI boards and they are likely my favorite motherboard brand up there with Asus. thats customer loyalty, im familiar with the bios, i like the pricing, and they make great (and great looking :lol:  ) boards. Me saying that an inferior MSI board is superior to a superior Asus board is fanboism, not me being familiar and liking the product they make.
a b à CPUs
July 20, 2010 11:58:47 PM

I favor the current AMD chips because the performance differences between the i5/i7s and the top Phenoms is basically unnoticeable for most tasks. However, I went the Intel route for the SLI capabilities without having to deal with nVidia's horrible chipsets again. Otherwise, I would be using a Phenom 955 right now. This is just an example of how the needs of the consumer should influence the decision more than anything else.
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 12:24:58 AM

right, i dont NEED more than a 955, so why buy intel? nothing against intel, but they just need to think about their prices more.
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 12:25:43 AM

whats wrong with nvidia chipsets? besides how hot they run, i really dont have a problem with them
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 12:50:31 AM

xaira said:
whats wrong with nvidia chipsets? besides how hot they run, i really dont have a problem with them


Oh I admit their newer ones may be alright, but my old 680i left a horrible taste in my mouth. I couldn't clock my E6750 over 3.2 Ghz without feeding it 1.4v, but if I dropped it into a cheap ECS P35 that my friend had it went to 3.4 GHz on stock voltage and was stable at 3.8 GHz at 1.4v. Then add that the RAID controller on my board and the 7xxi series too was completely useless, I tried to setup a RAID array on my friends very nice MSI 750i without success, and the fact that I needed to buy an aftermarket NB cooler a week after I bought my 680i just made it all completely unacceptable.
July 21, 2010 1:16:52 AM

I am intel all the way for one simple reason, I live 10 mins away from a microcenter lol ;) 

If it weren't for my ability to snag an i7-930 for 2/3 the normal price @ $200 this post would be about AMD all the way lol

That's a good enough reason methinks ;) 
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 1:23:35 AM

haha, sad that when i bought me 955 it was 245$ and if i just waited a bit, id have an i7 for the same price. i dont need the i7 what so ever, but i wouldnt turn it down! :lol: 
July 21, 2010 1:31:57 AM

doh! Yea that is a shame for sure.

and I agree with ya, most users including myself don't NEED an i7, but who's gonna say no? lol Personally I felt obligated to get one.

How many people don't live anywhere close to a microcenter and would die for the i7 deals? I would be doing them an injustice if I didn't take advantage of that haha
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 1:37:55 AM

the one thing i do like about i7 is triple channel memory. the performance boost is negligible, however IMO, 6 gigs is the perfect sweet spot for just about anything. I have 8 gigs of memory, and i usually never get above 60-65% at max load. That means im only really ever using about 5 (this is with vista, so less with 7) gigs, so 6 would be perfect.
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 1:41:14 AM

ares1214 said:
there is a difference between customer loyalty and fanboism.

Both are just as stupid though. Nobody should be loyal to a company. That just means they end up getting a poorer deal than they could be due to some emotional attachment. Customer disloyalty (which alot of Seagate 7200.11 users now show) is just as stupid.

ares1214 said:
for example, i love MSI, i have used several MSI boards and they are likely my favorite motherboard brand up there with Asus. thats customer loyalty

It sounds more like brand preference than customer loyalty. Loyalty would mean that you always buy MSI's products.
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 1:51:33 AM

theres a better word for it, brand preference. im not loyal to MSI, i just like their products, and will continue to buy them as long as they are cheaper and have better features as other companies, but ill switch in a heart beat if they dont. and ive had 7 seagate drives in my life that i know off, 6 have failed, i dont call that customer disloyalty, i call it life experience. id be willing to try another seagate, i hear the 7200.12 is better than the others in their past, although im not gonna lie, im going to be more reluctant that say a WD. Now, i know newegg reviews mean NOTHING, however, i do find it interesting how even with the 500 gig platters of the 7200.12 series:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

they all have a much higher quantity of 1 egg reviews (failiures the majority) then say the F3:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

definitive lab results, HA far from, just and interesting observation. Im all for buying what has the best performance for the least money, but i do also remember previous experiences, whether good or bad. Will i buy a Seagate in the future, its likely, but ill sleep a lot easier with a WD.
July 21, 2010 1:54:20 AM

ares1214 said:
the one thing i do like about i7 is triple channel memory. the performance boost is negligible, however IMO, 6 gigs is the perfect sweet spot for just about anything. I have 8 gigs of memory, and i usually never get above 60-65% at max load. That means im only really ever using about 5 (this is with vista, so less with 7) gigs, so 6 would be perfect.


That's good to know! 4 GB always seemed like it could get pushed to its limits under full load. Was going to go with 6 GB (as opposed to 12 GB which is the next step up? yikes too much lol) for my build since I know it supports triple channel (is that because of the CPU or mobo, my guess is both need to support it but dependent on CPU primarily)

I've read that same point where there is very little difference between dual channel and triple channel so def agree with ya there, but who knows maybe in the future it will have more of an impact. Never hurts to future proof ;) 

July 21, 2010 1:57:05 AM

Interesting, I used to trust newegg reviews to get a general idea of things. I'd still look at it to determine quality of the product itself, but definitely technology is hit or miss when it comes the product. Either it works or it doesn't, not a lot of middle ground there lol

And for sure I hate customer loyalty or fanboys >< Go for the best product that gives you the most bang for your buck at the moment of purchase. There is no ifs and or buts about it!
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 2:05:25 AM

blitzace said:
Interesting, I used to trust newegg reviews to get a general idea of things. I'd still look at it to determine quality of the product itself, but definitely technology is hit or miss when it comes the product. Either it works or it doesn't, not a lot of middle ground there lol

And for sure I hate customer loyalty or fanboys >< Go for the best product that gives you the most bang for your buck at the moment of purchase. There is no ifs and or buts about it!


yeah, if something gets terrible reviews on newegg, ill think twice before buying it, but they really arent reliable, a lot of them dont know what they are talking about, are complaing about shipping, are expecting things from the product that arent guaranteed (555 unlocking into 955 to name one) or broke the product themselves. But en masse, they can be useful. And i entirely agree with that, but what has the best performance/quality for the best price. Im just use to that being MSI, and ive gotten used to their bios and such, so i like them. Motherboards is the one place i can tolerate a little fanboism, as they arent as clear cut winners in performance and qulaity, and usually comes down to what features you like, and how familiar you are with the company and product. like here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/rampage-iii-extreme...

performance gains are marginal at best, but at efficiency and power usage the MSI shines, and costs 70$ less than the Asus, and half as much as the gigabyte, so im just used to the MSI boards getting me more for less. Others might like Asus for certain features. If the MSI and Asus board swapped places, you can guarantee id forget about MSI and get the Asus. So i guess its just me searching for the best value, usually coming up with MSI, being familiar with them for this, and therefore liking their products. However, the CPU is one place where its much simpler. One cpu is OVERALL faster than the other. One is cheaper. One is cooler and uses less power. I dont care who makes that cpu, but whoever has the best balance of all of those, im buyin it.
July 21, 2010 2:11:58 AM

Yea that was a really great article! Read it as soon as it was posted. I was looking to see if any of those boards applied to my build but alas they are out of my league (especially the gigabyte sheesh lol)

I definitely need to do some more research when it comes to mobo selection. Right now I'm on the Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R but only because I saw it in Tom's custom build marathon paired with the i7. Looked like a great choice at the time but more research is needed.

Yea I shouldn't have been so quick to denounce company loyalty I suppose. I'm guilty of buying only logitech for mice, keyboard, and headsets >< but I agree with you 100% in the CPU category. Having only two competing companies also makes the choice much easier lol
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 2:24:14 AM

yeah, same with mouses and keyboards, there isnt much of a performance race going on, so pick the company you are used to, although more importantly the mouse that feels good, regardless of company. and cpus and video cards are pretty clear cut performance, if you buy a 5830 over a gtx 460, well then you are either un-aware of current happenings, or a die hard ati fanboi.
July 21, 2010 2:39:30 AM

Yea mouses I am much more picky. Only like one line of logitech (g5 / g500) and I can barely tolerate the rest but all it takes is one right? lol

Funny of you to mention that, the gtx 460 1GB is actually part of my build :p  Good to know I'll stick with that then. I actually saw a deal on slickdeals for 215$ for the gtx 470. But I'm not sure if I should get it or wait a bit longer as I'm not in any rush to build.

Seems the 470 has more CUDA cores, memory, and bandwidth but the 460 has a higher clock and texture fill rate. *shrugs* who knows lol
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 2:43:01 AM

in my opinion, the gtx 460 is by far the better buy (at regular pricing). as far as performance goes, well at stock settings, 470>460 by about 5-15%. Thats obvious, however the gtx also runs A LOT cooler/quieter/less energy/oc's higher. If it were me, if i wasnt happy with my gtx 460, id overclock it, and if i still wasnt, then id get the 470, but if u are happy with the performance, no need to worry, you made the right choice.
July 21, 2010 2:53:25 AM

great ;)  Thanks for the reply! Really appreciate it. Gonna stick with the 460 methinks and if in the future I ever get really ancy I can always OC or SLI,, either way I hope I'll be safe for the future.
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 3:02:39 AM

yep, they scale beatifully in SLI, or you can upgrade to the 475 when its out.
July 21, 2010 3:04:37 AM

I'm an AMD fan, I'll admit it. Intel always just seems overpriced. I can get an AMD lower priced that will do what I want it to do usually, leaves more $$ for better video, more ram, etc.
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 3:07:25 AM

Let's not forget that the top tog is always overpriced. AMD did the same thing in the A64 days.
July 21, 2010 3:15:51 AM

icraig said:
Hello,

I notice on here alot of people recommend AMD CPUs for value reasons and Intel for performance. But I know some of it boils down to what people prefer and like more.

I personally edge towards Intel, I have however built and owned a couple of AMD based PCs, but this is why....

My reason for prefering Intel is because my very first PC was a Mendicino based Celeron, Great little CPU and ran really cool.
I then moved on to a Thunderbird based AMD Athlon, that idled at 67C and ran underload at 79C!! That put me off AMD a year or two.
After the AMD I built my first PC, a Tualatin based Pentium 3 1.2GHz, I managed to OC it to 1.4GHz. It ran nice and cool and stablely too.

I then built an Athlon XP2200 system as I wanted more speed. It was a good system and cheap too!

After the XP2200, I 'upgraded' to a Netburst CPU skipping Willamette and went for a Northwood based Celeron, that system turned out to be a slow git, so I spent abit more and went for an Abit IC7 and Northwood Pentium 4 2.4GHz that overclocked to 3GHz!

That was my last PC, as I went to a Mac in 2004.

But in 2009 I decided the Mac was getting too old and slow, so I bought a old AMD system off a friend with an XP3000+. Which turned out to be dog slow and really quite poor.

So recently when building a PC I decided to go for Intel due to my past experiences, I want Socket 775 for value and am quite glade I did.

So why do you go for AMD or Intel?

Cheers

Craig



Its hard to be a fanboy I would Say of AMD due to them merging with ATI! It seems like the ultimate combo to fuse Graphics with a CPU. AMD is pretty good for price performance which I like to build for client/workstation combo. I have had a Xeon previously and was satisfied with that chipset , when I was younger the Celeron with cache running at full speed. Also the Netburst Architecture was a really impressive architecture from the ground up that replaced the aging pentium 1-3. AMD was the first to introduce the 64bit extensions and NX tchnology. Intel's hyperthreading was really cool technology if software coded for it. I have bought both systems but for Now I like AMD due tog reen energy saving plus ATI's All in Wonder Radeon with Hyper-Z was impressive vs Nvidia back in the day, and Now AMD was quick to the market releasing DX11.
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 3:37:38 AM

As of right, AMD for one reason: $100 quad cores! I don't game, but I'm really working, I do a lot of multitasking.
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 3:41:52 AM

^ i do have to admit, for the price of a hexa core at intel, you could get 40 cores from AMD.
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 3:44:43 AM

Nice thread.
Learning alot about newer tech.
Thank you.
As far as brand loyalty it is just like cars where personal perception over rules logic most of the time.
Though in general Logitech over the years consistently produced good stuff.
Xeon's make a more reliable workstation cpu generally, though Opteron's would crush them back in the day, because everything built around it (chipset and mobos)
was better supported.
AMD is generally the bang for buck company especially for overclockers.
As far as OEM's HP puts out best deals for money while Alienware is the closest thing to custom. I personally have had alot of Dell and like them but at the same time they suck (michael dell going to jail probably and lawsuits about the capacitors and how that was handled).
All of this is generalities and anyone of the companies can make garbage at any given time.
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 3:59:16 AM

agree with most of that, however, intels actually oc higher, as they start out as a lower base clock, yet usually reach the same final clock. and the closest to custom are cyberpower and digital storm:

http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/

http://www.digitalstormonline.com/

or atleast as far as i know of. im sure there are other out there though.
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 4:23:26 AM

B0ught Athlon II x4 630 for budget reasons (btw, this is my first AMD computer). Runs circles around my old 3ghz p4 computer (collects dust now). Of course, there are better cpus out there, but Athlon is one of the best values.
My path have been so far: Celeron 733 mhz --> p4 3ghz (considered AMD back then already)--> Athlon II x4. OSes accordingly --> Me :(  --> Xp home --> 7-64 home premium.

No fanboism whatsoever (2 ATI and 3 Nvidia cards within the path), just decisions.
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 4:57:28 AM

yyk71200 said:
B0ught Athlon II x4 630 for budget reasons (btw, this is my first AMD computer). Runs circles around my old 3ghz p4 computer (collects dust now). Of course, there are better cpus out there, but Athlon is one of the best values.
My path have been so far: Celeron 733 mhz --> p4 3ghz (considered AMD back then already)--> Athlon II x4. OSes accordingly --> Me :(  --> Xp home --> 7-64 home premium.

No fanboism whatsoever (2 ATI and 3 Nvidia cards within the path), just decisions.


You planning to OC that Athlon? I l'd love to see their potential.
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 5:00:23 AM

same here, id guess around 3.6 GHz on air? but id love to be proven wrong for the better.
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 5:04:21 AM

AMW1011 said:
You planning to OC that Athlon? I l'd love to see their potential.

Maybe. I'll have to buy an aftermarket cooler for that.
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 5:17:34 AM

Since unfortunately I don't own shares in any PC parts brand I'm not a fanboy.

However there's a few companies I don't trust/like and those are the companies that try to scr.w me (the customer). My short list is Intel, Nvidia, Creative.

- Intel - for rigging the market a few years ago and trying to force its competitor, AMD, out of it, you all know very well what I'm talking about. If that happened we would have bought now the i5 750 with $400. Also for changing their sockets like socks. Even for the LGA 775 one had to change the mobo with every new CPU series. The 1156 and 1366 have some 15-16 CPUs available and they plan new sockets. My AM2+ mobo takes some 170 different CPUs).

- Nvidia who tried to do the same thing using different methods (The way it's meant to be played‎, even rigged benchmarks) and for their rabid BS marketing. Actually, I think the marketing/advertising compartment is running that company not the engineering one. I also strongly suspect them of mounting anti-competition campaigns on the Internet. For instance, DX11 was not important until Nvidia had it too and Physix/CUDA are the greatest things since sliced bread.

- Creative who gave false information on their products (they were sued for that) and for their lack of support, also for the Daniel-K incident.

That being said, this doesn't mean I won't buy/recommend their parts but I'm very careful when I do that, still bought Intel and Nvidia but only there was no good alternative. I currently have both Intel and AMD, also ATI and Nvidia.



July 21, 2010 6:01:07 AM

I had an Athlon 3500+ late in the game, got rid of it before too long. But I remember the old Athlon XP 2800+ with the Barton core. That chip was killer back in the day. So mostly I missed the Athlon 64 days, because I had a quick chip, didn't need more at the time.

What I can remember is having an older AMD k-6, and getting ready for an upgrade. Dad and I went to the computer shop, the Pentium II was like 200 bucks for a 400 mhz chip. Insane. But that way back in the day when that was one of the best chips you could grab. We went down to best buy, and they had a k6-2 sitting there for 100 bucks. Ever since then, I almost don't even look at intel stuff.

But for example, looking at say an i3 which is supposed to be intel's budget line. Cheapest one on newegg is 114 for a dual core.

Sorry, but that is not that great. I mean yeah it's almost 3 ghz. But for a lousy dual core?? That's ridiculous in my opinion.

I could get an Athlon II quad at 3.0 ghz for 120.99. What's the point in even looking at the other? Even the hyperthreading tech in i3 can't make up for difference between dual vs quad.

Even the x3 would probably be better. I mean I can get an x3 at 3 ghz for close to 75. There's 2 gb of memory right there. Sorry, for the intels, the value just is not there for me. And I think for most users, the AMD's will provide more than enough computing power.
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 6:47:03 AM

mosox said:
Since unfortunately I don't own shares in any PC parts brand I'm not a fanboy.

However there's a few companies I don't trust/like and those are the companies that try to scr.w me (the customer). My short list is Intel, Nvidia, Creative.

- Intel - for rigging the market a few years ago and trying to force its competitor, AMD, out of it, you all know very well what I'm talking about. If that happened we would have bought now the i5 750 with $400. Also for changing their sockets like socks. Even for the LGA 775 one had to change the mobo with every new CPU series. The 1156 and 1366 have some 15-16 CPUs available and they plan new sockets. My AM2+ mobo takes some 170 different CPUs).

- Nvidia who tried to do the same thing using different methods (The way it's meant to be played‎, even rigged benchmarks) and for their rabid BS marketing. Actually, I think the marketing/advertising compartment is running that company not the engineering one. I also strongly suspect them of mounting anti-competition campaigns on the Internet. For instance, DX11 was not important until Nvidia had it too and Physix/CUDA are the greatest things since sliced bread.

- Creative who gave false information on their products (they were sued for that) and for their lack of support, also for the Daniel-K incident.

That being said, this doesn't mean I won't buy/recommend their parts but I'm very careful when I do that, still bought Intel and Nvidia but only there was no good alternative. I currently have both Intel and AMD, also ATI and Nvidia.


Well, I can't really argue with anything there. I just won't buy an inferior product because of it.
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 8:46:10 AM

ares1214 said:
btw, i doubt this will show a forum favoring AMD or whatever you are trying to prove,


Ares, I'm not trying to prove anything just wanted to see if peoples preferences are deep rooted like mine.

Its actually quite nice to see people don't just recommend AMD cos they hate everything Intel, like some people hate everything Microsoft or Apple.
Because I am sure there are people on this forum that are like that!

And you are right its more like brand preference rather than loyalty, people stick with what they know. Like me I used Asus boards for a number of year because liked them and they did just what I wanted. I've now switched to Gigabyte.

I find its the same in most things in life, an example here in the UK that is non computer related is people always buy Heinz Ketchup, they buy it because they're a brand name, they could go for the own brand thats cheaper and tastes as good but pay extra for the brand.

a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 8:52:17 AM

mosox said:


- Intel - . Also for changing their sockets like socks. Even for the LGA 775 one had to change the mobo with every new CPU series. The 1156 and 1366 have some 15-16 CPUs available and they plan new sockets. My AM2+ mobo takes some 170 different CPUs).



Err, AMD are guilty of that one too. Remember Socket A, Socket 754, Socket 939, Socket 940, AM2, AM2+ and AM3 (Soon to be AM3+), so thats 8 sockets in 9 years!

Intel on the otherhand have had Socket 370, Socket 423, Socket 478, LGA 775, LGA 1156 and 1366. So only 6 compared to AMDs 8! :kaola: 
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 8:58:56 AM

ohiou_grad_06 said:


But for example, looking at say an i3 which is supposed to be intel's budget line. Cheapest one on newegg is 114 for a dual core.

Sorry, but that is not that great. I mean yeah it's almost 3 ghz. But for a lousy dual core?? That's ridiculous in my opinion.

I could get an Athlon II quad at 3.0 ghz for 120.99. What's the point in even looking at the other? Even the hyperthreading tech in i3 can't make up for difference between dual vs quad.

Even the x3 would probably be better. I mean I can get an x3 at 3 ghz for close to 75. There's 2 gb of memory right there. Sorry, for the intels, the value just is not there for me. And I think for most users, the AMD's will provide more than enough computing power.


Thats because Intel still market LGA 775 as budget, looking at Passmark some of those Athlon II's Quads are just abit faster than a 3.2GHz Pentium which is $76!
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 21, 2010 9:01:07 AM

Neither. I just buy what I want if I have the money. :) 

I would just like to say that the term 'I prefer AMD because it's cheaper' wasn't always true, and if Bulldozer was anywhere near as successful as Core 2 was, then the tables will eventually start to turn. AMD used to sell FX editions, AMD's Intel EE equivalents which sold at $1000, and high range CPUs like the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ ran at 2.2 GHz for $537 at launch.

I don't see why anyone really should have any loyalties to any specific company, unless you have been with them for a long time and have always or nearly always been satisfied with their products, I've always thought wallet loyalty was most important. I'm not going to pay more for a more well-known brand than a less well-known brand which has an equally good product, equally good as in does the job well, and without any hiccups.

This may sound irrelevant, but trust me it's not - if you're anti Intel, it doesn't necessarily mean you're pro AMD, and if you're pro Intel for example, it doesn't necessarily mean you're anti AMD. Quite a lot of people don't realise this.

a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 9:44:30 AM

Objectively speaking, AMD currently provides the best performance vs value ratio in the market. Just thinking about those i7's pricing is too financially overwhelming for me.
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 21, 2010 10:09:37 AM

^ No one can disagree with you here, AMD does currently provide the best price/performance ratio. I'm just saying that it's not right to say AMD has always had the best prices, even though it may seem to be as five years is over 9000 in terms of computer years.

You know, i7s aren't that badly priced. The Extreme Editions and i7 970, yes, I suppose with regards to price performance, but with the other i7s not so much. They're just $100 more than an i5 750 system with the same parts (LGA 1156), and i5 750 systems are generally $80 more than a Phenom II X4 system, with the same-ish parts of course. With the LGA 1366, yeah, it starts to become a bit more expensive by around $200 compared to an i5 750 system, and $280 more than a Phenom II X4 system. You have to remember that Phenom II X4s aren't as powerful as i7s, hence the increase in price.

I'm not saying Intel's good or anything or AMD's bad, just that AMD's not always been the shining knight in armour saving you from Intel's horrible prices, and Intel's prices aren't that terrible for mainstream desktop products. I'm no Intel fanboy, there has been more AMD systems in this household I reckon. ^^


Quote:
ohiou_grad_06 wrote :




But for example, looking at say an i3 which is supposed to be intel's budget line. Cheapest one on newegg is 114 for a dual core.

Sorry, but that is not that great. I mean yeah it's almost 3 ghz. But for a lousy dual core?? That's ridiculous in my opinion.

I could get an Athlon II quad at 3.0 ghz for 120.99. What's the point in even looking at the other? Even the hyperthreading tech in i3 can't make up for difference between dual vs quad.

Even the x3 would probably be better. I mean I can get an x3 at 3 ghz for close to 75. There's 2 gb of memory right there. Sorry, for the intels, the value just is not there for me. And I think for most users, the AMD's will provide more than enough computing power.


I agree with you mainly, however the Core i3 530 does seem to have its uses - it would make a better HTPC combined with an H55 ITX motherboard or so, it uses less power than the Athlon II X4 (might be useful for those who live in places where power is expensive), and seems to achieve higher FPS in games.


Quote:
Err, AMD are guilty of that one too. Remember Socket A, Socket 754, Socket 939, Socket 940, AM2, AM2+ and AM3 (Soon to be AM3+), so thats 8 sockets in 9 years!

Intel on the otherhand have had Socket 370, Socket 423, Socket 478, LGA 775, LGA 1156 and 1366. So only 6 compared to AMDs 8! :kaola: 


^ The fact that you can stick a AM3 CPU in an AM2 board really just makes AM2/AM2+/AM3 just one big socket with HyperTransport and chipset upgrades. If you count that as one, AMD has had five sockets. You may argue that most AM3 CPUs don't work in AM2 boards, I suppose I can count that separately then and even then, AMD has equal amounts of sockets as Intel does.

Quote:
Nvidia who tried to do the same thing using different methods (The way it's meant to be played‎, even rigged benchmarks) and for their rabid BS marketing. Actually, I think the marketing/advertising compartment is running that company not the engineering one. I also strongly suspect them of mounting anti-competition campaigns on the Internet. For instance, DX11 was not important until Nvidia had it too and Physix/CUDA are the greatest things since sliced bread.


There's rebranding too. Lots of it. Not to say ATi isn't guilty of it, just nVidia much more. :3
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2010 1:11:29 PM

in the course of their long history, both have screwed us over, A LOT. it just so happens AMD has lower prices NOW, they arent changing sockets like socks NOW, their sockets are backwards compatible NOW, and they have the best bang for buck NOW. the socket thing i think and hope will last for a while, but if amd takes over the top spot, im sure we might be referring to them as "the evil empire". although intel is much bigger, and therefore still will have the bad attributes they have now. its all about whos on top.
!