Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Why do you choose AMD or Intel?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a c 159 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 13, 2010 8:52:16 PM

Hi folks! ;) 

The idea is easy just post ur reasons for choose AMD or Intel.

Note that this isn't a discussion to find if Intel or AMD is better and comes about that will be deleted.

Now my 1st opinion here.

I choose AMD for price/performance and when I build my current rig I was without work but I'm thinking wait for Sandy and Bulldozer to build two rigs Intel and AMD. :sol: 

More about : choose amd intel

a b à CPUs
September 13, 2010 9:06:19 PM

Did a Moderator really just start an Intel/AMD thread? lol... seems kinda counter-intuitive since we all know these just lead to flame wars and bias benchmarks, right saint?

I chose my E8500 because of the price/watt performance and easy overclockability on stock vcore.

I will choose my next processor when me E8500 runs sluggish even when overclocked to 3.8. As to what processor I will] get - it is an irrelevant question. Intel could be the next best price/performance with Sandy Bridge. Who knows. What appeals to me is in this order: 1) Power consumption 2) Performance 3) Price 4) Overclocks 5) Longevity
Score
0
September 13, 2010 9:07:01 PM

I chose intel because they don't require drivers and specific add on services to function properly out of the box [im talking about the amd multi core optimizer - drivers for processors and throttling]

Another reason is because i had the cash, so that wasn't a problem when choosing because i wasn't on a tough budget.

Also i used nvidia sli option, which i hear is a bit of a problem for amd platforms...
Score
0
Related resources
a c 159 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 13, 2010 9:13:59 PM

werxen said:
Did a Moderator really just start an Intel/AMD thread? lol... seems kinda counter-intuitive since we all know these just lead to flame wars and bias benchmarks, right saint?

I chose my E8500 because of the price/watt performance and easy overclockability on stock vcore.

I will choose my next processor when me E8500 runs sluggish even when overclocked to 3.8. As to what processor I will] get - it is an irrelevant question. Intel could be the next best price/performance with Sandy Bridge. Who knows. What appeals to me is in this order: 1) Power consumption 2) Performance 3) Price 4) Overclocks 5) Longevity


Yeah I know the only thing that I don't want is the "I choose xxx because the other one sucks", and ur answer but with respect to the other manufacturer since both Intel and AMD do and excellent job.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 13, 2010 9:27:12 PM

I will stay with Intel, Because I had 3 bad AMD K6-2 CPUs in a row, I went thru 2 MB, 2 sets of RAM, Then I went thru 3 AMD CPUs and I could not install Windows. I got a Intel 233MMX and never had a problem.

I had a friend with a computer that would not install Windows and I asked him if he had a AMD K6-2 CPU and guess what.... He did , I had a Intel 166MMX from a parts computer and I installed it a presto it worked.

That is the reason I am a Intel Guy. I Will recommend AMD CPUs to people because the newer AMD CPUs are not like the K6-2s, but I will not buy one.

I would not turn down a free CPU from anybody :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 13, 2010 9:30:27 PM

I currently have an AMD socket motherboard, so i'd go w/ a Phenom II processor as my next one...

but if i was starting from scratch, i'd probably go with an i7. If you want bang for your buck, i can't think of anything better w/ this generation of hardware
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 13, 2010 9:38:57 PM

Well, I chose Intel due to the attractive E8400. C2D Wolfdale was the gaming choice then. I'm on C2Q now because I wasn't about to give up my $250 IX38 board just yet. :) 

Depending on graphic engine and GPU progression I may be sticking with this through Sandy and Bulldozer.

When I do upgrade it will likely be AMD, though my hopes for Bulldozer aren't very high. I'm getting sick of Intel's gimped 'mainstream' boards allowing them to charge HUGE for the 'enthusiast' socket/boards. 20 pci lanes again... come on...

With consoles putting such a burden on all gamers I might be sticking with this chipset for quite some time. We shall see!
Score
0
September 13, 2010 10:09:21 PM

After a bad experience with a Cyrix processor in the 90's, I stuck to Intel for a while (for compatibility concerns), using Celerons, as that was all I could afford for a long time.

I upgraded from a 3 GHZ Celeron in May, and I was about to pull the trigger on a i5-750, and peeking at some i7's, and then AMD released the hexacore cpu's. After looking at benchmarks, the 1090T had decent marks, especially in Handbrake, the video software I use the most. So I grabbed a 1090T

I would have been just as happy with a 4 core cpu from Intel, with or without hyperthreading, but I like having the extra two physical cores, and I feel I have more options.

I use my computer for video encoding, and just a few games, and console emulation.

It is too bad Intel is priced so high, but at least AMD is an option, and the competition of the two companies help keep prices lower than they otherwise would be.

Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 13, 2010 10:21:04 PM

I was exclusively Intel from the 80286 days, through a bunch of P4 rigs that I built for myself & family. Was all hyped to get a Barcie several years ago but was disappointed in how it turned out, so I got a Q6700 and 680i mobo instead. With a mild oc it's still OK, but I'm ready to upgrade again and will be looking at both SB and BD when they come out. But I don't wanna wait too much past this time next year, so Intel had better bring out an affordable 6-core SB on the 2011 mobo, and AMD had better not delay BD like they did Llano. Looking forward to the benchies on both.
Score
0
September 13, 2010 10:32:06 PM

Price Amd is a way better value than intel

Score
0
September 13, 2010 10:32:17 PM

Price Amd is a way better value than intel

Score
0
September 13, 2010 10:56:10 PM

I sold, built, pushed, and loved AMD for about a decade. Then suddenly Intel provided the best price to performance ratio at my pricepoint which is about 200-250 dollars a CPU. It caused me to suddenly start selling Intel. Many of my friends were upset because they believed I was a AMD fanboy or diehard. I instead look for the best product for the money available. Sometimes its AMD sometimes it's Intel.

At this moment I honestly don't know what I will buy next. AMD's Bulldozer or some other product may be superior to what Intel offers in my pricepoint. Or Sandybridge or Huron River CPU's from Intel may be the better price/performance in my segment.

I was about to buy the Intel I7 970, but it ended up being sold for almost $400 dollar more then original estimates due to no competition from AMD in this segment.

I find this very sad, as I was finally going to overspend and lay down 570 bucks for a CPU then poof its 900 bucks.

Then Westmire EX came out and its only server socket oriented.

I am not thrilled with paying for a on-die GPU on sandybridge for nothing. I won't ever use it. So hopefully AMD actually has a product for me to upgrade to this round.

System specifications: Intel Core I7 920 at 4.33GHZ, 6gigs of DDR3 1600 at 1648, 3 EVGA Geforce 260 core 216's in tripple SLI, EVGA X58, thermaltake 1200 watt psu, 3 Seagate 1.5tb drives with a western digital black 1tb for cdrive. Blueray LG and a old sony DVD burner. Displayed on a Dell 23inch true widescreen hi rez. With a cheap Rosewill keyboard lol.
Score
0
September 13, 2010 11:07:36 PM

Doom3klr said:
Price Amd is a way better value than intel


For what performance level?

AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition Thuban 3.2GHz 295 bucks. you get 6 cores but in overall performance your dealing with a previous generation Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550S Yorkfield 2.83GHz which is overpriced at 350 bucks.

However for 295 dollars what can you get over at Intel? intel core i7 930. I have overclocked the last 6 I have sold to over 4ghz. At these performance levels for "gaming" it just outstripes anything the 1090T can do.

So once again? For what performance level.

AMD and Intel are never the same performance per dollar at different price points.

At some price points AMD has the advantage
At some price points Intel has the advantage

Blanket statements that AMD is a better value can easily be rebuffed. And the same for Intel.

AMD has done absolutely marvelous in the 125 dollar and less market in the last few years. Frequently (if not consistantly) besting Intel in price to performance.

However Intel has done the same in the 200 dollar + market. With them fighting eachother in the middle quite abit.

I pray that this war never ends cause we NEED the competition to keep prices in check.

Time for AMD to have another good CPU. We need something to compete against Sandybridge and even the older I7's.

Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 13, 2010 11:33:53 PM

I mainly had budget PCs so AMD most of the time but some Intel as well. Anyway when I bought my last two Phenom II CPUs I had in the back of my mind that AMD will lose some money by selling me those CPUs at that price while Intel would have had 50% or something profit on theirs.

I also tend to buy a little more expensive in little shops than buy cheaper in huge department stores. Not like AMD is small though.
Score
0
a c 863 à CPUs
a c 141 å Intel
a c 335 À AMD
September 14, 2010 12:00:03 AM

AMD = Price/performance.
Intel = Performance.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2010 1:15:55 AM

These days I'll recommend an Intel when the performance target is at or above the i5 750 + 5770/460 range, and the budget is $850-$950 minimum. Below those I'll recommend an AMD system unless Intel is specifically requested. But I don't spec them myself since I don't "know" them.

So the recommendation is based on my perception of performance and value.

I personally use Intel because of the familiarity coming from decades of use (habit lol) and because performance was always more important to me than the few extra dollars involved. And at times I probably overspent along the way as a result.

But my personal choice is Intel.
Score
0
September 14, 2010 1:38:41 AM

Depending on workload. For gaming at a budget, AMD. For high-end / performance gaming machine, Intel. For development (on a budget), I tend to lean towards AMD. Its 6 cores 1055T is unbeatable at that price, assuming that you run multiple VMs or servers / compilers.
Score
0
September 14, 2010 3:12:50 AM

Old Windows PC: P4 was faster at Lightwave rendering than an AMD of similar price.
Telecommuting machine: AMD were cheapest, no need for much performance.
Server: Atom was cheap and low power.
HTPC: Ion is cheap and even lower power.
Netbook: AMD weren't even in the market.
Laptop: Needed an Intel CPU for Avid.
Score
0
September 14, 2010 3:56:54 AM

Intel is way more expensive in general. Then people must question is it worth spendeng all fhat extra money for a slight amounts of performance difference in manny cases.

Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2010 4:11:36 AM

For me I chose the AMD because of it's value for performance. Like the 550 or 555, And since the release of the 740, the 740. Mainly because the 740 is just 89$ + shipping on newegg. Which is just awesome plus you can unlock it.

However if I could build my PC all over again the i5 7xx would have been my choice because of its great performance of 200$, Arguable the 1055T is also a good choice, But 750 is a great cpu none the less.

Hopefully Bobcat will show some sweet performance and they'll have it at the price of a 955 :D 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2010 4:28:11 AM

I like INTEL because of the flat color schemes of their advsertising

just kidding I like it because you can take a lower end product and usually overclock it past the default speeds of thier high end product
not really possible with AMD
Score
0
September 14, 2010 5:10:02 AM

I had horrible experiences with an amd 486 class chip, forked over the extra 20 bucks and replaced it with an actual 486 dx2 66. Suddenly my computer worked correctly. After that I was an intel man and stayed there for many years. I gave amd another chance with the athlon xp...They had fixed their stability and compatability issues... I stayed with em through an athlon 64 5000...then went core 2 quad and now I7 havent looked back...
Intel currently has the crown...
To quote Ash (shop smart shop S mart)
Its good to be the king.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2010 5:19:10 AM

AMD has been the CPU my most recent builds for price/performance.
Score
0
September 14, 2010 5:28:13 AM

I like AMD because they're the under-dog. I feel like there is no reason to get high end desktop products from intel because if you need that them that bad for work or productivity reasons you should buy a server board/proc or something. I guess they are better at games. But at 1440x900 I get 60+ frames in all my games with my Phenom II. (Except crysis with AA enabled, but I blame that on my 512mb of video ram)
Score
0
September 14, 2010 6:42:25 AM

What you really need to do is list what you want to do with it and how much money you want to spend.

Then a custom rig can be quoted with the best components for your desired build.

Which parts are used will change depending on the needs and the available funds.

If its absolutely dirt cheap then it will probably be AMD.
If its midrange then Intel will quickly take over unless you happen to be planning to use the system for very specific things that like having real physical cores more then hyperthreading.
If its absolutley balls out... well then. AMD has no products available in this segment.

So you need to provide more information if you really want a truely informed answer.
Score
0
a c 172 à CPUs
a b å Intel
September 14, 2010 6:49:21 AM

Intel, because of performance and ease of overclocking. It also helps that I am generally not on a tight budget.
Score
0
September 14, 2010 6:51:45 AM

AMD- I wanted a quad core, and I didn't want to spend more than 150 on a cpu. I also liked the 95 watts of the 945. Although if i had to do it again, I'd have manned up and bought a BE.
Score
0
September 14, 2010 7:08:23 AM

Always been an AMD man, brilliant chips, built to last, pretty good performance for the price.

Have got an i7 930 now, but only due to the fact it was pretty much at the top of the list for gaming performance and overclock-ability.
Score
0
September 14, 2010 8:12:06 AM

I've always used my PC's for hardcore to casual gaming and general use (multimedia, office, internet, no video encoding)


In the past 20 years I've had 4 intel (386SX, 486 DX, Pentium I Pro, Pentium III) and 3 AMD (Athlon XP, Athlon 64, Athlon X2).... there's not a bad word I can say about any of them.... they were the best value for money when I bought them (although in the 90's the choice was often intel or intel).

Anno 2010:
If I was to build a budget gaming rig right now I would choose for an Athlon II X3 445. Astonishing value for money and you can even use the same m/b to upgrade to a Phenom X6 when the prices will drop amd the games will become really multi-treaded in the near future.

On the mid-range segment the i5 760 is King, the phenoms II X4 are maybe cheaper but they are also slower and draw more power. Only (little) problem i see is that it has no support for SATA 3 (?)... Not that I need it right now but let's say that i buy an expensive SSD 2 years from now, I would prefer it to be SATA 3 so i can use it without performance loss on my future 2014 rig...

Not much I can say for the high-end (gaming) sector... it's i7 or i7....
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2010 12:34:44 PM

jsc said:
Intel, because of performance and ease of overclocking. It also helps that I am generally not on a tight budget.

Agreed.
Score
0
a c 133 à CPUs
September 14, 2010 12:50:45 PM

I have built many rigs both AMD and Intel and when it comes down to it they both are great companies with great innovation. Usually for me I like Intel but when building on a budget AMD is great you can build a pretty decent gaming rig for under $400.

Intel has the performance crown though so until that changes I will keep buying Intel.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 27, 2012 11:57:29 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!