Intel or AMD?

  • Intel

    Votes: 21 55.3%
  • AMD

    Votes: 17 44.7%

  • Total voters
    38

87ninefiveone

Distinguished
Oct 16, 2011
449
0
18,860
Your post borders on trolling.

Also, in what context? Are you asking what we use? Or, are you asking which company is better in our opinion, or maybe which CPU's are better, or....?
 

graemevermeulen

Distinguished
Nov 16, 2010
268
0
18,790


Trolling?

It's a simple question... I just want to know what the percentage is.
 

graemevermeulen

Distinguished
Nov 16, 2010
268
0
18,790


Laptops/desktops/servers ....

Intel don't make GPU's to match AMD's range, this is just a simple question as to what people prefer.

I've had both myself, and I would use AMD again, if I ever needed a machine that I didn't intend on using for hardcore gaming.
 

graemevermeulen

Distinguished
Nov 16, 2010
268
0
18,790


Do you prefer McDonalds or do you prefer Subway?

Tea or coffee? Chicken or beef?

I really don't see where the confusion is.
 

loneninja

Distinguished
Although I have AMD in my computer I voted Intel since they have better processors, I really don't prefer either company, just who ever gives me better price/performance for the build and tasks I'll be doing.
 


Subway, tea, beef, Pepsi in US, Coke in Saudi Arabia (Pepsi quality control is terrible here), Intel.
 

ewood

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2009
463
0
18,810


you didnt ask which we prefer, you asked which is better. If you meant to ask which we prefer you are 100% trolling and should f off
 

ram1009

Distinguished
In case everybody has forgotten AMD announced several months ago that they would no longer be competing for desktop CPU superiority. The reasons are as obvious as the answer to the poll.
 

dyno_05

Distinguished
Apr 21, 2012
115
0
18,680
You would think the bulldozer which is a 8 core would beat it no problem. At 3.60GHz for each core that’s 8x3.6GHz= 28.8GHz total. And there are patches, they found many mistakes before release and fixed it with some patch so all the cores work.
I don't know I am still on a single core.
Wondering if a bulldozer can beat i7 sandy or even a ivy socket 1155.
I doubt it beats the intel 2011 cpu's most of those are 6 cores and they do cost a lot.(pretty much overkill (maybe).
 

bwrlane

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2010
449
0
18,860
I love AMD and was a proper fanboi when they took the fight to the incumbent with the K7 and K8.

But I will never buy an AMD CPU today because they are simply not as good. Nowhere near, no room for debate.

An AMD graphics card, for sure, because they are properly competitive. But today in the CPU space, their products are downright, demonstrably, inferior.
 
I've always liked AMD ever since my first K6-2. Even when they fell behind with 65nm (they were at the height of their arrogance in pushing that back and selling a fab) I still felt like they were trying to move in the right direction. Unfortunately I feel that Bulldozer was too far in the wrong direction. Poor IPC, huge caches with poor latency and thus poor performance per die space, and generally significantly worse in in almost every area other thank clock speed compared to their previous Stars Cores. In short almost a repeat of the Pentium 4. Sacking Dirk seemed like a dumb move to me and along with other moves leaves me questioning AMDs future. I'll leave out the "FX" marketing rant :p

Anyway it depends on what you're doing. If you're going for a low end laptop or HPC definitely AMD for their fusion architecture. Once you add in a dedicated GPU though it's hard to argue for AMD. In the desktop space though an Intel system is better for productivity and for gaming once you pair it with a dedicated GPU. For light gaming or HTPCs though AMD fusion has it's place. AMD FX not so much.
 

87ninefiveone

Distinguished
Oct 16, 2011
449
0
18,860


Core speeds aren't addative. 8 cores at 3.6GHz is just that, 8 independant CPU's each running at 3.6GHz (really technically 4 CPU's in the case of Bulldozer).

On a more serious note from what I posted earlier about Dorritos, does it really matter what CPU you choose above a certain threshold these days? Sure Intel is technically (and reallistically) better, but for all intensive purposes most modern CPU's are so powerful that you'll never really take advantage of their power anyways. To the average home user there would be zero difference between an FX and a Core CPU. Even for enthusiast gamers the differences come down to GPU more than anything else.

I like Intel myself for what amounts to marketing brainwashing back in the Pentium hey days, but reallistically I should have saved myself a couple hundred and gone AMD as it would have still accomplished everything I need at a lower price point. Score one for Intel's marketing I guess.
 

sykozis

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2008
1,759
5
19,865
I like Intel...always have. That said, I also like AMD....and always have. I regularly recommend AMD's APUs to those looking for budget or entry-level systems where an iGPU is more than sufficient purely because the Celerons are horridly gimped processors. Sure, they're cheaper....but they're still not worth the money. If I'm doing a quote for a high-end system, I can't recommend AMD's FX line in clear conscience due to the high power consumption. If AMD could get the power consumption under control, it'd be a different story, but at current the performance per watt of Bulldozer is absolutely horrid.