Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

AMD general vs Intel general

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Intel
Last response: in CPUs
January 8, 2013 5:50:14 PM

I know this is another freaking amd vs intel thing, just want to clear some stuff up. I prefer amd, probably because im on a very tight budget. No i will state some facts and i want to see who will agree.

AMD CPU's
1. Cheaper
2. Is NOT slower than intel
3. works well with other amd components (syncs well with graphics cards and other amd products)

Intel CPU's
1. Expensive/Impractical (price vs performance does not match amd)
2. Fast enough at 3.0 GHz
3. Likes to work alone (using loner companies such as nvidia or msi for graphics and so on)

Who agrees?

The thing is i have had both intel and amd and at such high speeds of 2.5ghz and up it is impossible to feel a big difference in daily use (ms word, videos, internet etc.) But i just think that intel is impractical for its price FOR everyday usage, it would never pay off, unless you are a very heavy gamer. AMD does not conserve power and wastes it like crazy but still manages to get the job done.

Who agrees?

Then one thing i noticed, on my intel, i end up having " not responding " items more often than amd and for longer periods of time. I mean for gaming no lag or anything but on internet browsers of ms outlook it freazes while acts a little bit slower but no lag and no "not responding". is that just me or what. Idk what my intel proccesor is cause im waiting for a new monitor right now and cant really check, i have an amd phonom II x4 840 at 3.2GHz.

More about : amd general intel general

a b à CPUs
January 8, 2013 5:53:24 PM

i agree but are u starting a flame war
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
January 8, 2013 5:58:47 PM

They both have their niches. AMD can offer better value in some situations. Pretty much everything else you wrote is rubbish.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2013 5:59:52 PM

skitz9417 said:
i agree but are u starting a flame war


+1
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2013 6:00:55 PM

hey socailfox
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2013 6:02:14 PM

skitz9417 said:
hey socailfox


Hello :hello: 
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2013 6:03:40 PM

Oh boy... I see this getting nasty :( 

I agree with you, that for STANDARD USE (the example you gave, internets, office utility's, movies) an AMD system is a better, and more economical system, and the APU's that they are putting out are actually pretty good on energy consumption.

If you are running a system where performance is critical (gaming, datacenter workloads, graphics / video editing, 3d rendering) then the performance / dollar ratio is much better going with Intel.

One thing I do not agree on is AMD systems being more stable. I have both high end intel and amd systems, and I do not have a stability or "unresponsive" program issue with either one.

But you are absolutely correct *Based on the premise you stated in your opening statement*
January 8, 2013 6:04:29 PM

There's absolutely nothing wrong with AMD. If you're on a tight budget, they're the way to go. I just prefer Intel, and that's how it's always been.
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2013 6:20:43 PM

Prices tell you a lot in my view.

A quad-core AMD will be outmatched by a quad-core Intel but the Intel will cost at least 50% more - so this should be expected.

I personally like the FX-4300 for it's low price and good performance but as you go up the models they get less desirable to me. The 'flagship' 8350 model comes too close to the price of some i5 CPU's and doesn't match them on 'real' performance. Mainly because most applications don't support 8 threads yet.
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2013 6:21:35 PM

Singular9 said:
I know this is another freaking amd vs intel thing, just want to clear some stuff up. I prefer amd, probably because im on a very tight budget. No i will state some facts and i want to see who will agree.

AMD CPU's
1. Cheaper
2. Is NOT slower than intel
3. works well with other amd components (syncs well with graphics cards and other amd products)

Intel CPU's
1. Expensive/Impractical (price vs performance does not match amd)
2. Fast enough at 3.0 GHz
3. Likes to work alone (using loner companies such as nvidia or msi for graphics and so on)

Who agrees?

I don't agree.

AMD CPU's
1. Nope
2. It is actually, especially in the high end
3. Untrue -- and if it were true AMD would be shooting themselves in the foot, which is why it shouldn't be true either.

Intel CPU's
1. Untrue on many occasions
2. True
3. Untrue

Singular9 said:
The thing is i have had both intel and amd and at such high speeds of 2.5ghz and up it is impossible to feel a big difference in daily use (ms word, videos, internet etc.) But i just think that intel is impractical for its price FOR everyday usage, it would never pay off, unless you are a very heavy gamer. AMD does not conserve power and wastes it like crazy but still manages to get the job done.

Who agrees?

I agree it's mostly a trivial choice for everyday computing in terms of performance.
Singular9 said:
Then one thing i noticed, on my intel, i end up having " not responding " items more often than amd and for longer periods of time. I mean for gaming no lag or anything but on internet browsers of ms outlook it freazes while acts a little bit slower but no lag and no "not responding". is that just me or what. Idk what my intel proccesor is cause im waiting for a new monitor right now and cant really check, i have an amd phonom II x4 840 at 3.2GHz.

It's not a matter of Intel or AMD, though.
January 8, 2013 6:44:57 PM

The I3 I have destroys some of AMD's higher range CPU's. The I5 3570k performs better than some of the highest range AMD products, practically all of them, but hey that's only my experience. The only thing impractical about intel is the price of the I7. The I5 and I3 perform extremely well for their price. But hey this is my experience, and I've use many cpu's from both companies.

But AMD is better for everyday use. But an I3 is only $115 and it performs extremely well for the price.
January 8, 2013 7:14:35 PM

wow what wonderfull feed back, like i said im not hating on intel or amd. i am actually thinking about putting together a pc just for general use right now, but i would like it to be fast because some times i play things like world of tanks and skyrim.

so what would be the perfect medium as far as price, worth, performance and the lot. like what would be good for both and be good on budget. my current pc is like not really mine its a family pc and it has a phenom 2 x4 840 at 3.2 ghz, i got the whole pc for around 550 bucks at one place and all the stuff is completely amd.
a c 125 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
January 8, 2013 7:29:17 PM

Singular9 said:
I know this is another freaking amd vs intel thing, just want to clear some stuff up. I prefer amd, probably because im on a very tight budget. No i will state some facts and i want to see who will agree.

AMD CPU's
1. Cheaper
2. Is NOT slower than intel
3. works well with other amd components (syncs well with graphics cards and other amd products)

Intel CPU's
1. Expensive/Impractical (price vs performance does not match amd)
2. Fast enough at 3.0 GHz
3. Likes to work alone (using loner companies such as nvidia or msi for graphics and so on)


amd
1 - true
2 - false - but often not important in real life
3 - false - works with any other components

intel
1 - true - more expensive than amd, but impractical is wrong
2 - true
3 - utter rubbish
January 8, 2013 7:56:02 PM

Ask someone that builds and sells hundreds of pc's. And ask them what type of customers are more often disappointed. The answer, I believe, is of three letters.
January 8, 2013 9:52:52 PM

Singular9 said:


AMD CPU's
1. Cheaper
2. Is NOT slower than intel
3. works well with other amd components (syncs well with graphics cards and other amd products)

Intel CPU's
1. Expensive/Impractical (price vs performance does not match amd)
2. Fast enough at 3.0 GHz
3. Likes to work alone (using loner companies such as nvidia or msi for graphics and so on)


ry
If all you do is non-intensive stuff like office work/videos/gaming then yes AMD is enough, but for intensive things like 3D Rendering, Server farming, and benchmark whoring, Intel beats AMD by a significant margin, for instance, try doing 3D with an FX-8350, dual Xeon on C606 Chipset will easily outperform it, try running a server with FX or Opteron, Xeon easily beats FX and beats Opteron for value.

1. True
2. No
3. they work as well with other components as Intel. In fact if anything I'd say Intel actually works better with others because Intel natively supports USB 3.0 and PCIe 3.0 whereas AMD cannot support PCIe 3.0 and requires external controllers for USB3.

1. No(depending)
2. No(depending)
3. wtf?
a c 630 à CPUs
a c 198 À AMD
a c 197 å Intel
January 9, 2013 12:14:13 AM

Both AMD and Intel have their places and people will choose whichever one meet's their criterias.

I know what my criterias are. The only question is when to upgrade since my current PC still provides me with enough performance where I do not need to decide now what to upgrade to.
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2013 12:25:53 AM

Hi :) 

Its horses for courses....

BOTH are for different things...

As an example..if a Pensioner comes into one of my shops for a decent modern Pc to replace his old XP machine at a REASONABLE price, we sell him an AMD quad etc, if a gamer comes in with money no Object, we sell him Intel...

Neither are BETTER than the other as both the Pensioner and the Gamer GO AWAY HAPPY...

All the best Brett :) 
January 9, 2013 1:28:40 AM

Brett928S2 said:
Hi :) 

Its horses for courses....

BOTH are for different things...

As an example..if a Pensioner comes into one of my shops for a decent modern Pc to replace his old XP machine at a REASONABLE price, we sell him an AMD quad etc, if a gamer comes in with money no Object, we sell him Intel...

Neither are BETTER than the other as both the Pensioner and the Gamer GO AWAY HAPPY...

All the best Brett :) 


+1
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2013 4:17:05 AM

Im gonna just piss over this flamewar and walk away laughing.
a c 187 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
January 9, 2013 5:17:43 AM

Singular9 said:
I know this is another freaking amd vs intel thing, just want to clear some stuff up. I prefer amd, probably because im on a very tight budget. No i will state some facts and i want to see who will agree.

AMD CPU's
1. Cheaper
2. Is NOT slower than intel
3. works well with other amd components (syncs well with graphics cards and other amd products)

Intel CPU's
1. Expensive/Impractical (price vs performance does not match amd)
2. Fast enough at 3.0 GHz
3. Likes to work alone (using loner companies such as nvidia or msi for graphics and so on)


NOT TRYING TO START A FLAME WAR.

Me thinks you need some work. :whistle: 
January 11, 2013 10:58:18 AM

AMD can't perform as well as Intel when it comes to gaming, hands down. BUT when it comes to rendering AMD can wipe the floor with Intel's i5 chips. It's i7's may still under-perform against the AMD's 8-core's processors but they are comparable. If you want a gaoming rig even an i3 would be fantastic. I build i3 gaming rigs a lot and they still outperform AMD's "Quad cores".
January 11, 2013 11:00:11 AM

AMD can't perform as well as Intel when it comes to gaming, hands down. BUT when it comes to rendering AMD can wipe the floor with Intel's i5 chips. It's i7's may still under-perform against the AMD's 8-core's processors but they are comparable. If you want a gaming rig even an i3 would be fantastic. I build i3 gaming rigs a lot and they still outperform AMD's "Quad cores".
January 11, 2013 11:06:44 AM

Like many others have said, it comes down to cost and what you intend to do. If you don't have a ton of money to game on, AMD can still give you enough performance to please your need, but that depends on you. That being said, for gaming, intel wins in the benchmarks.
January 11, 2013 12:51:26 PM

I'm a n00b to computer hardware, but from the research I've done I would prefer AMD, but the problem is AMD motherboards don't have PCIe 3.0 interfaces. A lot of great graphics cards have PCIe 3.0 interfaces so by force I choose Intel.
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2013 12:56:55 PM

xanderlane said:
I'm a n00b to computer hardware, but from the research I've done I would prefer AMD, but the problem is AMD motherboards don't have PCIe 3.0 interfaces. A lot of great graphics cards have PCIe 3.0 interfaces so by force I choose Intel.


The cards are backwards compatible, you just use PCI e 2.0/.1 instead of 3.0. And it makes absolutely no difference


January 11, 2013 1:47:19 PM

sarinaide said:
The cards are backwards compatible, you just use PCI e 2.0/.1 instead of 3.0. And it makes absolutely no difference


But you might have the same motherboard for several years to come. In 3 years PCI-E 3.0 could be properly utilized to higher extent than it is now.
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2013 4:13:45 PM

hizodge said:
But you might have the same motherboard for several years to come. In 3 years PCI-E 3.0 could be properly utilized to higher extent than it is now.



Hi :) 

Most gamers don't have motherboards for "several" years... they upgrade regularly...

Also to those who say Intel is better for gaming vs Amd...that's rubbish...

I have a big gaming machine with an AMD 1100T + an AMD 7990

NO gamer will get a single frame more than me with an Intel cpu... NOT ONE...

People in this flame war , tend to forget that gaming is about GRAPHICS CARDS , NOT cpus...

All the best Brett :) 
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2013 4:26:22 PM

FinneousPJ said:
I don't agree.

AMD CPU's
1. Nope
2. It is actually, especially in the high end
3. Untrue -- and if it were true AMD would be shooting themselves in the foot, which is why it shouldn't be true either.

Intel CPU's
1. Untrue on many occasions
2. True
3. Untrue


I agree it's mostly a trivial choice for everyday computing in terms of performance.

It's not a matter of Intel or AMD, though.

lol, ill rebuttle your analysis.

AMD cpus
1. ... Intel is cheaper? ...
2. depends on the usage/program but vs a $1000 cpu? thats why its $200.
3. rofl, so AMD cpu doesn't work well with an AMD gpu ...

Intel cus
1. Vs the above mentioned $1000 cpu ... rofl
2. no need to comment
3. where did nvidia motherboards go? thats all that needs to be said.

a b à CPUs
January 11, 2013 4:43:13 PM

AMD
1. Yes, for example Intel Pentium G860 is cheaper than AMD FX-4300.
2. You argued that Intel isn't faster. It is.
3. What you obviously imply is that AMD GPUs work BETTER with AMD CPUs which is untrue.

Intel
1. Again, many Intel CPUs actually offer superior price/performance.
3. No, that's not all :lol: 
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2013 5:21:42 PM

so your arguement is that if you compare amd's cpus to a $1000 Intel cpu, that the Intel cpu is faster, but you can't use it for the value comparison, instead you compare a $75 Intel cpu to a $200 AMD cpu that the Intel is cheaper ...

double standards much?

1. The a4 5300 is cheaper than the g860, what was your point?
2. yep, intel is faster at $1000 than AMD at $200.
3. amd has the capability of of it, wich was the poit, intel works alone and tries to get rid of vendors, hence nvidia motherboards.
January 11, 2013 5:32:00 PM

Brett928S2 said:
Hi :) 

Most gamers don't have motherboards for "several" years... they upgrade regularly...

Also to those who say Intel is better for gaming vs Amd...that's rubbish...

I have a big gaming machine with an AMD 1100T + an AMD 7990

NO gamer will get a single frame more than me with an Intel cpu... NOT ONE...

People in this flame war , tend to forget that gaming is about GRAPHICS CARDS , NOT cpus...

All the best Brett :) 


Only PC enthusiasts update their motherboard regularly. Like you said yourself; CPU doesn't matter that much in the endgame, the graphics card does. So say somebody bought AMD Phenom II X4 for AM3 socket. That guy can sit the entire lifespan of the A3+ socket out, because upgrading wouldn't get pretty much any visual gain in games. So yeah he might stick to that board for even 3-5 years.

When you're building a new system it's different. Because we do not yet know how and when new, but currently obsolete tech like SATA 6Gb/s or PCI-E 3.0 might be utilized effectively. So yeah.
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2013 6:12:20 PM

So far the best reviewed budget gaming CPU's have been;

FX 4170
FX 6200
A10-5800k

I am assuming Vishera equivilants of the FX 4 and FX 6 family will replace them but AMD have 3 and possibly up to 6 CPU's in the budget spectrum around a cost of a i3 3225. Granted intel is ahead in x86 performance the above CPU's give exceptional performance at next to nothing with enthusiast bells and whistles.

I don't agree that Intel nor AMD are better or worse for gaming but each has a particular target market, either can be suited to basic and hardcore gaming needs.
January 12, 2013 9:49:21 PM

I have 2 rigs a core i7 930 at 3.8ghz+gtx590 and the other a amd 6300+ amd 7970 ghz

Both of them perfom fantastic They pretty much ultra any game at 1080p.

Now is intel better than amd? well that depends on the users budget and needs. i got the 6300 because i wanted to see how the amd chips are and i must say im happy with it. If you want every single fps possible intel is the way, however if your on a budget a 4300/6300 will preform great. and it doesnt matter whether you pair a amd card with amd cpu or intel cpu its the same thing. same thing for intel

Overall in the real world both preform great Choose your pick be happy and live on.
a c 155 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 12, 2013 10:25:32 PM

Singular9 said:
I know this is another freaking amd vs intel thing, just want to clear some stuff up. I prefer amd, probably because im on a very tight budget. No i will state some facts and i want to see who will agree.

AMD CPU's
1. Cheaper
2. Is NOT slower than intel
3. works well with other amd components (syncs well with graphics cards and other amd products)

Intel CPU's
1. Expensive/Impractical (price vs performance does not match amd)
2. Fast enough at 3.0 GHz
3. Likes to work alone (using loner companies such as nvidia or msi for graphics and so on)

Who agrees?

The thing is i have had both intel and amd and at such high speeds of 2.5ghz and up it is impossible to feel a big difference in daily use (ms word, videos, internet etc.) But i just think that intel is impractical for its price FOR everyday usage, it would never pay off, unless you are a very heavy gamer. AMD does not conserve power and wastes it like crazy but still manages to get the job done.

Who agrees?

Then one thing i noticed, on my intel, i end up having " not responding " items more often than amd and for longer periods of time. I mean for gaming no lag or anything but on internet browsers of ms outlook it freazes while acts a little bit slower but no lag and no "not responding". is that just me or what. Idk what my intel proccesor is cause im waiting for a new monitor right now and cant really check, i have an amd phonom II x4 840 at 3.2GHz.


Absolute crap! :pfff: 
January 12, 2013 10:31:15 PM

For me intel is much faster since its cores are more stable and have improved over the years, and amd are still good cores for their prices but on the reviews i have seen intel beats amd