AMD vs. Intel Processor's?

[Hail Ceasar]

A random thought of which one is better?
AMD or Intel, Single or Dual or Quad?
Whats your vote?

[CTA]

just curious... do you read news... there are a ton of news about intel...


btw of course intel... i hate amd so much...

[Hail Ceasar]

Not really, Just thought id ask, my system keeps systematically crashing and burning component by component i'm just waiting to see what I have to buy next :P

[BALISTX]

Most will say Intel and I'll have to agree as clock for clock Intel chips are faster, better overclocking potential, even with the lower end E2xxx and E5xxx series. Pricing is where AMD wins and they have to cut prices to keep competitive but with the series of chips being lack luster performers, people can overlook the price difference.

The big debate is between Quads and Duals. If you are going to being doing a lot of gaming then a dual core would be a better option. If you are going to be doing a lot video rendering, graphics, excel, cad, etc then a quad core would be better. It also comes down to how long do you plan on keeping the processor before you upgrade again. If it's going to be 3+ years you might want to get a quad core as more programs and games will be written to utilize a quad core. None the less the big debate now isn't really AMD vs Intel it's more Quad Core vs Dual Core. And people one both camps will give you the pros and cons of each.

[AkG]

The big question is how ofter do you plan on upgrading.
IF you upgrade every year (or less). A Dual is your best bang for your buck...unless you have apps which can handle the extra horsepower of a quad.
IF you upgrade infrequently Intel Quad 9450 is a very sweet deal, and should give you years of high performance.
IF your are on a very tight budget a Phenom from AMD is a very good choice, regardless of upgrade path.

IF your system is for gaming....all bets are off :) Go with the fastest DUAL you can afford BUT spend most of your money on a kick arse GPU.

Just my $.02...YMMV...etc....etc :)~

[Cheator]

Originally Posted by CTA

just curious... do you read news... there are a ton of news about intel...


btw of course intel... i hate amd so much...

Sounds like an unbiased post to me!

[Scratch]

Isn't anyone else crazy enough....

thats a pretty good assesment

[Jmac]

I always use AMD for budget builds. Their CPUs are competitive $ for $ with Intel's chips at stock speeds, but their motherboards own the crap out of Intel's motherboards, especially when integrated graphics come into play.

Occasionally, you can find some excellent deals on the Phenoms as well, which make them worthwhile. I saw the 9950 BE going for $171 a month or so ago while, at the same time, the Q6600 was still going for $200. Newegg also had the 9600 BE a few weeks ago for $116 (w/ free shipping) before the dollar collapsed.

However, since most people here are enthusiasts, AMD won't have much appeal to them due to their inferior overclocking abilities, inferior clock-for-clock performance, and inferior energy use/heat generation.

[belgolas]

Originally Posted by AkG

The big question is how ofter do you plan on upgrading.
IF you upgrade every year (or less). A Dual is your best bang for your buck...unless you have apps which can handle the extra horsepower of a quad.
IF you upgrade infrequently Intel Quad 9450 is a very sweet deal, and should give you years of high performance.
IF your are on a very tight budget a Phenom from AMD is a very good choice, regardless of upgrade path.

IF your system is for gaming....all bets are off :) Go with the fastest DUAL you can afford BUT spend most of your money on a kick arse GPU.

Just my $.02...YMMV...etc....etc :)~

Totally agree. I would rather have a 4870 X2 and a P4 processor then a C2Q @ 4ghz with a 6800 Ultra.

[thenewguy001]

AMD works great in workstation computers. I built one for my sister with their 780G integrated graphics chipset. Very good and cheap, and powerful enough for her at a very decent budget price. For a gaming comp though, go with intel