Gizmodo
The age-old battle between Intel and AMD is resurrected every year as the two duke it out for control of your computer. Back in the day, when I was broke and into building PCs, I often opted for AMD because of budget restrictions. After I graduated, performance was the objective which, at the time, meant a switch to Intel was in order. I took a case by case approach to the debate between Intel and AMD, but many PC builders out there have fierce loyalties to one side or the other despite their ups and downs. So the question is: Do you prefer AMD or Intel processors?
Comments
AMDs Phenoms are true quad cores, but that stepping problem prevents me from purchasing one...
Im waiting till intel or AMD comes out with a real quad core processor that does not have any defects.
I use AMD on my desktops because they're cheaper and Core 2 Duos on my Laptop.
B3 Is out - but Tom's said wait till next round ships.
things were so much simpler when it was just pentium 1, 2, etc. seems like there are so many different branded cpus by intel and amd now. maybe i just didn't notice before.
I used to be down with AMD, but they fell off like a loose wheel.
There have been times when AMD has held the performance advantage, and they have usually held the price advantage, but I've typically bought Intel (probably in a ratio of 6:1 vs AMD). Quite possibly in reaction to the religious fanatics who always bought AMD as a way of "sticking it to the man", in much the same way that some people go for linux or OS/X (and previously OS/2) over Microsoft....
What about IBM? The Die Hard G4 G5 and Power6 users!
Intel, enough said.
Rode the AMD market wave and made some sweet $$$ in the process. Bought in at $12 sold at $35 a few years back. Sad to see the stocks now in the single digits. Wondering if that waves ever gonna come back?
my first home built computer was an amd. I had problems left, right and centre - maybe because it was my first? ... well, you know they say you never forget your first. But now that I've bought into intel - I'll never sell!
Who checked other? How old are you people?
I've stuck with intel since my first computer that I bought in the '90s. I believe it was a Pentium processor (nothing but the best, right?)
I don't have a preference. My allegiance is to performance, so whichever company can offer me the best processor for the money gets my business.
Hello, I'm a Mac, and I have no choice.
For one reason or another, I've always had Intel processors. Before I got my Mac, I was thinking of building a new machine to replace my old Compaq, and use AMD, but only because it was cheaper than Intel and I was working on a very limited budget...
go Intel!!!!
At the moment, for me its Intel. Intel CPU's can OC way higher than AMD CPU's (and no, OCing does not damage hardware if voltage and temps are monitored, which is easy to do)
Phenoms, even though they are a true quad core, they are terrible at OCing and the new stepping can only go to 3-3.2ghz.
While the old Intel Q6600 can OC to 3.6-4ghz (G0 stepping).
AMD needs to get there act together. Intel already has 45nm CPU's out and Nehalem is coming out in the end of this year.
So far, AMD's only hope is ATI which is keeping them alive still. NVIDIA has been slipping, the 9 series is terrible in performance as most of the 9 series cards perform the same as the newer 8 series cards. Being brilliant, they reused the G92 core, which is in the 512mb GT and GTS.
ATI can take advantage of this hopefully with the upcoming 4 series. But who knows, NVIDIA is touting there GT200.
The 9 series might just be a filler for NVIDIA between the 8 series and the upcoming cards with the GT200.
I've liked Intel processors and Intel chipsets too for the most part.
That's what has worked for me historically.
Of course everything is different now, so if I had to replace my current desktop I'd have to really read up quite a bit before making a move.
I do like nvidea for my video if given a preference.
Of course I'm always open to hearing about different stuff and I respect everyone's right to be into anything they like.
@Moonshadow101:
Oh, uh z80 FTW
@Gigo: "AMD needs to get there act together". They just haven't been as cool since Sanders left....
I use whatever is best for the application.
When I upgraded my system years ago, I used AMD and wouldn't have dreamt about going back. But since them, AMD has fallen slightly from grace so I kind of prefer Intel... but i haven't had a need to care either way since I haven't upgraded in years and years.
since core 2 I've been all about intel for performance.
still prefer amd on a budget though.
@segamanxero: What the fuck does that mean? "True Quad Core"
I like Intel since I'm more familiar with them but I wouldn't have a problem with a switch to AMD. I use Macs though so it doesn't really matter since it's dictated by Apple what processor goes in the computer.
I prefer AMD for two main reasons: the price difference and more features built with the processor.
Secondly, because of the competition, Intel is forced to bring down the price.
We have to keep the competition alive, so that customers are benefited.
When we get a better product with less price why go for a costly one.
Intel is forced to hike its advertisements to keep its image alive.
Bhasker Raj
India
good poll!
@bigMoneyMIKE: As far as im concerned, my "fake" quad core (Q6600) results in better performance than a "true" quad core, so i dont give a flying fuck whether the two cores are linked. The myths about FSB being a bottleneck are completely false, as have been proven in countless benchmarks.
Sure its time for it to go with the coming processors that will offer more cores per package, where FSB will actually be a bottleneck, but as it stands now, 4 completely separate cores can still be fast faster than the rest, as long as they are not Phenom cores.
@bigMoneyMIKE:
It means there are 4 seperate, individual cores, whereas Intel combines (2) dual core processors to form 4 cores.
@bigMoneyMIKE: "True Quad Core" means it doesn't lie.
I use whatever cpu has the best performance and price, and ever since Core 2 duo its been Intel all the way and looks to be that way for a while.
I do like Intel more...my experience with AMD processors has always been very bad...my laptop's core 2 duo at 1.8 kicks my friend's turion 64 x2 at 2.0 straight on the ass.
Intel always. P4 1.6Ghz in server, 2.8Ghz w/ HT in desktop, 2.0Ghz Core2 Duo in laptop.
What can I say, they work!
daniel
AMD has always has the best price point for what I'm building, every desktop I have built uses them. Intel makes some very fast chips, if you want to pay. That being said though, my laptop is an Intel because they do very well in the mobile chips.
This is nuts! why prefer either one? I buy the best product available on the market. Once it was a t-bird. another time it was the p4 2.53GHz. a few laters, it was an amd X2. Right now, it's a core2duo. I don't take sides with a company, that's just silly! I buy whatever's worthwhile, which is always changing.
I rolled with AMD from the first Athlons until the Intel Conroe chips came out and trashed everything, at which point there was no good reason to stick with AMD anymore.
I don't have anything in the way of brand loyalty, though, and if AMD/ATI every get their act together, I'll drop my current trend of Intel/nVidia systems, but there's just no serious competition in the part of the market I buy in, right now.
3/4 of my pc's are intel. The last is AMD. They all run vista, and some run Ubuntu and OSX.
I prefer the one that has the best performance. I'm using an Opteron right now, my net chip is going to be a Q9300.
It's all about performance, fanbois. Brand loyalty never did anybody any favors.
Brand loyalty is silly, I go where the benchmarks are. Which means I'm an Intel guy at the moment.
@OmegaVader: I do the Same
First Pentium 4
Then AMD 64 X2
Now Intel Quad Core
i gotta say buying AMD was nice cause i felt i wasnt being Scamed. But Intel CPU's are sweet.
Same happened to ATI now im on NVIDIA
VIA or Cyrix, that's all I use baby!
Where's the VIA love?
I prefer Intel...
When I was just learning how to build computers I used AMD athlons (eww) then when I switched for a P4 then the Speed was significantly faster had lesser choke ups. I guess AMD is better for the Price, but if you have money buy Intel.
There are other companies that make processors too, I can only name VIA, IBM, and Motorola off the top of my head, but I haven't actually used them recently so no comment.
@hazmx: Gizmodo should do a ATI vs Nvidia Poll
@diabolusunknown:
Understandable, but from a power perspective, being able to control cores individually based on demand & assumed usage results in battery battery life. For laptops, it makes a big difference if AMD can get it right...right now they're not quite up to it, and the errata in them is not helping. If they can fix that and get similar performance for about the same price, Intel will have to keep watching it's back.
@diabolusunknown:
Understandable, but from a power perspective, being able to control cores individually based on demand & assumed usage results in battery battery life. For laptops, it makes a big difference if AMD can get it right...right now they're not quite up to it, and the errata in them is not helping. If they can fix that and get similar performance for about the same price, Intel will have to keep watching it's back.
@segamanxero: have you heard of the Kentsfield from intel?
I've only ever used an Intel processor dating back to original Pentiums. I've built systems for friends that have AMD's, but I don't see myself ever switching.
Intel, because that is what comes in my macs.
I prefered AMD until recently. - perfect answer. AMD was on par in terms of performance for years and cost was considerably less... unfortunately they fell behind the curve and it's Intel or bust for me.
as i am not programming in assembly language, it really doesn't matter to me.
currently intel has the performance market locked up, but that doesn't mean that amd can't rise again. intel's future plans show a lack of innovation, hopefully amd can bring it back. a competetive market is always better that a monopolized one.
Intel, they work great and AMD has lost its cool. Plus AMD prices are twice as high as some really good intel dual core processors.