View Poll Results: Which CPU do you prefer and why ?

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • Intel

    7 31.82%
  • AMD

    14 63.64%
  • Other (Specify)

    3 13.64%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Intel vs AMD | Which one do you prefer and why ?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Hamunaptra
    Beans
    625
    Distro
    Ubuntu Studio

    Re: Intel vs AMD | Which one do you prefer and why ?

    Ah, Varunendra has covered whatever I thought I could write when I saw the thread.

    I have always preffered AMD, as it gives more processing power at a decent price !


    My current Radeon has its problems but Ubuntu really handles it well and this Webupd8 dynamic power manager thingy has given my AMD processor a great life...
    http://www.webupd8.org/2014/01/how-t...mic-power.html
    bhatta

    May the Source be with you !
    Ash nazg durbatulűk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulűk, agh
    'Buntu-ishi krimpatul !

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Beans
    3

    Re: Intel vs AMD | Which one do you prefer and why ?

    My last Intel CPU was a Pentium 4, and that kind of soured me on Intel for a long, long time. Since that machine, I've had an Athlon 64, an Athlon 64 X2 4450e, and finally my newest which is a A10-5700.

    In terms of bang for the buck, there's just no comparison. The Radeon GPUs that are integrated with the newest Athlon generally stomp all over Intel's integrated solution, and they can always be setup in a dual GPU configuration if you need additional power. An Intel based system would cost more due to the fact that the CPU is more expensive, and you'd need to add a decent GPU to make it competitive in terms of graphics.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1
    Beans
    4,342
    Distro
    Xubuntu 13.04 Raring Ringtail

    Re: Intel vs AMD | Which one do you prefer and why ?

    Quote Originally Posted by varunendra View Post
    AMD. For the same reason you highlighted - more processing power for the same price range, that's all that really matters.

    Yes the AMD is more noisy (if you use the stock CPU fan) and runs hotter, but I find the power consumption comparisons ridiculous, because they assume the processors would be used at their Full Power all the time

    If the TDP of an FX4100 is 95W, and that of an i3 is 65W, it doesn't mean they will be consuming this much power all the time, only when they are working at their full power which is rare for a normal working environment.

    Despite that, even if we assume the average power consumption difference would be 20W for similarly performing CPUs, and further assume that this system would work 10 hrs a day, 7 days a week, the extra power consumption for an entire year amounts to 73 KW (73 Units of electricity in India).

    For a domestic connection in India, it means Rs. 328.5 per year, or Rs. 985.5 for 3 years - the expected life of a system. Whereas the price difference for an Intel CPU capable of delivering similar performance (and I have practically tested many) is almost always more than Rs. 2K here (except AMD's Sempron 145 vs Intel Celerons). I don't see a point in comparing power costs.

    Combine this with the fact that when I did the research, a decent motherboard (AMD M5A88-M) for the FX4100 was for Rs 5200/-, whereas the cheapest available MotherBoard for an i3 at that time was above Rs. 10K (Gigabyte), and feature-wise it was inferior (didn't have even USB3). So overall, it meant paying about Rs. 7K more for an inferior system had I decided to go with Intel (when the overall system - CPU/Monitor/KB/Mouse/UPS - cost me about 34K). Easy decision!
    they dont use that much power at all times
    AMD has 'cool n quiet' to reduce the clock speed/voltage during idle times, and intel calls there version 'speed step'
    AMD run hotter/louder probably cause of the smaller stock HSF
    Intel Chips actually run hotter but they preform much faster and use less power
    lately intel has not been trying to make there chips faster but lower the power usage AMD is just worried about performance and does not have the luxury of worrying about energy efficiency (only applies to CPUs, not there GPUs)

    If i am building a budget system for linux i would go with a Intel Pentium (haswell or ivy bridge)
    they have plenty of CPU power to spare and the GPU is very linux friendly and can handle any normal task

    AMDs APUs are pretty nice with that good GPU in them, but hte drivers anore not so linux friendly, the latest open source drivers are getting much better to the point i would use that over the proprietary driver since it is good enough and hassle free

    the AMD CPUs are good enough but cant handle the heavy lifting like a intel cpu can quite a large performance/ energy difference in favor of intel, but intel CPUs/motherboard does cost more than a AMD CPUs/motherboards

    I am using a AMD Phenom II x4 965 @ 3.7GHz at the moment and i can run it as high as 4.2GHz, it easily handles 4GHz around 50C with the GPU/CPU at a continuous full load
    an i5 would be a nice upgrade, but i don't want to spend the money (355 USD) for a new motherboard/cpu (ASRock Z77 Extreme4/i5-3570K) with my AMD chip being plenty fast enough for me
    Laptop: ASUS A54C-NB91 (Storage: WD3200BEKT + MKNSSDCR60GB-DX); Desktop: Custom Build - Images included; rPi Server
    Putting your Networked Printer's scanner software to shame PHP Scanner Server
    I frequently edit my post when I have the last post

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Kubuntu 14.04 Trusty Tahr

    Re: Intel vs AMD | Which one do you prefer and why ?

    if i had the money i would go back to Intel. likely when buying new mashcine it will be AMD it seems (at the moment no money even for new AMD).

    on small CPU i am (so far) glad i decided to go with AMD E rather than intel Atom. it can run quite a few games that atom at same price range woudl struggle. a more powerfull default battery negated the higher power consumption issue.
    Easy to understand Ubuntu manual with lots of pics: http://ubuntu-manual.org/
    Do i need antivirus/firewall in linux?
    User friendly disk backup: Redobackup

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Beans
    1,606
    Distro
    Xubuntu 14.04 Trusty Tahr

    Re: Intel vs AMD | Which one do you prefer and why ?

    My take:
    Intel is faster CPU wise. Graphics not as much.
    AMD has better graphics if we're talking about integrated graphics.

    If I had to choose, I'd do an Intel build with an AMD card for a desktop.
    If we're talking about Laptop; I'd do an AMD as it'd be cheaper.
    If I was going very inexpensive AMD all the way.
    If I had unlimited cash it'd be Intel CPU AMD GPU.
    Where's [slooksterpsv] been? - I had Catastrophic partition alignment failure. I lost 90%+ of my data, and just now got it back fixed and working.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Left Coast of the USA
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Kubuntu

    Re: Intel vs AMD | Which one do you prefer and why ?

    I believe pretty much everyone would agree that the cost/performance ratio goes to AMD except in some very specific cases when discussing threading in very specific applications. For the normal home user, those are usually not an issue. The fact is that most home users will never use half of their CPU's capabilities, if even that. You don't need 4 Xeons on a server board to write a term paper or look through the Walmart ads.

    But I have been doing a paper-and-pencil notional comparison of a box full of gee-whiz gear from both AMD and Intel to see how powerful a computer one could make that is fully passively cooled as a more or less academic exercise. It would be cool to have a tricked out Sci-Fi computer that made not a whisper. From what I see, disregarding cost, something like an Intel 4770S at 65W and a passively cooled AMD HD 7750 GPU would be almost an ideal system for maximum passive cooling potential and best raw computing performance. If one were to cost constrain the project, then I think the Intel 4770S with no GPU (using the Intel HD 4600 graphics) would work better than any ATI APU, because with the right motherboard I could still use three monitors. None of the possibilities have been really ideal for someone interested in heavy gaming or number crunching with passive cooling. Passive cooling might be of interest in HTPC applications, but I think with low-power components from either Intel or AMD one could make a passively cooled HTPC. AMD APUs would probably win there on cost.

    I also think the energy consumption argument is silly from a cost perspective. We are talking tens of dollars over several years at most. Better to be concerned about how energy-efficient your refrigerator and water heater are. In your PC, energy consumption is really just the driver for what HSF you need to get.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Kubuntu 14.04 Trusty Tahr

    Re: Intel vs AMD | Which one do you prefer and why ?

    i just read varindra's post. this power conusmpiton always gets me unprepared. it might make a difference on laptops but not so much on desktops.

    i mean i just remembered when we were buying TV and the new LED TV was more expencive (about 50 EUR i think) yet it seemed like consuming so much less power. however after some more calculation we would have to use that LED TV 16 years before we got any profit on this decision. TV likely wouldn't even last that long. so eventhough the power consumtion difference looked big on paper it really wasn't that big of a deal.

    except imprint on environment.
    Easy to understand Ubuntu manual with lots of pics: http://ubuntu-manual.org/
    Do i need antivirus/firewall in linux?
    User friendly disk backup: Redobackup

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    India
    Beans
    8,175
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: Intel vs AMD | Which one do you prefer and why ?

    Quote Originally Posted by mastablasta View Post
    i just read varindra's post.
    Heh heh.. that's why I kept only "Varun" in my signature..

    By the way, I'd like to mention that my current system, an Asus X54C-SX261D is an Intel i3-2330M based laptop. I purchased a couple of other similar models for the office where I was working then - one Intel B950 based cheap one, another AMD A6 (don't remember the exact model) based one. The AMD one obviously had 'discrete' graphics and was much costlier than the former one (28k against 22k).

    I compared them both not for power consumption (I believe they were nearly same in that aspect) but for performance, and I was disappointed to see that despite paying a much higher price, the AMD APU based one couldn't perform any better than the much cheaper Pentium B950 based model (B950 is basically i3-2310 with lesser cache and disabled HT).

    That's when I came to conclusion that APUs were not mature enough then, maybe now (after almost two years) they are, I don't know. The tests I performed were :

    1) 7-zip compression of a 70MB folder containing hundreds of font files.
    2) Decompression of the same 7z file.
    3) Video transcoding a 10 min clip (mpg to Xvid avi).
    4) FarCry2 game performance (just the intro part and a minute's gaming).

    Being an AMD supporter, I was disappointed to see that except for an unnoticeable exception in the game, the much cheaper pentium based model performed better in all other tests. I had run all the tests alternately three-three times on both models. Both had fresh installations on Win7 64 bit, with same set of applications.

    The visible technical difference I noticed was that even though the APUs had 4 cores (logical), they were only 50% used even during top loads (with AC power, so throttling down to save power was not the reason). The B950 on the other hand seemed to use its both cores at 100% power when doing transcoding or 7zip compression.

    I don't know whether it was a design flaw or inefficiency of window's driver/kernel for not being able to utilize full power of the APU cores (in which case it would have performed doubly better than the B950). But whatever the excuse was, I simply didn't get what I expected from the APU.

    So unless the APUs or their supporting drivers have improved significantly in comparison to Intel's i-series, I'd say the AMD APUs lag much behind in performance in mobile chip section, even with higher prices.

    For desktop CPUs, AMDs are doubtlessly the winners by a huge margin for the same overall system cost. But for laptops (or shall we say for "APUs"), I was disappointed then, and would love to see current comparisons if got a chance.

    PS:
    If the above test I did still holds true, then probably the preference should be opposite to what a few members posted above -

    Go for AMD if looking for Desktops and price is a concern
    Go for Intel if looking for Laptops/netbooks. They are cooler, and perform better for similar price range.

    Of course this is based on just one test on 2 comparative models, I may be absolutely wrong and would love to know others' practical findings. Opinions may be biased, practical tests, not much if done carefully.

    PPS:
    Regarding this -
    Quote Originally Posted by mastablasta View Post
    except imprint on environment.
    I read somewhere that the costs of Intels are high despite more production because they simply reject (trash) their defective pieces.
    The AMD on the other hand can't afford that and recycles them to produce cheaper models (with the defective cores being locked).
    If this is true (and I believe it is), then the preference should be given to AMDs for being more nature friendly.
    Varun
    Help others by marking threads as [SOLVED], if they are. (See how)
    Wireless Script | Use Code Tags
    Am I not replying you? Perhaps this is why.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1
    Beans
    4,342
    Distro
    Xubuntu 13.04 Raring Ringtail

    Re: Intel vs AMD | Which one do you prefer and why ?

    Quote Originally Posted by varunendra View Post
    If the above test I did still holds true, then probably the preference should be opposite to what a few members posted above -

    Go for AMD if looking for Desktops and price is a concern
    Go for Intel if looking for Laptops/netbooks. They are cooler, and perform better for similar price range.

    Of course this is based on just one test on 2 comparative models, I may be absolutely wrong and would love to know others' practical findings. Opinions may be biased, practical tests, not much if done carefully.
    but if you want to game on a low cost laptop you want a AMD APU system, if you want general use (web, videos, basic OpenGL games like STK) i would go with a intel chip
    Laptop: ASUS A54C-NB91 (Storage: WD3200BEKT + MKNSSDCR60GB-DX); Desktop: Custom Build - Images included; rPi Server
    Putting your Networked Printer's scanner software to shame PHP Scanner Server
    I frequently edit my post when I have the last post

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Beans
    68
    Distro
    Ubuntu 14.10 Utopic Unicorn

    Re: Intel vs AMD | Which one do you prefer and why ?

    I prefer SPARC, but it's essentially gone.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •