PDA

View Full Version : Intel or AMD?



rasmus91
October 3rd, 2008, 03:59 PM
Guys.

We all now about CPU's some think they have the best while others think they have the best. But I'd like to know who uses what, which do you think is the better one. so ladies and gentle men vote!

tell me your experiences.

i prefer Intel over AMD as i prefer Ubuntu over windows, greater stability and better performance... :D

artir
October 3rd, 2008, 04:02 PM
Intel FTW!

Canis familiaris
October 3rd, 2008, 04:05 PM
i prefer Intel over AMD as i prefer Ubuntu over windows, greater stability and better performance... :D
That's simply not true. Unlike *nix and Windows, both the companies (generally) produce x86 processors which compete purely on performance and both AMD and Intel processors are stable and offer good performance.
As for better performance, it depends on the model and the price comparison.
Currently Intel is ahead in performance. But 2 years ago AMD was very much ahead and they are still in the race.
Please keep in mind keep company loyalties out of mind before buying a CPU, keep in mind for performance and value for money. Because it's YOUR money and YOUR productivity.
I am using an AMD processor: Athlon64 X2 4400+ to be exact and I'm quite satisfied.
Though currently for Powerhouses, I'll recommend Intel's Wolfdale or Yorkfield. In case of low cost and value for money I'll recommend Athlon64s, though they are getting a bit dated.


Intel FTW!

AMD FTW :P

oldsoundguy
October 3rd, 2008, 04:10 PM
I use both (that should cloud the issue) .. found that the AMD NEWER models run a bunch cooler so not as much case cooling is required. With the new dual cores combined with the newer high speed big memory video cards, things have become very fast indeed.
As to comparing, really depends on what you want to run on the thing. For 99% of the people, should make no difference. And the AMD is selling for a bit less vs an equal speed Intel right now.
I have found that the Intel tends to "hiccup" a bit more as it gets older. BUT, that is my experience on processors that are REALLY older!
Whatever you do, do NOT go for an older hyperthreaded Intel. They are whole house heaters and will, in the long run, bake everything you have on the motherboard. Voice of sad experience here.

Canis familiaris
October 3rd, 2008, 04:12 PM
Whatever you do, do NOT go for an older hyperthreaded Intel. They are whole house heaters and will, in the long run, bake everything you have on the motherboard. Voice of sad experience here.
+1. Those Netburst line of CPUs were a piece of junk IMO. It was only the marketing brilliance of Intel that managed to sell them.
Though those Core 2 lineups of Intel are simply excellent.

rasmus91
October 3rd, 2008, 04:13 PM
Please keep in mind keep company loyalties out of mind before buying a CPU, keep in mind for performance and value for money. Because it's YOUR money and YOUR productivity.

HEHE.... yeah, thats why i choose intel, theyre 1.4 years ahead of AMD as it is right now.

I have a AMD desktop my self (sempron 3200+) when i got it it was very fast, but i experienced stability problems when it started doing 99% cpu use on nothing at all... :(
I also have a laptop now with Intel centrino 2, no problems except for the WiFi card which doesn't work with ubuntu (yet... actually its my mistake, but what ever...) ohh, just forgot also have another problem... if you know about that virus called windows vista... :P

toupeiro
October 3rd, 2008, 04:22 PM
HEHE.... yeah, thats why i choose intel, theyre 1.4 years ahead of AMD as it is right now.

I have a AMD desktop my self (sempron 3200+) when i got it it was very fast, but i experienced stability problems when it started doing 99% cpu use on nothing at all... :(
I also have a laptop now with Intel centrino 2, no problems except for the WiFi card which doesn't work with ubuntu (yet... actually its my mistake, but what ever...) ohh, just forgot also have another problem... if you know about that virus called windows vista... :P


lol, 1.4 years...

where do you guys come up with these statistics????

Canis familiaris
October 3rd, 2008, 04:27 PM
Yep! [Citation Needed]

Calmatory
October 3rd, 2008, 04:47 PM
Intel. Why? Because AMD has been incapable of providing competitive products which would satisfy me over the products Intel provides. For example AMD's "new" Phenom processors can still barely match Intels first C2D processors. Phenoms are slower than Inte's Core2Duos or Core2Quads. AMD's Phenoms consume more watts for the same performance and thus need better cooling. Intel's new Wolfdale codenamed CPU's(E8x00 and E7x00 series mainly) are fastest Dual Core CPU's out there.

Thats when the CPU's are being ran stock speeds. When overclocking comes into play, AMD can be forgotten. The best AMD Quad Core Phenoms can reach a bit more than 3 GHz. Intel's Q6600 can reach 3.2 GHz with ease, usually goes 3.4 GHz with ease and sometimes beyond 3.6 GHz. Not to forget that Q6600 is faster in clock-for-clock comparison and thus 2.8GHz C2Q is equivalent to a 3GHz AMD Phenom. Wolfdales and Penryns then overclock to +4 GHz on air. Sometimes more. AMD's MHz record is somewhere near 4GHz, but Intel's record is + 6.7GHz for current C2D processors and +8GHz for old netburst processors.

AMD can compete with price, but not so well with price/performance or performance. Intel has the performance crown and Intel will reign the market with it for several years to come, since AMD has nothing to take it away.

Also Intel has the one of the best manufacturing processes in the world, while AMD's is not so great. Intel started producing 45 nm CPU's in January, and AMD hasn't been able to ship their first 45nm CPU to the masses yet. First ones are expected to be arriving December/January. Thus AMD are one year behind with manufacturing process, and it is a LOT in this industry.

AMD can, however, provide full system for consumers. With AMD CPU, AMD Chipset and AMD Graphics card it is very interesting platform. Sure Intel can also put up a CPU, chipset and integrated graphics chip but it can not compete in gaming performance as a platform against AMD's one.

AMD's future doesn't seem too good either. They haven't made profit for years. Actually they have never really made profit, only for few years during their +20 years of life.

My own opinion however is that I am towards AMD more than towards Intel. I've had more AMD CPU's than Intel CPU's, but really, I don't pay attention to whoose CPU I have as long as it works as intended and is better than the competitor has. :p

Whiffle
October 3rd, 2008, 04:53 PM
Desktop has an Intel, laptop has intel. They work fine. I have no qualms about buying an AMD though, the K6-2 in my old laptop works fine, if a bit slow. For me it depends whos got the most bang for the buck when I get a computer.

binbash
October 3rd, 2008, 05:15 PM
they are both good.Amd is cheaper :) so amd wins in my opinion BUT at server intel rocks because it is more stable at linux OS.

lukjad007
October 3rd, 2008, 05:25 PM
Intel FTW! ;)

Chame_Wizard
October 3rd, 2008, 05:34 PM
AMD for desktop and Laptop:guitar:

perlluver
October 3rd, 2008, 05:41 PM
AMD Sempron with 64 bit Technology, I think I love my AMD, however seeing the Core 2 Duo, I might get intel again someday. So for now, AMD FTW!

Calmatory
October 3rd, 2008, 05:41 PM
they are both good.Amd is cheaper :) so amd wins in my opinion BUT at server intel rocks because it is more stable at linux OS.
How is Intel more stable (http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS4491588549.html)?


So, every chip has it's bugs, but they are documented and usually can be worked around at software level thus they don't compromise stability at all. Yes, AMD suffered from the TLB-bug fiasco, but it was fixed in kernel-level. It took away some performance but the stability remained.

freshAndClean
October 3rd, 2008, 05:42 PM
I want to bring some insight to alot of the faster clock speed comments that I've been reading. There is way more that goes into judging a processor then what the clock rate is.

In the world of processors you need to consider CPI (clock cycles per instruction). What I'm getting at here is that you need to take clock frequency with a grain of salt. For instance:

CPU #1
Clock Rate = 500MHz
It can do a simple addition in 1 clock cycle

CPU #2
Clock Rate = 1000MHz
It can do a simple addition in 3 clock cycles

If you do the math here the CPU #1 is better at addition performance wise, even though CPU #2 has 2x the clock frequency.

This is a very basic an completely not realistic example but I think you can get the point here.

Also there is the comparison between latency and throughput. IE how quickly the processor responds to instructions VS. how long it takes to finish a bunch of instructions.

As for my opinion, I'll stick with AMD until Intel fixes their FSB which is planned with the release of nehalem's quick path. When this is done intel will have comparable design to AMD as well as 45nm manufacturing tech. Unless AMD gets back on the horse in the next year my next processor will most likely be an intel.

LaRoza
October 3rd, 2008, 05:42 PM
Intel, because everything works.

lukjad007
October 3rd, 2008, 05:46 PM
LaRoza has spoken.

LaRoza
October 3rd, 2008, 06:00 PM
So, every chip has it's bugs, but they are documented and usually can be worked around at software level thus they don't compromise stability at all. Yes, AMD suffered from the TLB-bug fiasco, but it was fixed in kernel-level. It took away some performance but the stability remained.

There is more to Intel/AMD than processors ;)

Intel wireless and video works on Linux out of the box. Everyone else is behind in that.

Calmatory
October 3rd, 2008, 06:05 PM
There is more to Intel/AMD than processors ;)

Intel wireless and video works on Linux out of the box. Everyone else is behind in that.

As I understood, this thread was mainly about processors. ;) If not, then ATI can be critized for their Linux drivers for their graphics cards.

Npl
October 3rd, 2008, 06:11 PM
Unfortunatly Intels on top ATM... still wont buy them.
Intel = iiiihhhhvil

SunnyRabbiera
October 3rd, 2008, 06:17 PM
I use both (that should cloud the issue) .. found that the AMD NEWER models run a bunch cooler so not as much case cooling is required. With the new dual cores combined with the newer high speed big memory video cards, things have become very fast indeed.
As to comparing, really depends on what you want to run on the thing. For 99% of the people, should make no difference. And the AMD is selling for a bit less vs an equal speed Intel right now.
I have found that the Intel tends to "hiccup" a bit more as it gets older. BUT, that is my experience on processors that are REALLY older!
Whatever you do, do NOT go for an older hyperthreaded Intel. They are whole house heaters and will, in the long run, bake everything you have on the motherboard. Voice of sad experience here.

Mine seems to work fine though, I got a P4HT and it seems to be fine.
Me I think intel has the edge, the new line of intels are wiping the floor with AMD.


Unfortunatly Intels on top ATM... still wont buy them.
Intel = iiiihhhhvil

But the "wintel' days are over, and Intel is becomming more and more of a linux supporter.

LaRoza
October 3rd, 2008, 06:29 PM
As I understood, this thread was mainly about processors. ;) If not, then ATI can be critized for their Linux drivers for their graphics cards.

ATI is owned by AMD.

The reason I prefer Intel is not just because their new CPU's pwn, but because of the chipsets. One can't get Intel video/wireless on boards with AMD sockets.

gn2
October 3rd, 2008, 06:35 PM
Overall Intel are in the lead at the moment, but it's not that long ago that AMD were better.

Maybe AMD will bring out some better CPU's soon, I hope so because competition is definitely a good thing.

At the lower end of the spectrum there are some very good AMD bargains to be had though.

Npl
October 3rd, 2008, 06:35 PM
But the "wintel' days are over, and Intel is becomming more and more of a linux supporter.Yeah, their CPUs are fine NOW, but they sold crap for 2 decades thanks to the IBM deal. Their processors couldnt stand up to the competition like M68k,PPC,MIPS for a long time and only the need for x86-compatibility gave them a (big) market. Intels non-x86 Architectures were failures (Itanium, iAPX 432 - their first 32 Bit-Processor).

So there they are, selling crap for gold till they get filthy-rich and can easily outproduce and outspend most other Chip-Manufacturers combined. I still can remember when Asus sold Athlon-Mainboards in white boxes so Intel wont thumb-screw them into oblivion.

I cant look at them as a company that deserves its current position, it did get there for everything else but quality/competence.

Sorry for my rant, now continue to enjoy your Intel CPUs peeps :)

LaRoza
October 3rd, 2008, 06:39 PM
I cant look at them as a company that deserves its current position, it did get there for everything else but quality/competence.

Sorry for my rant, now continue to enjoy your Intel CPUs peeps :)

So you must also not use Mac's (they use those processors now), IBM Compatible PC's (all PC's), Windows or OS X. I wonder what you use?

The IBM + MS-DOS popularity, and the free clones made that arch very popular. One doesn't have to like it, but I think it is foolish to base your views on current hardware on something that happened a long time ago.

SunnyRabbiera
October 3rd, 2008, 06:43 PM
Yeah, their CPUs are fine NOW, but they sold crap for 2 decades thanks to the IBM deal. Their processors couldnt stand up to the competition like M68k,PPC,MIPS for a long time and only the need for x86-compatibility gave them a (big) market. Intels non-x86 Architectures were failures (Itanium, iAPX 432 - their first 32 Bit-Processor).

So there they are, selling crap for gold till they get filthy-rich and can easily outproduce and outspend most other Chip-Manufacturers combined. I still can remember when Asus sold Athlon-Mainboards in white boxes so Intel wont thumb-screw them into oblivion.

I cant look at them as a company that deserves its current position, it did get there for everything else but quality/competence.

Sorry for my rant, now continue to enjoy your Intel CPUs peeps :)


Well I am well aware of intels mistakes, but Intel is proving they can change to face a more open source friendly market.
I am not too sure on AMD anymore, ever since intel came out with the dual cores AMD has not been able to come up with a good innovation to catch up and despite their mostly pro linux activities their ownership of ATI has produced very little in open source awareness.
The ATI drivers are still very behind that of Nvidia in terms of linux support, even with the new open source drivers I dont feel its enough.
AMD needs to catch up or die, so far Intel has done more for linux then AMD in my opinion.

Npl
October 3rd, 2008, 06:47 PM
So you must also not use Mac's (they use those processors now), IBM Compatible PC's (all PC's), Windows or OS X. I wonder what you use?err.. AMD? x86 is a crap Architecture, but I got to make compromises =;)

My rant was about Intel, not x86.

SunnyRabbiera
October 3rd, 2008, 06:52 PM
err.. AMD? x86 is a crap Architecture, but I got to make compromises =;)

My rant was about Intel, not x86.

yes but guess what architecture supports more hardware and software at this time?
x86
the x86 line will live on for some time afraid to say.

LaRoza
October 3rd, 2008, 06:54 PM
yes but guess what architecture supports more hardware and software at this time?
x86
the x86 line will live on for some time afraid to say.

Well, I think x64 will take over and lose some of its backwards compatibility over time.

mips
October 3rd, 2008, 06:55 PM
Overall Intel are in the lead at the moment, but it's not that long ago that AMD were better.

Maybe AMD will bring out some better CPU's soon, I hope so because competition is definitely a good thing.

At the lower end of the spectrum there are some very good AMD bargains to be had though.

+1

I really not a fanboy. I will buy whatever is best performance/budget wise at the time.

I purchased my first Intel CPU a few months ago. The 14 years before that it was AMD only. Initially because of budget constraints and later because they owned Intel when it came to performance.

Intel chipsets are good but so is nVidia as I buy MBs with nVidia chipsets most of the time. VIA I stay away from.

Npl
October 3rd, 2008, 06:56 PM
Well I am well aware of intels mistakes, but Intel is proving they can change to face a more open source friendly market.
I am not too sure on AMD anymore, ever since intel came out with the dual cores AMD has not been able to come up with a good innovation to catch up and despite their mostly pro linux activities their ownership of ATI has produced very little in open source awareness.Problem is they dont have Intels insane sums of money to throw into research and production. Having to dictate a market for decades really allows for some nice reserves.. just think if AMD had produced a stinker like the P4.

The ATI drivers are still very behind that of Nvidia in terms of linux support, even with the new open source drivers I dont feel its enough.I thought this was about CPUs? In terms of GPU there should be not to much to argue between AMD or Intel :)

AMD needs to catch up or die, so far Intel has done more for linux then AMD in my opinion.Hmm, what did Intel do for Linux? And why is that a concern for a CPU? Those things just work.

LaRoza
October 3rd, 2008, 06:58 PM
I thought this was about CPUs? In terms of GPU there should be not to much to argue between AMD or Intel :)

Hmm, what did Intel do for Linux? And why is that a concern for a CPU? Those things just work.

It isn't just about CPU's, it is about the entire chipset. If AMD produces an amazing cheap processor, yet it didn't have any compatible chipsets for Linux, I'd end up using Intel because it works.

If I could mix and match, perhaps I'd pay more attention to AMD, but at the moment, I prefer to have everything work out of the box, and that means Intel everything.

mips
October 3rd, 2008, 07:00 PM
And why is that a concern for a CPU? Those things just work.

Ditto. AMD gave you AMD64 instruction set which Intel copied. I take my off to AMD for taking that plunge ;)

PS I do have a hat, a kickass Aussie one all the way from down under :)

SunnyRabbiera
October 3rd, 2008, 07:00 PM
Well, I think x64 will take over and lose some of its backwards compatibility over time.

well backwards compatibility might not be needed if 64bit becomes a 100% standard and it has not done so yet.
the 32 bit support line will probably live on for many years to come thanks to most computers not being able to do 64bit kernels.
The key here is going to be Microsoft, with MS holding the dominance they will still probably keep the 32 bit kernel as a standard till the release of their next OS that will be probably more 64 bit aware then vista or XP.
In terms of linux the swing will go much sooner of course :D

Bachstelze
October 3rd, 2008, 07:02 PM
Six computers. Thee Intels. Thee AMDs.

I am not a fanboy either. Both have always served me well.

LaRoza
October 3rd, 2008, 07:02 PM
well backwards compatibility might not be needed if 64bit becomes a 100% standard and it has not done so yet.
the 32 bit support line will probably live on for many years to come thanks to most computers not being able to do 64bit kernels.
The key here is going to be Microsoft, with MS holding the dominance they will still probably keep the 32 bit kernel as a standard till the release of their next OS that will be probably more 64 bit aware then vista or XP.
In terms of linux the swing will go much sooner of course :D

True, but I was talking long term.

Microsoft and others are holding it back, for some reason. But for the first time I am able to use 64 bit everything with the same ease as 32 bit (I was waiting for Opera).

Npl
October 3rd, 2008, 07:05 PM
Well, I think x64 will take over and lose some of its backwards compatibility over time.You wish.. all current x86/x64 CPU still have "Real Mode" for compatibility with 16Bit Programms

SunnyRabbiera
October 3rd, 2008, 07:05 PM
as fo the question of "what intel has done for linux", well lately intel has given support to linux on their wireless chips and graphics cards.
Linux support on intel wireless and video cards is getting very good as of late as I know intel uses drivers that are very neutral for most of their hardware.

LaRoza
October 3rd, 2008, 07:06 PM
You wish.. all current x86/x64 CPU still have "Real Mode" for compatibility with 16Bit Programms

Over time, I said, over time.

Slug71
October 3rd, 2008, 07:11 PM
Have used AMD since 2001 in two Laptops and a Desktop and have never had issues with them.
Next Desktop will be AMD's Opteron.

Dixon Bainbridge
October 3rd, 2008, 08:09 PM
I always use AMD no matter what. I was disgusted with Intels business practices, (I know all big companies do it, but as I consumer I have the right to decide who I buy from), and will never buy from them if I can at all help it.

I don't give two craps about speed. CPU's nowadays are seriously overspecced for most day to day tasks and so having a 2.4 or a 2.8 dual core is irrelevant.

Twitch6000
October 3rd, 2008, 08:10 PM
Either are fine with me,but I do like Intel a bit more for my laptops.

Lord Xeb
October 3rd, 2008, 08:44 PM
I say it depends on what you want to do. If you want HT and Virtualization support off the bat, go with AMD. For gaming, depends on how well you have your system setup. For a cheapy, go with AMD, for a goody, go with intel. But they both have their own goods and bads. Just depends.

rasmus91
October 3rd, 2008, 08:52 PM
lol, 1.4 years...

where do you guys come up with these statistics???? and
Yep! [Citation Needed]

Thats quite alright, I'll gladly share my information:

Well, one of my friends has his own computer store. nothing big yet, but still he is a Intel partner, meaning he'll have to go to Intel meetings. Where they get information about how its going Intel. And i know you'll easily say, "thats just something Intel made up" but i don't think so, there would be absolutely no point for Intel in saying this.


for bringing up an exampel that AMD is the slower one
have a look at this test:




http://techreport.com/r.x/cpus/oblivion.gif

the average (high numbers of AMD and Intel) of all their processors.

110.885714286 Intel's all in all average Frames per second

100.9375 AMD's Average all in all Average Frames per second

i think this says

Whats left to say is, if you don't believe in my calculations, try for yourself, and find out that I'm right. all kind of these tests that I have seen shows something like this, always intels thats the winner. all others AMD have compared to older Intel processors, which is unfair.

But I'm sure some of you can come up with tests opposite of this one... i don't mind, show me.

this is the link to the site where i found the test:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/12091/3

Martje_001
October 3rd, 2008, 09:04 PM
AMD, it just runs very stable here.

kjb34
October 3rd, 2008, 09:54 PM
I like both. For price I prefer AMD. For performance Intel.

Calmatory
October 3rd, 2008, 10:12 PM
...snipped....

And what does that have to do with 1.4 years? How can you measure the difference between Intel and AMD CPU speeds in time?

Besides, your graph uses outdated CPU's from both companies.

Not too convincing.

aaaantoine
October 3rd, 2008, 10:24 PM
Modern Intel CPUs are more powerful, use less energy, and generate less heat than AMD CPUs. I prefer them.

That said, my laptop currently has an AMD CPU, because AMD processors are less expensive.

rasmus91
October 3rd, 2008, 10:27 PM
mhmm.... alright, but those cpu's are still bought... or i know the Intels are. but anyway about the measuring comment, thats how far behind AMD is. their technology is 1.4 years behind Intel. Thats what i mean.... (don't hope I'm too unclear)

Calmatory
October 3rd, 2008, 10:39 PM
mhmm.... alright, but those cpu's are still bought... or i know the Intels are. but anyway about the measuring comment, thats how far behind AMD is. their technology is 1.4 years behind Intel. Thats what i mean.... (don't hope I'm too unclear)

HOW are they 1.4 year behind? Current AMD performance matches Intel performance 1.4 years ago? As I said in another post, AMD is around oe year behind intel in manufacturing process(Intel 45 nm in Jan 08, AMD 45 nm in Dec 08/Jan 09 ).

hellion0
October 3rd, 2008, 11:03 PM
I don't prefer either manufacturer over the other. I had an AMD desktop for a long time, now I have an Intel. I still have my Intel laptop as well as an AMD laptop. I also run machines that use the PowerPC architecture.

So as I said... no preference.

ChanServ
October 3rd, 2008, 11:12 PM
i just built an amd desktop, got the core for like 150, i HATE it becasue it makes me regret buying an intel for twice the cost and half the preformance. Hopefully it will suck with games, so i can be less ashamed....

Frak
October 3rd, 2008, 11:51 PM
I use AMD in my desktops for their sheer power + low price. I use Intel in my laptops for the power saving features + heat sensor frequency scaling.

I've built a PowerPC computer before that runs Debian. That's my <3 favorite computer.

Preference.

mips
October 4th, 2008, 10:59 AM
I've built a PowerPC computer before that runs Debian. That's my <3 favorite computer.


Where did you buy MBs & CPUs for those?

Greyed
October 4th, 2008, 11:02 AM
Whatever gives the most bang for the buck within my budget at the time I upgrade my machine. The last time around (5 years ago), it was AMD. This time around it will probably be Intel.

lisati
October 4th, 2008, 11:06 AM
Dekstop has AMD (sempron), laptop has Intel (celeron), no cause for complaint, except perhaps the design of one of the machines (forget which one for the moment) isn't getting the most out of its processor's speed capabilities. Both are an improvement speed-wise over their 133MHz ?Intel-based machine that came with a 1 gigabyte hard drive (replaced with 3)

I wouldn't mind something a little faster, but that can wait until I look at replacing the gear.

3rdalbum
October 4th, 2008, 12:19 PM
If I want a high performance computer, I choose Intel. If I want as cheap as possible, right now the Intel Celerons are very cheap; or I can stretch the budget a little more and put an Athlon X2 in there. For anything in-between, I might choose AMD or Intel; the Core 2s still have very good performance, but the 2.1GHz AMD triple-core sounds much more attractive. It's not, but at least it *sounds* like something extra-special. If I'm building the machine to sell, I'll choose a Phenom X3 as the triple-core is a good selling point.

billgoldberg
October 4th, 2008, 01:30 PM
Guys.

We all now about CPU's some think they have the best while others think they have the best. But I'd like to know who uses what, which do you think is the better one. so ladies and gentle men vote!

tell me your experiences.

i prefer Intel over AMD as i prefer Ubuntu over windows, greater stability and better performance... :D

I like Intel better.

Reasons?

Don't know, I just do.

Calmatory
October 4th, 2008, 01:41 PM
I like Intel better.

Reasons?

Don't know, I just do.

Maybe because Intel is everywhere? Ads, stickers in computers etc. ? :p

CrazyArcher
October 4th, 2008, 01:52 PM
Beeing in a constant semi-broke state, I prefer AMD for their cheapest CPUs. Sempron right now and a Duron before worked pretty well for me, and back then surely were better than comparable Celerons. I don't like Intel as a company, knowing personally a couple of people who used to work for them, not to mention their general business attitude.

Things are looking really grim for AMD now. With Intel cutting prices (because they can afford selling CPUs for zero-profit) and having superior technological capabilities, AMD can't really pull a rabbit out of the hat. While ATI make fine GPUs, I don't think that it's going to save AMD as a whole. I expect AMD to go bankrupt in a matter of 5-7 years. :(

Canis familiaris
October 4th, 2008, 03:24 PM
Things are looking really grim for AMD now. With Intel cutting prices (because they can afford selling CPUs for zero-profit) and having superior technological capabilities, AMD can't really pull a rabbit out of the hat. While ATI make fine GPUs, I don't think that it's going to save AMD as a whole. I expect AMD to go bankrupt in a matter of 5-7 years. :(

Definitely NOT. AMD is making very good cash with their ATi Radeon brand of GPU and don't think it will be bankrupt. And who knows? If they come with an innovative technology, they might knock out Intel.

TheSlipstream
October 4th, 2008, 03:41 PM
There is no reason to use AMD right now. They are inferior in performance and energy usage, and they overheat, forget overclocking. Anyone who decides to use an AMD processor today is either a die-hard fan, or someone who just wants a cheap processor.

Their GPUs are pretty good though, although I prefer Nvidia right now, mainly because I understand their naming scheme. :P

tuxxy
October 4th, 2008, 03:45 PM
There is no reason to use AMD right now. They are inferior in performance and energy usage, and they overheat, forget overclocking. Anyone who decides to use an AMD processor today is either a die-hard fan, or someone who just wants a cheap processor.

Their GPUs are pretty good though, although I prefer Nvidia right now, mainly because I understand their naming scheme. :P

AMD dual chips outperform Intel in every aspect of the benchmarks, yes Intel are ahead in the quad cores right now but as with the dual chips I expect this to change.

Canis familiaris
October 4th, 2008, 03:49 PM
AMD dual chips outperform Intel in every aspect of the benchmarks, yes Intel are ahead in the quad cores right now but as with the dual chips I expect this to change.

As Compared to Pentium Ds, Yes AMD Athlon64 X2 outperform them by a longshot, however Intel Core 2 Duos (Dual Core) outperform the X2s.

So currently Intel Dual Cores outperform the AMD ones.

I am hoping AMD makes a strong comeback.

Frak
October 4th, 2008, 06:56 PM
Where did you buy MBs & CPUs for those?
http://www.pegasosppc.com/pegasos.php

They've long stopped, but you can look on Ebay for it. It uses normal 184-pin DDR RAM. Uses all Intel standards for the expansion system.

Calmatory
October 4th, 2008, 07:19 PM
AMD dual chips outperform Intel in every aspect of the benchmarks, yes Intel are ahead in the quad cores right now but as with the dual chips I expect this to change.
Says who? AMD's current Quad Cores are in better shape against intels Qads than AMD's dual cores are against Intel duals.

First, AMD is slower clock-for-clock. Second, AMD is slower in frequenzies. Intel has Dual cores up to 3.3GHz, AMD can't reach that even when overclocked. Third, Intel's can overclock +4GHz when AMD's can barely hit that 3.3GHz.

Besides, Intels are more energy efficient and cheaper for same performance.

To put it short: At the moment AMD sucks in every aspect. If you can get Intel, get one.


Their GPUs are pretty good though, although I prefer Nvidia right now, mainly because I understand their naming scheme. :P

You understand Nvidias naming scheme? :| They release old cards with new names. New cards with old names. Nvidia can't do anything at the moment. ATI reigns the market in every aspect.

BDNiner
October 4th, 2008, 07:52 PM
Hertz should never be used all a measuring stick for CPUs. You can't compare Intel and AMD CPUs by their max GHzs alone. Infact it is not much more than a marketing ploy.

I find both companies CPUs very good. AMD's CPUs i find do run hotter than Intels, but AMDs crash less at higher temps. I would only use price as a determing factor when choosing one or the other. The average user is not going to see the performance benefits that all the benchmarks indicate.

nick09
October 4th, 2008, 09:35 PM
The GHz does matter but what also matters that the fact that the processor can be more efficient and do more with less power. GHz is just a marketing ploy as one said.

rasmus91
October 4th, 2008, 10:19 PM
You understand Nvidias naming scheme? They release old cards with new names. New cards with old names. Nvidia can't do anything at the moment. ATI reigns the market in every aspect.

AMD is pumping money out of ATI as it is right now, ATI is soon gonna hit the bottom, all because of AMD... sad :(

Calmatory
October 4th, 2008, 11:04 PM
Hertz should never be used all a measuring stick for CPUs. You can't compare Intel and AMD CPUs by their max GHzs alone. Infact it is not much more than a marketing ploy.

I find both companies CPUs very good. AMD's CPUs i find do run hotter than Intels, but AMDs crash less at higher temps. I would only use price as a determing factor when choosing one or the other. The average user is not going to see the performance benefits that all the benchmarks indicate.
Oh, it shouldn't? Are you telling that 3,16 GHz(Intel Core2Quad QX9750) CPU can be easily outperformed by a 2,6(AMD Phenom X4 9950 Black Edition) GHz CPU when the 2,6 GHz CPU is slower clock-per-clock than the 3,16 GHz CPU?

Even with same clock frequency the Intel outperforms AMD, let alone when Intel has 566 MHz higher clock frequency.

Yes, clock frequencies can, are, and will be used for marketting, but the fact remains that usually or always within same architecture higher clock frequency directly translates to a better operating performance.

rasmus91
October 5th, 2008, 03:19 PM
Oh, it shouldn't? Are you telling that 3,16 GHz(Intel Core2Quad QX9750) CPU can be easily outperformed by a 2,6(AMD Phenom X4 9950 Black Edition) GHz CPU when the 2,6 GHz CPU is slower clock-per-clock than the 3,16 GHz CPU?

Even with same clock frequency the Intel outperforms AMD, let alone when Intel has 566 MHz higher clock frequency.

Yes, clock frequencies can, are, and will be used for marketting, but the fact remains that usually or always within same architecture higher clock frequency directly translates to a better operating performance.

Couldn't agree more

Frak
October 5th, 2008, 04:06 PM
Oh, it shouldn't? Are you telling that 3,16 GHz(Intel Core2Quad QX9750) CPU can be easily outperformed by a 2,6(AMD Phenom X4 9950 Black Edition) GHz CPU when the 2,6 GHz CPU is slower clock-per-clock than the 3,16 GHz CPU?

Even with same clock frequency the Intel outperforms AMD, let alone when Intel has 566 MHz higher clock frequency.

Yes, clock frequencies can, are, and will be used for marketting, but the fact remains that usually or always within same architecture higher clock frequency directly translates to a better operating performance.
Absolutely correct.

You cannot compare a 700Mhz G4 PowerPC with a 1.8GHz Intel or AMD, they run at nearly the same "speed" in terms of use with the same software. You can, though, compare a 2.6 GHz Intel and a 3.2GHz AMD. While it's usually a bit different, it is still a true measure of speed.

Levo
October 5th, 2008, 04:08 PM
Although I have an AMD CPU, i believe that at the moment Intel CPUs are better.

Slug71
October 5th, 2008, 05:42 PM
Somebody said earlier that the CPU's these days are more than the everyday person requires.
I couldnt agree more. With the dual core and quad core and +, the everyday average user wouldnt even notice the difference in speed whether it be AMD or Intel.
I think whats important is how well Hardware and Software is supported.
When AMD launched its Opteron, PC Magazine said that was the best Chipset out as it supported both 64 bit and 32 bit hardware and software equally well and had no problems running mixed Hardware and Software.

That was a long time ago now but because of that and my previous experiences with AMD i'll stick with them.

My next board:
http://usa.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=9&l2=39&l3=174&l4=0&model=1270&modelmenu=1

Frak
October 5th, 2008, 05:48 PM
Anybody else remember when AMD only made external coprocessors?

Offtopic, I know, but still, they were a big ally with Intel at the time... until the 386 included a built-in coprocessor...

Canis familiaris
October 5th, 2008, 05:49 PM
Anybody else remember when AMD only made external coprocessors?

Offtopic, I know, but still, they were a big ally with Intel at the time... until the 386 included a built-in coprocessor...
Nope. Sounds Interesting. Do you have any links?

stmiller
October 5th, 2008, 05:58 PM
AMD - because competition is a good thing!

seanc7
October 5th, 2008, 06:07 PM
As was already stated before, it comes down to price when I'm buying a system. My local PC shop had a sale on the AMD Phenom's and the boards. Since I only had $400 for CPU, board, RAM, hard drive and graphics card, that sale made all the difference. It allowed me to get everything at once instead of waiting another four months for the rest of the parts.

jrusso2
October 5th, 2008, 06:14 PM
Intel, because everything works.

This is really the key for me. Both processors are fine but compatibility is often lacking in AMD products. I had lots of problems with buggy VIA chipsets, USB busses, and AGP slots and video cards with AMD boards in the past kind of gets me down.

Canis familiaris
October 5th, 2008, 06:27 PM
This is really the key for me. Both processors are fine but compatibility is often lacking in AMD products. I had lots of problems with buggy VIA chipsets, USB busses, and AGP slots and video cards with AMD boards in the past kind of gets me down.

Wrong Board Then. AMD processors work perfectly in an ATI chipset for me.

LaRoza
October 5th, 2008, 06:30 PM
Wrong Board Then. AMD processors work perfectly in an ATI chipset for me.

Compatibility with Linux I think. ATI is behind on that.

jrusso2
October 5th, 2008, 06:36 PM
Wrong Board Then. AMD processors work perfectly in an ATI chipset for me.

Well you have to understand ATI chipsets are a recent thing. But still you might run into some problems that would not occur with an Intel chipset. I mean i have used AMD CPU's on and off for since the 486 days and believe me there are lots of times where bugs were specifc to AMD

Canis familiaris
October 5th, 2008, 06:53 PM
Compatibility with Linux I think. ATI is behind on that.

It has improved beyond recognisation though. Kudos to ATI.

BDNiner
October 5th, 2008, 07:22 PM
Oh, it shouldn't? Are you telling that 3,16 GHz(Intel Core2Quad QX9750) CPU can be easily outperformed by a 2,6(AMD Phenom X4 9950 Black Edition) GHz CPU when the 2,6 GHz CPU is slower clock-per-clock than the 3,16 GHz CPU?

Even with same clock frequency the Intel outperforms AMD, let alone when Intel has 566 MHz higher clock frequency.

Yes, clock frequencies can, are, and will be used for marketting, but the fact remains that usually or always within same architecture higher clock frequency directly translates to a better operating performance.

Now don't put words in my mouth. You compared 2 CPUs where the Intel Processor is obviously better than the AMD one. The point I was trying to make is that other factors such as FSB size and L2 cache size have a greater impact on chip performance that pure clock speed does. That is why Celerons were such a rip off, it didn't matter if you had a 3.0GHz Celerons, the small FSB and L2 cache severely handicapped the processor.

But with today's processors unless you are a power user, such as a serious gamer, CAD user, or video/audio producer (and i am not talking about people that think they are any of the above) then you would not really notice the differences between the 2 manufactures products.

Frak
October 5th, 2008, 07:38 PM
Nope. Sounds Interesting. Do you have any links?
I probably can't give you a link, but I may have an ad somewhere from a magazine I got when I was growing up. It says "The new IBM Baby XT! Featuring an Intel 80286 with an Advanced Micro Devices 80287 FPU"

EDIT
@the post above, the only difference between Celeron's and their regular counterparts are the amount of registers (L1 cache) and the L2 cache (data in the CPU cache waiting to be used). The L1 and L2 cache are the most expensive parts of the CPU. This is why L3 caches are becoming more common.

Remember, the L3 cache is motherboard independent, so it doesn't involve the processor type.

mips
October 5th, 2008, 08:10 PM
Nope. Sounds Interesting. Do you have any links?

http://www.silirium.ru/amd-287.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point_unit#Add-on_FPUs
http://www.redhill.net.au/iu.html

nick09
October 6th, 2008, 12:06 AM
Remember, the L3 cache is motherboard independent, so it doesn't involve the processor type.

L3 is mainly used for servers though.

Frak
October 6th, 2008, 12:19 AM
L3 is mainly used for servers though.
Yep, Servers, Workstations, and High-end machines.

miegiel
October 6th, 2008, 02:07 AM
I really don't care about the whole intel vs amd / windows vs apple vs linux wars and i don't care for people that think their country is better than the next either.

I bought a cpu a few weeks back and i didn't buy an amd or intel. I got a nice dual core that doesn't run to hot (65W) and doesn't have a fixed multiplier. I really like having the freedom to clock it at the speed that makes sense for the load it has. I'm pretty sure that i can clock it down far enough that i can cool it without a noisy fan and without being forced to clock every part of my pc down. I'm going to have so much fun with this cpu when I upgrade it and move it to my home server or decide to build a htpc around it. For now it's in my desktop though, running at a normal speed. I'm already looking around for a better motherboard to see how much performance I can squeeze out of it, this one doesn't really have any over clocking potential.

My point is: Don't buy an intel or amd! But buy a cpu that fits it's purpose!

I obviously chose this cpu for it's flexibility, but that's personal. You'll have your own reasons why a certain cpu fits your purpose best.

All that said, there is 1 last point to make to those that claim X out preforms Y.
Ask yourself: "Am I going to buy that super fast out preforming cpu or am I going to get a cheaper model of the same brand and if I'm getting that cheaper model is it relevant which brand has the fastest cpu?"
And ask yourself "How much faster does a cpu need to be for me to even notice it is faster?"

mips
October 6th, 2008, 10:28 AM
I bought a cpu a few weeks back and i didn't buy an amd or intel.


So what did you buy?

miegiel
October 6th, 2008, 03:57 PM
So what did you buy?

It's an amd atlon x2 5400 black edition, but I didn't buy an amd :twisted: I don't buy brands.

Btw, the answer to th 1st question you should ask yourself is "If you're not buying the fastest cpu out there it's completely irrelevant which brand makes the fastest cpu".
And the answer to the 2nd question is "If a cpu is less than 10% faster you won't be able to tell the difference and only when the difference is 20% or more you will start appreciating the speed increase" (% faster as in % more frames per second in a game or % in time do do a calculation like encoding a media file or calculating pi)

mips
October 6th, 2008, 03:59 PM
It's an amd atlon x2 5400 black edition, but I didn't buy an amd :twisted: I don't buy brands.


Lol, and here I though you went exotic with something like a VIA or Freescale etc. Really dissapointed now :)

miegiel
October 6th, 2008, 05:49 PM
Sorry, I didn't want to disapoint you. VIA and Freescale make intresting processors too, especially if low power consumption is more important than computing power. I just thought that naming the brand of cpu I chose would distract from the argument.

Canis familiaris
October 6th, 2008, 06:03 PM
I thought you got an UltraSparc...

bigbear2350
October 6th, 2008, 09:31 PM
I go with AMD. If i wanted to i could get a quad core AMD cpu computer about 100-200$ chea[er than an intel quad cpu. Intel is overprice IMO

Frak
October 6th, 2008, 11:29 PM
I thought you got an UltraSparc...
I may try that some time though.

LaRoza
October 6th, 2008, 11:31 PM
Intel just bought AMD in an overnight deal!

I wonder what this means for us?

miegiel
October 7th, 2008, 12:01 AM
Intel just bought AMD in an overnight deal!

I wonder what this means for us?

I just read it too http://www.techwarelabs.com/articles/events/intel-buys-amd/

I guess we won't see anything better than the i7 till they get a new competitor.

oldsoundguy
October 7th, 2008, 12:05 AM
go back and read the DATE on the article ... April 1, 2008

APRIL FOOL!!

NOTHING on the web about any such sale and you can be assured that the courts would take a very strong look at that as creating a monopoly!

LaRoza
October 7th, 2008, 12:08 AM
I just read it too http://www.techwarelabs.com/articles/events/intel-buys-amd/

I guess we won't see anything better than the i7 till they get a new competitor.

Wow. I was just making that up :-)

I didn't know it had been pulled before.

miegiel
October 7th, 2008, 12:13 AM
go back and read the DATE on the article ... April 1, 2008

APRIL FOOL!!

NOTHING on the web about any such sale and you can be assured that the courts would take a very strong look at that as creating a monopoly!

rofl ... I'm not that dumb :D

EnGorDiaz
October 7th, 2008, 12:20 AM
Intel. Why? Because AMD has been incapable of providing competitive products which would satisfy me over the products Intel provides. For example AMD's "new" Phenom processors can still barely match Intels first C2D processors. Phenoms are slower than Inte's Core2Duos or Core2Quads. AMD's Phenoms consume more watts for the same performance and thus need better cooling. Intel's new Wolfdale codenamed CPU's(E8x00 and E7x00 series mainly) are fastest Dual Core CPU's out there.

Thats when the CPU's are being ran stock speeds. When overclocking comes into play, AMD can be forgotten. The best AMD Quad Core Phenoms can reach a bit more than 3 GHz. Intel's Q6600 can reach 3.2 GHz with ease, usually goes 3.4 GHz with ease and sometimes beyond 3.6 GHz. Not to forget that Q6600 is faster in clock-for-clock comparison and thus 2.8GHz C2Q is equivalent to a 3GHz AMD Phenom. Wolfdales and Penryns then overclock to +4 GHz on air. Sometimes more. AMD's MHz record is somewhere near 4GHz, but Intel's record is + 6.7GHz for current C2D processors and +8GHz for old netburst processors.

AMD can compete with price, but not so well with price/performance or performance. Intel has the performance crown and Intel will reign the market with it for several years to come, since AMD has nothing to take it away.

Also Intel has the one of the best manufacturing processes in the world, while AMD's is not so great. Intel started producing 45 nm CPU's in January, and AMD hasn't been able to ship their first 45nm CPU to the masses yet. First ones are expected to be arriving December/January. Thus AMD are one year behind with manufacturing process, and it is a LOT in this industry.

AMD can, however, provide full system for consumers. With AMD CPU, AMD Chipset and AMD Graphics card it is very interesting platform. Sure Intel can also put up a CPU, chipset and integrated graphics chip but it can not compete in gaming performance as a platform against AMD's one.

AMD's future doesn't seem too good either. They haven't made profit for years. Actually they have never really made profit, only for few years during their +20 years of life.

My own opinion however is that I am towards AMD more than towards Intel. I've had more AMD CPU's than Intel CPU's, but really, I don't pay attention to whoose CPU I have as long as it works as intended and is better than the competitor has. :p

very true

Newuser1111
October 7th, 2008, 12:52 AM
AMD is much better than Intel.
All of my computers have AMD except for that one that has Intel Celeron.


There is more to Intel/AMD than processors ;)

Intel wireless and video works on Linux out of the box. Everyone else is behind in that.Not the Intel video I have(Which is in the same comp that has the Celeron.), It comes out at 640x480 and has all the wrong colors, or is that DSL's problem?

LaRoza
October 7th, 2008, 01:29 AM
Not the Intel video I have(Which is in the same comp that has the Celeron.), It comes out at 640x480 and has all the wrong colors, or is that DSL's problem?

Well, you didn't give the video you have, so how can we answer?

bruce89
October 7th, 2008, 01:32 AM
Intel. Why? Because AMD has been incapable of providing competitive products which would satisfy me over the products Intel provides.
[...]

Evidently, you've never heard of AMD64.

nick09
October 7th, 2008, 01:53 AM
Did you know that Intel bought the 1st 64 bit consumer technology from AMD? If you did not know then you are definitely not a geek.

Plus Intel is a monopoly by its history. Read this:
http://news.cnet.com/Intel-and-AMD-A-long-history-in-court/2100-1014_3-5767146.html

LaRoza
October 7th, 2008, 01:57 AM
Did you know that Intel bought the 1st 64 bit consumer technology from AMD? If you did not know then you are definitely not a geek.

So? Past products and achievements have nothing to do with now.



Plus Intel is a monopoly by its history. Read this:
http://news.cnet.com/Intel-and-AMD-A-long-history-in-court/2100-1014_3-5767146.html
It doesn't matter, benchmarks for CPU's do not consider business practices.

ComputerHermit
October 7th, 2008, 01:57 AM
amd

jayson.rowe
October 7th, 2008, 02:41 AM
I used nothing but AMD chips for years (I even had an AMD 80386) - just built my first Intel System (Core2) - why? Intel was faster, and I wanted the most for my $$$.

At every other point I build a system in recent times, the AMD was faster:
Athlon T-bird was faster than PIII
Athlon XP was faster than P4
Athlon64 was faster than P4
Athlon64x2 was faster than PentiumD (not to be confused with Pentium Dual-Core or Core2)

This time:
Core2 was faster than Athlon64x2

jpittack
October 7th, 2008, 04:28 AM
If my BIOS was well written for acpi, I would be drawing power equivalent to a new Intel laptop with an LED screen. I think the BIOS was written poorly because AMD bribed phoenix to not include the support. There was a lawsuit that came out, but I don't know the end result of that, so I don't have the proof.

To make AMD look better, i7 doesn't support all of DDR3 memory (tomshardware). Where gaming is concerned, frames per second is one part of the story, and mainly based on graphics chips, not processors.

Check out the other Intel vs. AMD (vs. VIA) article at tomshardware. An atom processor is only a little better than an underclocked amd desktop processor. And the AMD processor is .6 Ghz down.

I can't choose Nvidia (defective chips) and I can't bring myself to choose Intel. I play video games and would like more performance than Intel's chipsets, and save $100 to only have 10 fps less.

Sadly, the puma platform only has one model that has a radeon 3650 (asus, newegg), and the poor bios stops acpi support, destroying linux mobility.

All this talk about lack of support and the only problems I have experienced are people not following directions or when they do, its illegal (allegedly of course).

mips
October 7th, 2008, 11:33 AM
You understand Nvidias naming scheme? :| They release old cards with new names. New cards with old names. Nvidia can't do anything at the moment. ATI reigns the market in every aspect.

+1

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/10/03/nvidia-sticks-names-old-cards

If I used windows most of the time I would have purchased an ATI card instead of a nVidia one a few weeks ago.

Canis familiaris
October 7th, 2008, 11:59 AM
+1

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/10/03/nvidia-sticks-names-old-cards

If I used windows most of the time I would have purchased an ATI card instead of a nVidia one a few weeks ago.

Not for long. ATi has really made great advancements in the past year. In another year they'll make better drivers than nVidia.
Exactly the reason why I deferred plans of buying a graphics card for a year. :)

bufsabre666
October 7th, 2008, 12:05 PM
Not for long. ATi has really made great advancements in the past year. In another year they'll make better drivers than nVidia.
Exactly the reason why I deferred plans of buying a graphics card for a year. :)

i think they do now, its more involved to get the 3d working but not much, i have a copy of my ati configed xorg on my googledocs just so if i need to reset it up i can fast

the reason i think its better is cause my old 7600gt crashed hard all the time cause of those shotty drivers,sure it put up better frame rates but my ati card only causes system crashs when im messing with settings. unless they fixed that problem in the 3 weeks i havent been using nvidia im ganna say ati is the better provider now.

as for amd v intel, i only use amd's. i know intel makes faster processors. i dont care. without competition intel would pretty much shut down r&d, theyd have nothing to beat for market share. and both companies are extremely linux friendly so its kinda a non argument

rajeev1204
October 7th, 2008, 12:13 PM
Remember the days when AMD started stating that clock speed isnt the only thing about real world performance and started naming their processors for example like athlon 3000+ to indicate similar performance to an intel 3 GHz processor ? .Well , that used to be true 2 years ago but now i think they should rename it like athlon 100$+ to indicate its similar in performance to an intel chip costing 100 dollars hhiihiihihi. :D

iam so disappointed with amd now. i always supported them.still do btw.
I use amd athlon x2 4400 + or is that athlon50$+ now.


And its good they are making energy efficient chips now but thats a theoretical thing now isnt it.Iam sure no one will notice a change in power bills with either processor.The heat factor too not really a bother i think both are good with their stock fans and sinks.





regards

rajeev

mips
October 7th, 2008, 01:53 PM
Not for long. ATi has really made great advancements in the past year. In another year they'll make better drivers than nVidia.
Exactly the reason why I deferred plans of buying a graphics card for a year. :)

I agree with you. Unfortunately I needed a gfx card 'now', so I went with nVidia. I would not hesitate to get an ATI in the future but not right now.

rasmus91
October 7th, 2008, 02:45 PM
Has any of you guys ever heard someone say: "AMD made the first 64 bit processor?"

thats actually not true, Intel had the first 64 bit... it was just for servers, and they didn't want to release something they weren't finished testing on pc's

miegiel
October 7th, 2008, 03:38 PM
Has any of you guys ever heard someone say: "AMD made the first 64 bit processor?"

thats actually not true, Intel had the first 64 bit... it was just for servers, and they didn't want to release something they weren't finished testing on pc's


That doesn't make sense. Why would intel release an unfinished untested 64 bitter for servers? The reality is more painful. While they were forced to release 64bit server processors because servers needed more then 4GB memory. For the consumer it was commercially more interesting to sell a cpu that doesn't support more than 4GB yet. You don't want consumers to only upgrade their ram, right? You want them to get a new cpu too.

L815
October 7th, 2008, 03:42 PM
I used to be an AMD fan on my Desktop PC, but now with a laptop I have become a fan of Intel. I noticed the Intel doesn't do as well in gaming as AMD, but than again that could be my graphics card >.<

stmiller
October 7th, 2008, 03:43 PM
and

Thats quite alright, I'll gladly share my information:

Well, one of my friends has his own computer store. nothing big yet, but still he is a Intel partner, meaning he'll have to go to Intel meetings. Where they get information about how its going Intel. And i know you'll easily say, "thats just something Intel made up" but i don't think so, there would be absolutely no point for Intel in saying this.


for bringing up an exampel that AMD is the slower one
have a look at this test:





Yes, but what about price? A fair comparison is one that puts in retail price for each of those. Price / performance. Then that chart would look quite different.

Npl
October 7th, 2008, 04:53 PM
Has any of you guys ever heard someone say: "AMD made the first 64 bit processor?"

thats actually not true, Intel had the first 64 bit... it was just for servers, and they didn't want to release something they weren't finished testing on pc'sIts called Itanium, it wasnt x86-compatible and it stunk.

Mips had a 64-bit Processor 1991, and AMD had the first 64-bit Processor thats compatible with x86. So no, Intel dint have the first 64-bit processor any way you turn it.

LaRoza
October 7th, 2008, 05:56 PM
Mips had a 64-bit Processor 1991, and AMD had the first 64-bit Processor thats compatible with x86. So no, Intel dint have the first 64-bit processor any way you turn it.

In 1961 IBM had a 64 bit processor. In 1991, MIPS made the first 64 bit microprocessor, the R4000.

Also, the N64, a very good system, used a 64 bit processor (based in the above MIPS).

But as I said before, history doesn't matter. It is what they have now that matters.

Npl
October 7th, 2008, 06:09 PM
In 1961 IBM had a 64 bit processor. In 1991, MIPS made the first 64 bit microprocessor, the R4000.

Also, the N64, a very good system, used a 64 bit processor (based in the above MIPS).

But as I said before, history doesn't matter. It is what they have now that matters.Hmm, you mean if AMD buys a nukes and blows up Intel`s Factories, theres no reason to dislike them.. aslong their products and ethics are fine the day after?

Tell me where I put down Intels current processors... cause this is getting tiresome. I was merely correcting a wrong statement in the post abaove.

LaRoza
October 7th, 2008, 06:15 PM
Hmm, you mean if AMD buys a nukes and blows up Intel`s Factories, theres no reason to dislike them.. aslong their products and ethics are fine the day after?

Well, http://www.cracked.com/article_15767_third-reich-fortune-500-five-popular-brands-nazis-gave-us.html

Not to mention the Japanese companies in WWII...



Tell me where I put down Intels current processors... cause this is getting tiresome. I was merely correcting a wrong statement in the post abaove.

Well, I think people are getting tied up on past products to justify current ideas. I used to like AMD processors, until Intels became better. It would be nice for AMD (or anyone) make a competing product. We all win in the end.

drokmed
October 7th, 2008, 06:24 PM
Never buy Intel.

All linux fans should boycott Intel, after the disgraceful way they attacked the OLPC XO laptop. Both Intel and Microsoft are guilty of slimy business practices which should never be tolerated.

Personally, I'm hoping VIA will quickly become a dominant player. Their clear devotion to linux development and support will make them #1 in the linux world if they can compete with AMD and Intel.

Npl
October 7th, 2008, 06:28 PM
Well, http://www.cracked.com/article_15767_third-reich-fortune-500-five-popular-brands-nazis-gave-us.html

Not to mention the Japanese companies in WWII...Apples and Oranges.


Well, I think people are getting tied up on past products to justify current ideas. I used to like AMD processors, until Intels became better. It would be nice for AMD (or anyone) make a competing product. We all win in the end.If Intel hadnt strongarmed retailers when AMD had the tech and performance lead, AMD would be in a better financial shape and actually could spend more on R&D instead of spinning off their factories (and dont start with "the court will solve this"... even if they get money someday its money they needed years ago). Which would result in fair competition and better products for us.
Its no real challenge to win fair "today" if you broke your opponents legs yesterday (which I fail to see your 3rd-Reich companies doing).

As I said posts ago, enjoy your Intel-CPUs, they are better than what AMD can offer ATM(hopefully AMD lives long enough to get the advantage again). But it will be along time till Im swayed towards Intel.

Canis familiaris
October 7th, 2008, 06:31 PM
Apples and Oranges.

If Intel hadnt strongarmed retailers when AMD had the tech and performance lead, AMD would be in a better financial shape and actually could spend more on R&D instead of spinning off their factories ...
That is a very good point...
I remember how the OEMs bundled the crappy Netburst CPUs in majority when they were no match to AMD counterparts, particularly Prescott - Intel never made a worse processor but it was still sold like hot cakes courtesy of those deals.

LaRoza
October 7th, 2008, 07:05 PM
Never buy Intel.

All linux fans should boycott Intel, after the disgraceful way they attacked the OLPC XO laptop. Both Intel and Microsoft are guilty of slimy business practices which should never be tolerated.

Personally, I'm hoping VIA will quickly become a dominant player. Their clear devotion to linux development and support will make them #1 in the linux world if they can compete with AMD and Intel.

What? Obviously biased.

There are facts missing here. The reason Intel "attacked" the OLPC, was for a very valid reason. (They wouldn't be able to use those CPU's anywhere else by the terms).

Intel, for the record, supports Linux. They do not commit CPU suicide by restricting themselves like the OLPC wanted.

LaRoza
October 7th, 2008, 07:09 PM
Apples and Oranges.
[/quite]
Right, because it deals with reality, not AMD dropping nuclear bombs on Intel.

[quote]
If Intel hadnt strongarmed retailers when AMD had the tech and performance lead, AMD would be in a better financial shape and actually could spend more on R&D instead of spinning off their factories (and dont start with "the court will solve this"... even if they get money someday its money they needed years ago). Which would result in fair competition and better products for us.

Every single company has done such things. If this, if that. If reality followed every optimal decision for the consumer, this statement wouldn't exist.



Its no real challenge to win fair "today" if you broke your opponents legs yesterday (which I fail to see your 3rd-Reich companies doing).

Do not refer to the 3d Reich companies as mine. That is very offensive. In fact, do not associate anything with the 3d Reich with me. Ever.



As I said posts ago, enjoy your Intel-CPUs, they are better than what AMD can offer ATM(hopefully AMD lives long enough to get the advantage again). But it will be along time till Im swayed towards Intel.

They are not "my Intel CPU's". I do not own the 3d Reich or Intel. I use what works best.

Like I said, it is good for us to have competition. I have no loyalty to anything and like it when better products come out. I love my Thinkpad, but if a competitor made a superior product, I'd have no problem saying bye to Lenovo (in fact, I sort of did when I ordered the Dell 910 because Lenovo dropped Linux support and the Dell comes with Ubuntu).

You just said Intel processors are better at the moment, yet say it is a long time you are swayed towards Intel. That shows you do not look at technology, but other things.

drokmed
October 7th, 2008, 07:23 PM
What? Obviously biased.

There are facts missing here. The reason Intel "attacked" the OLPC, was for a very valid reason. (They wouldn't be able to use those CPU's anywhere else by the terms).
Biased? Gee thanks, that's not it though.

Intel went to OLPC customers (as an OLPC rep) and tried to sell them Intel laptops instead of OLPC laptops. Real class act. Microsoft did the same. Maybe you approve of that. I don't.

Just google Intel and OLPC.

http://digg.com/linux_unix/OLPC_on_60_Minutes_Intel_is_evil

I'll agree with you that OLPC was dumb enough to ask Intel to stop competing with the OLPC:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9839806-37.html

However, that didn't give Intel the right to go into OLPC customers as REPRESENTATIVES of OLPC, and in the sales meeting, trash the OLPC and position their own Classmate laptop. That is unethical. It's not illegal, so some people will feel it's fair game.

Npl
October 7th, 2008, 07:28 PM
Every single company has done such things. If this, if that. If reality followed every optimal decision for the consumer, this statement wouldn't exist.You mean bias for a company means nothing for you? From a business perspective, producing in poor countries with cheap slaves would be the optimum. Anything for saving a buck?

Do not refer to the 3d Reich comanies as mine. That is very offensive. In fact, do not associate anything with the 3d Reich with me. Ever.I was refering to the link you posted. Im sorry if I got you upset... hope you can forgive my lack of explicit english grammar... I will then even refrain from witty remarks about the threedimensional Reich
They are not "my Intel CPU's". I do not own the 3d Reich or Intel. I use what works best.And im not taking your Intel CPUs from you, and dont think Im personally attacking you if I express antipathy for Intel - You merely keep arguing ;=)


Like I said, it is good for us to have competition. I have no loyalty to anything and like it when better products come out. I love my Thinkpad, but if a competitor made a superior product, I'd have no problem saying bye to Lenovo (in fact, I sort of did when I ordered the Dell 910 because Lenovo dropped Linux support and the Dell comes with Ubuntu).I like competition - fair and healthy competition. And AMD aint healthy, and it has to do with fighting someone with insane and IMHO unearned proportions.

You just said Intel processors are better at the moment, yet say it is a long time you are swayed towards Intel. That shows you do not look at technology, but other things.Im looking at technology and other things aswell. If AMDs CPU dont cut it for my needs and Intel is the only option then I`ll remove every mirror in my home and throw money at them in the hope they suffocate under it.
Lucky its not that AMD is a bad buy right now (low and midend atleast), its just that Intel is a better one.

thepizzaman
October 7th, 2008, 07:32 PM
Never again will i use a intel processor (unless its given to me) every one that i have had has ether had bad performance or died way to soon
i love my amd dual core it runs perfectly with ubuntu and i will keep getting amd's

LaRoza
October 7th, 2008, 07:44 PM
You mean bias for a company means nothing for you? From a business perspective, producing in poor countries with cheap slaves would be the optimum. Anything for saving a buck?

CPU's are not made with cheap slaves.



I will then even refrain from witty remarks about the threedimensional Reich

3d is correct, and 3rd is acceptabe now a days.



I like competition - fair and healthy competition. And AMD aint healthy, and it has to do with fighting someone with insane and IMHO unearned proportions.

Well, as long as the products work. Right now, when I get a system, if it doesn't come with Linux, I get Intel everything because I know it will work.



Lucky its not that AMD is a bad buy right now (low and midend atleast), its just that Intel is a better one.
Any company looks nice when they are the underdog so to speak, but when they are on top, they are all the same. The Evil IBM, the Evil Microsoft, the Evil Intel. They didn't start out on top and were just like the underdogs.

nick09
October 7th, 2008, 08:08 PM
Has any of you guys ever heard someone say: "AMD made the first 64 bit processor?"

thats actually not true, Intel had the first 64 bit... it was just for servers, and they didn't want to release something they weren't finished testing on pc's

I said consumer not server.;)

The AMD 64 is the first processor to support 32 bit and 64 bit OS's and programs to my knowledge.

mips
October 8th, 2008, 06:39 PM
Has any of you guys ever heard someone say: "AMD made the first 64 bit processor?"

thats actually not true, Intel had the first 64 bit... it was just for servers, and they didn't want to release something they weren't finished testing on pc's

IBM actually made the first 64bit processor and there were many others before Intel & Amd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#64-bit_processor_timeline

The Intel IA64 was not a x86 architecture.

rasmus91
April 8th, 2010, 09:59 AM
IBM actually made the first 64bit processor and there were many others before Intel & Amd.


Yes of course. But i was saying this in thought of AMD/Intel, not with anyone else in mind. (should have said, i know)

Psumi
April 8th, 2010, 11:56 AM
AMD in both, cuts computer cost by over 100 USD at times.

arnab_das
April 8th, 2010, 02:08 PM
AMD in both, cuts computer cost by over 100 USD at times.

+1 when i upgraded my PC, i found that an equivalent Intel processor was costing me almost double the amount of an AMD processor.

but i guess, the quad core ones of intel are better than the phenom ones, or so i have heard.

handy
April 8th, 2010, 03:10 PM
Imagine what Intel would be charging us, if it wasn't for the great competition that AMD have provided.

Who would have been pushing Intel's R&D?

We would be paying much more, for far less.

Intel need AMD, as without them they would be in trouble in many countries; as without a competitor they are breaching unfair practice laws.

spoons
April 8th, 2010, 03:36 PM
I have gone for a Phenom II this round. I got an AMD Dual Core 550BE. Fortunately though, this is actually a quad where they've disabled two cores, and I've managed to get the fourth core working stable. :)

This means cores 1,2 and 4 are active, for a tri-core. For 50. No too bad.

My other older computer has a Core 2 Duo because vs the existing AMD CPUs back then they were the best option. I only really choose whoever provides the best wuality at a price. If AMD were in Intel's position they'd be doing the exact same. (look at the price gouging of the HD5xxx series graphics cards because Nvidia can't compete)

Psumi
April 8th, 2010, 03:40 PM
(look at the price gouging of the HD5xxx series graphics cards because Nvidia can't compete)

NVIDIA Isn't just a GPU manufacturer.

antenna
April 8th, 2010, 03:53 PM
I'll buy whatever is better value in the range I am looking at, however the last few builds has been AMD for me. For low - mid performance this often seems to be the case. It's just an added extra that they are the smaller company and I feel better supporting them as Intel need the competition.

My next CPU will probably be an Atom though.

( I like that rasmus91 took 18 months for his reply :) )

cascade9
April 8th, 2010, 04:38 PM
I normally try to avoid being part of 2-year-old thread resurections, but I cant help myself this time.


Imagine what Intel would be charging us, if it wasn't for the great competition that AMD have provided.

Who would have been pushing Intel's R&D?

We would be paying much more, for far less.

Intel need AMD, as without them they would be in trouble in many countries; as without a competitor they are breaching unfair practice laws.

I pretty much agree, but there is one point I dont on- Intel needs AMD as a competitor. If AMD wasnt there, Cyrix would still be around as a mainstream CPU manufacturer, but we probably wouldnt have quite the performanace we get now. The athlon and then athlon 64 really scared Intel, and have pushed them ahrd, to the point where they also lost it with the i820/840 RDRAM and i810 mistakes, and then the P4s....

IDT, NextGen and a few others who have been at least bit players in the x86 market could still be around as well.

One things for sure, 64bit wouldnt be in anywhere near the position it is in now.


If AMD were in Intel's position they'd be doing the exact same. (look at the price gouging of the HD5xxx series graphics cards because Nvidia can't compete)

Umm...I doubt it. Intel acts like microsoft IMO, with a general 'we created the market and we should be able to control it" attitude. They sure werent as high-priced as Intel tends to be when they did have the performance edge.

Price gouging? The ATI 5xxx series had a tendancy to be better bang per buck than the nVidia cards. Also, nVidia can compete, I dont know what that is about (if you mean DX11, the GTX4xx series are almost out and on sale)

handy
April 9th, 2010, 05:28 AM
I do use Intel on one of my machines, due to my purchase of an iMac.

Apart from that strange purchase, I will always choose AMD.

I like to support the underdog.

Without AMD, the costs of CPUs would be far more expensive.

There would be less choice re. CPUs without AMD, & what we could choose would be far less functional than what we have now.

As already mentioned, we would very likely have no 64bit CPUs for our desktop boxes & notebooks.

Artemis3
April 9th, 2010, 07:26 AM
Well the Itanium was 64 bit, but a different architecture, it only had x86 32 bit emulation in software, which meant poor ms windows performance...

AMD is usually the best "bang for the buck". Might not be the fastest, but benchmarks show a cheaper price with the same speed Intel counterparts.

cascade9
April 9th, 2010, 02:48 PM
Well the Itanium was 64 bit, but a different architecture, it only had x86 32 bit emulation in software, which meant poor ms windows performance...

Yes.

Itanium was also horrifically expensive, and never really aimed at the desktop market. My guess is that without AMD, once a similar performance level appeared as roughly 2008-2009, intel would have tried to keep 32bit as 'desktop' and pushed 64bit as 'professional' (and 'hardcore gamers').

rasmus91
May 3rd, 2010, 01:51 PM
I like to support the underdog. agreed, don't think im not happy with amd being there, i just haven't seen anything that would make me say its better than intel.

Price gouging? The ATI 5xxx series had a tendancy to be better bang per buck than the nVidia cards. Also, nVidia can compete, I dont know what that is about (if you mean DX11, the GTX4xx series are almost out and on sale)

about this, I've had nothing but baaaaad experience with ATI graphics, Im NEVER going to buy ATI! NEVER!

andras artois
May 3rd, 2010, 04:11 PM
Why don't ARM and nVidia make CPU's? Because from what they're already doing, they'd be amazing.

98cwitr
May 3rd, 2010, 04:15 PM
just depends what Im building the system for

Budget builds = AMD
Power builds = Intel

Laptops usually AMD, but if I'm buying one for myself to keep for a while, I'll go with an i5 Thinkpad :) I've got an e6750 in my main box @ home and a AMD Semp. running my NAS...all it needs

mamamia88
May 3rd, 2010, 04:30 PM
can intel beat the price/performance ratio of this chip?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103286&cm_re=amd_phenom_quad-_-19-103-286-_-Product

thinking of using that for my first build this summer

NCLI
May 3rd, 2010, 04:31 PM
FACT: Intel's CPUs are the most powerful in the world.
FACT: Intel's processors are damn expensive.
FACT: AMDs CPUs are not as powerful(Due to Intel playing dirty in the 90s).
FACT: AMDs CPUs are cheaper
FACT: AMDs CPUs are more value for the money.

I prefer to buy Intel CPUs, but in my server, I use a hexacore AMD CPU, simply because it's cheap, and has plenty of power for my server(it transcodes 1080P movies on-the-fly). Both my desktop, laptop and netbook are powered by Intel chips, because I want the most powerful chip available for the devices I interact with directly, and expect to adapt to more demanding applications in the future. I know that my server will probably never encounter anything more taxing than a 1080P high-bitrate 3D movie in its lifetime, so I'm fine with buying an adequate CPU to power it.

dealcorn
May 3rd, 2010, 07:05 PM
My bias clearly favors Intel but the choices offered by a competitive marketplace are good. I just ordered a box that will host a bit torrent daemon and act as boot server for a disk less workstation in my home network 24x7. Electricity is expensive locally at US $0.30/KWH so I ordered an Asus RT-N16 router which comes with some Broadcom chip and usb ports. DD-WRT, a Linux distribution, enables this router to perform these functions and I do not have to pay for an additional plug. 3 year's electricity to power a D410 Atom costs more than this wifi router and I get an upgrade from g to n as part of the bargain. It made sense to me.

oldsoundguy
May 3rd, 2010, 07:55 PM
I run both .. in desktops.
Runnning a hyperthreaded in my main Ubuntu box (did require a tunnel fan add on cooler)
Dual core AMD in an XP/Adobe box that never goes on line .. for photographic processing mostly.
Down to an old cellery on a Linux Mint box.

DID have issues with some P III stuff a few years back with the "super fast" chips that were limited in sales .. can see why they did not sell .. unstable as he!!

Whatever works for you is what is best.
If you have the mindset of "have to have the hot new item" all the time .. you are throwing your money away!

ahamino
September 11th, 2010, 06:42 PM
I have AMD turion x2 ... and I boil eggs on it .. stick with intel in laptops :D

KegHead
September 11th, 2010, 08:06 PM
Hi!

I have both.

Intels in a desktop' netbook and a laptop.

AMD in a laptop.

Intel seems faster for everyday stuff.

KegHead

Strategist01
September 11th, 2010, 08:22 PM
I'm waiting for the new Bulldozer CPUs from AMD before I make judgements in what should go into my new PC. I'm not a fanboi - I'm looking for good performance with relatively little cost. In South Africa, electronics can be damn expensive - even when you buy online!

sxmaxchine
September 11th, 2010, 08:28 PM
the intel are faster but to get that speed you have to pay a lot more for the cpu and the motherboard.

I like amd as it is backwards compatible and has cpu's with more power then anyone currently needs.

I have an AMD Phenom II P920 quad core. better then i5 in some ways but i5 is better in some ways, depends on what you use the pc for.

Frogs Hair
September 11th, 2010, 09:29 PM
I have an AMD 2+ mother board so I'm limited until the next build . My Intel experience is limited to a Pentium II on my now retired Gateway.

mips
September 11th, 2010, 09:39 PM
FACT: Intel's CPUs are the most powerful in the world.
FACT: Intel's processors are damn expensive.


Currently yes, but some time ago AMD kicked their butts. Things can change again in the future, who knows.

My current CPU is Intel every single CPU I purchased before that was AMD. I'm a bang for buck type of guy :D

slooksterpsv
September 11th, 2010, 09:54 PM
AMD is my preferred choice for everything. I've seen the performance on various ends of the spectrum. My favorite example is the following:

I had an AMD Duron 1.1GHz with 384MB RAM, Windows XP, ATI Radeon 7500 LE etc. My brother had an Intel Celeron 2.4GHz with 640MB RAM, Windows XP, ATI Radeon 9000 etc.

We both would play UT2003, and run other various programs. UT2003 was faster on the AMD, it was faster booting up, faster opening programs etc. The Intel Celeron choked bad.

Other than that AMD bought ATI, which adds to my "fanboy" feelings for AMD. AMD also had the first 64-bit PC CPU (first 64-bit was Mac), etc.

v1ad
September 11th, 2010, 09:54 PM
i used AMD and Intel, currently i have the i7 920, and as someone stated earlier Intel does seem to hiccup more after time.

i use it for gaming also, and i did notice that the Phenom2 965 3.4 runs way faster than my Intels when i OC to 3.6. Next build i'm thinking AMD. i build computers for friends and family, and i swap out my parts every 1-2 years. so i get to experience a lot of different products.

Ransoms
September 11th, 2010, 10:33 PM
Currently using AMD, but i always preferred Intel, and i'll be getting an i7 930 in a few days. I can't wait to get back to Intel, they just seem a lot snappier for desktop stuff, and i do a lot of compiling/compressing/decoding etc. And a 930 with water cooling and overclocked will be sweet for my everyday needs.

v1ad
September 11th, 2010, 11:36 PM
Currently using AMD, but i always preferred Intel, and i'll be getting an i7 930 in a few days. I can't wait to get back to Intel, they just seem a lot snappier for desktop stuff, and i do a lot of compiling/compressing/decoding etc. And a 930 with water cooling and overclocked will be sweet for my everyday needs.

That is exactly what i have but i got the 920, 930 is already 35nm technology. also i would consider the AMD 965 or the 1080t

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/281043-28-definitive-1090t-choice

doorknob60
September 12th, 2010, 05:40 AM
"Neither, they're both good." Which means I buy whatever is more cost effective, and if I'm building a desktop, that always ends up being AMD. I don't really care though, they both work great for me.

Lucradia
September 12th, 2010, 04:44 PM
I have to go with AMD.

AMD's kick *** with processors, but horrible with graphics (ATI.)

rasmus91
September 13th, 2010, 01:01 PM
indeed horrible graphics!

But Intel suck at graphics as well... At least until now. I hope their chip for the PS4 will change their future graphics from onboard to actual GPU's

I still prefer intel processors, i have gotten a new laptop with a core i5 and it's AWESOME! ;)