Intel? AMD? Help!?

StrangleHold · 03-27-2008, 01:39 PM

This Intel vs. AMD crap kills me. AMD had Intel beat clock for clock for quite a few years while Intel sat on Netburst like a retard, really AMD had Intel beat more clock for clock than Intel has now with the Core 2 vs. AMD. It took (big-money) Intel like 5 years to finally release the Core 2 to beat AMD and I am suppost to impressed. Thats like saying Boeing took 5 or 6 years to make a better airplane than Back Yard Joe I make a airplane Company.
All these Intel freaks sat in there closet for years praying that Intel might come out with something that beat AMD, now the Core 2 came out and you come crawling out of the closet and see daylight but quit sucking all the air out of the room. I would be upset that your lovely Intel made you sit in a closet sucking on a netburst sucker for 5 years.

PC eye · 03-27-2008, 02:13 PM

You won't have to worry too much longer since AMD's 3850 X4 is taking on the Q series pretty well.

aviation_man · 03-27-2008, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgast06

Let me see if i can settle this. Blow for blow, intel beats the crap out of amd. Hello, 45nm quads mean anything to you? But lets look at the price /performance ration. Intel has run into the same thing as any other big product. Your paying a crap-ton of money for the name. If i had 5 thousand to spend on a new rig, i would go Intel, but as it was, i had 2000 so i went AMD. My old rig(not in my sig) ran a 2.6 dual core and never even had a problem. keep in mind i spent 140$ on it. Where i come from, we call that a good deal.

i agree. For intel, your paying mainly for the name, as quality goes.. im not sure.
AMD is cheaper, and thats a fact, but is it going to break or is it as slow as crap?.

AMD has a 3.2 GHz for 150$

Intel is expensive. Intel has a 3.0 GHz for 270$

see the difference? NOW, Amd and intel dont run on the same clocking speed.
for Intel.... If you buy intel, are you paying for quality or for the name?
for AMD.... If you buy AMD, are you paying for quality or is AMD better and faster then intel and they just have lower prices?
can anyone answer these questions?

Mtag · 03-27-2008, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aviation_man

i agree. For intel, your paying mainly for the name, as quality goes.. im not sure.
AMD is cheaper, and thats a fact, but is it going to break or is it as slow as crap?.

AMD has a 3.2 GHz for 150$

Intel is expensive. Intel has a 3.0 GHz for 270$

see the difference? NOW, Amd and intel dont run on the same clocking speed.
for Intel.... If you buy intel, are you paying for quality or for the name?
for AMD.... If you buy AMD, are you paying for quality or is AMD better and faster then intel and they just have lower prices?
can anyone answer these questions?

Intel e8400 3.0 GHz is on newegg right now for $200. It not only smashes the 3.2 GHz AMD at stock speeds, but it overclocks like crazy! You cannot compare AMD to Intel on a clock for clock basis.

hackapelite · 03-27-2008, 11:19 PM

Clock for clock Intel owns AMD which is sad...but true.
Okay, now, a question: by how much can an AMD beat a comparable Intel in memory performance? 'cause AMDs have integrated memory controllers...I suppose that's one of their advantages?

Also, for what I know, Pentium dualcores have some stuff disabled, like Virtualization Technology and possibly something else...this true?

For now, my last question: If AMDs perform better at FLOPs, shouldn't it be better at 3D-graphics editing/gaming? Or is it the GPU doing the most work anyway...?

nemix · 03-28-2008, 12:52 AM

All the side by side comparisons online with new chips coming out point to intel to be better and that's what I'm working with.

If reviews start changing I'll try an amd out but until then it's intel for me.

Vizy93 · 03-28-2008, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hackapelite

It's not cowardice; it's called "Tactical Retreat"

More on topic...can someone explain why Intels spit at AMDs so hard? More techical information and so on...AMDs do better at FLOPs, Intels perform better clock-for-clock, that's something about both brands... Advantages/disadvantages and actual effect of those on performance. Those are the kinds of facts I'd like to know, and I'm sure they would help heaps of other people...including the starter of this thread. I just don't find "i switched over to intel" or "intel rules" very convincing...

I only just wish I could make some sense...but no

"tactical retreat" no, its not.

very good point though on the second part. neither company is BAD. and as an earlier poster said, we suck a bench marks. basically AMD is more budget minded...i think.

another vizy example:

let's say that there is a house, 3000 sq. ft. Its in Winnetka, California. I used to live in winnetka, and its not really the best neighbor hood. Then there is the same exact house in the Hills of Beverly. What would cost more? the hills of beverly house, why? cuz its intel.

Amd is the winnetka house.
Q: make sense?

A: no.

skrew u

WhiteFireDragon · 03-28-2008, 04:10 AM

there's just too many intel and AMD fanboys that basically say stuff like "intel is teh bestest and AMD is garbage!" all this bias is not really helping anyone. i personally favor intel more but for the thread starter, i would probably tell you to get an AMD x2.

there's no debate that currently intel's top processors for enthusiasts will rape AMD's top. but what percentage of the population that has a computer will spend $1000+ for one of these high end chips? for people just merely looking for an upgrade from a 7 year old ancient machine, AMD offers good budget upgrades. overall, the performance vs price ratio of AMD is better than intel's. so to bash on AMD because they are losing in the market and overall performance is just ignorance. honestly, if you're just looking for an upgrade from an old celeron, you won't notice much a difference between AMD or intel for the budget that you'll be spending in the sub $150 range. unless you'll be doing corporate level applications, i'm sure you won't fret over burning a CD or DVD two seconds slower. my guess is that you won't be doing much overclocking, so go with AMD for the best performance/price ratio. the only reason i prefer intel more is because i cant stand keeping things at stock speed, and AMD chips really suck at overclocking.

HERE is a chart to show performance vs price ratio so you get the best bang for the bucks. hope this cleared things up more than "AMD sucks! and intel is better"

OvenMaster · 03-28-2008, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteFireDragon

there's just too many intel and AMD fanboys that basically say stuff like "intel is teh bestest and AMD is garbage!" all this bias is not really helping anyone. i personally favor intel more but for the thread starter, i would probably tell you to get an AMD x2.

there's no debate that currently intel's top processors for enthusiasts will rape AMD's top. but what percentage of the population that has a computer will spend $1000+ for one of these high end chips? for people just merely looking for an upgrade from a 7 year old ancient machine, AMD offers good budget upgrades. overall, the performance vs price ratio of AMD is better than intel's. so to bash on AMD because they are losing in the market and overall performance is just ignorance. honestly, if you're just looking for an upgrade from an old celeron, you won't notice much a difference between AMD or intel for the budget that you'll be spending in the sub $150 range. unless you'll be doing corporate level applications, i'm sure you won't fret over burning a CD or DVD two seconds slower. my guess is that you won't be doing much overclocking, so go with AMD for the best performance/price ratio. the only reason i prefer intel more is because i cant stand keeping things at stock speed, and AMD chips really suck at overclocking.

HERE is a chart to show performance vs price ratio so you get the best bang for the bucks. hope this cleared things up more than "AMD sucks! and intel is better"

Thank you for that link. Very informative.
Another reason someone *ahem* might choose one brand of processor over another is that their desired goals for a PC require them to buy a certain motherboard. For instance, I needed a new microATX board which could accept a decent processor, that would let me keep my AGP card, PATA drives, and PCI soundcard (all still in warranty), and use 2GB of DDR2 667 SRAM, all for a budget of $150 max. The only board that I could find new that met those requirements was a Biostar K8M800... with an AM2 socket that will accept an Athlon 64 X2 4200+. Sold!

bigl2007 · 03-28-2008, 07:22 AM

how high can you overclock the phenom? whats the highest some of you guys got so far anybody got it? cuz i was gonna get a intel quad core in the near future but i hear that intels quad core has 2 pipelines while the amd phenom quad core has 4 pipelines and is called a true quad core cpu so i was wondering what would be the best choice and does it matter if i wante to overclock or would intel be my best bet for overclocking while amd would be best in overall quality im confused

03-27-2008, 01:39 PM	#21 (permalink)
StrangleHold Diamond Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: East Tn. Posts: 6,159	This Intel vs. AMD crap kills me. AMD had Intel beat clock for clock for quite a few years while Intel sat on Netburst like a retard, really AMD had Intel beat more clock for clock than Intel has now with the Core 2 vs. AMD. It took (big-money) Intel like 5 years to finally release the Core 2 to beat AMD and I am suppost to impressed. Thats like saying Boeing took 5 or 6 years to make a better airplane than Back Yard Joe I make a airplane Company. All these Intel freaks sat in there closet for years praying that Intel might come out with something that beat AMD, now the Core 2 came out and you come crawling out of the closet and see daylight but quit sucking all the air out of the room. I would be upset that your lovely Intel made you sit in a closet sucking on a netburst sucker for 5 years. __________________ NZXT Apollo-Silver Athlon 64 X2 5600 3.1ghz. Gigabyte GA-M55SLI S4 G Skill DDR2 800@888 2gb MSI Geforce 7950 W/D Sata 3.0 250gb. "I think there is a world market," IBM chief Thomas Watson famously declared one day in 1943, "for maybe five computers..."

03-27-2008, 02:13 PM	#22 (permalink)
PC eye Diamond Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Inside a pc Posts: 18,587	You won't have to worry too much longer since AMD's 3850 X4 is taking on the Q series pretty well. __________________ Users Fight to Save Windows XP! http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=4646547 Microsoft Not Ruling Out XP Extension http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=4716159

03-27-2008, 11:19 PM	#25 (permalink)
hackapelite Gold Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Solicitor's office Posts: 451	Clock for clock Intel owns AMD which is sad...but true. Okay, now, a question: by how much can an AMD beat a comparable Intel in memory performance? 'cause AMDs have integrated memory controllers...I suppose that's one of their advantages? Also, for what I know, Pentium dualcores have some stuff disabled, like Virtualization Technology and possibly something else...this true? For now, my last question: If AMDs perform better at FLOPs, shouldn't it be better at 3D-graphics editing/gaming? Or is it the GPU doing the most work anyway...? __________________ BY READING THE ABOVE POST, YOU AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING: "The above post is provided solely for entertainment purposes and is not to be taken as professional advice. Therefore, I shall not be held responsible for any damage or losses that are result from anything I have posted, to the extent applicable by law. In the unlikely event that I CAN be held responsible, I have never been here, I am not here, and I will never be here, and it will be highly questionable whether I even exist."

03-28-2008, 07:22 AM	#30 (permalink)
bigl2007 Gold Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Age: 22 Posts: 337	ok i need some advice how high can you overclock the phenom? whats the highest some of you guys got so far anybody got it? cuz i was gonna get a intel quad core in the near future but i hear that intels quad core has 2 pipelines while the amd phenom quad core has 4 pipelines and is called a true quad core cpu so i was wondering what would be the best choice and does it matter if i wante to overclock or would intel be my best bet for overclocking while amd would be best in overall quality im confused __________________ psu Coolmax / CX-550B / Black / 550-Watt cpu intel celeron d 3.06ghz mobo intel d 865perl ram 1280 mb ddr pc 3200 ram single channel mobo can run dual channel video card xfx geforce 6800 xt agp 8x ddr3 350 mhz core 1000mhz 1.00ghz mem clock acer al2017 model atx dvd drive nec 4x up to 16x dvd burner

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-28-2008, 12:52 AM	#26 (permalink)
nemix Bronze Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 51	All the side by side comparisons online with new chips coming out point to intel to be better and that's what I'm working with. If reviews start changing I'll try an amd out but until then it's intel for me.

03-28-2008, 04:10 AM	#28 (permalink)
WhiteFireDragon Platinum Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 507	there's just too many intel and AMD fanboys that basically say stuff like "intel is teh bestest and AMD is garbage!" all this bias is not really helping anyone. i personally favor intel more but for the thread starter, i would probably tell you to get an AMD x2. there's no debate that currently intel's top processors for enthusiasts will rape AMD's top. but what percentage of the population that has a computer will spend $1000+ for one of these high end chips? for people just merely looking for an upgrade from a 7 year old ancient machine, AMD offers good budget upgrades. overall, the performance vs price ratio of AMD is better than intel's. so to bash on AMD because they are losing in the market and overall performance is just ignorance. honestly, if you're just looking for an upgrade from an old celeron, you won't notice much a difference between AMD or intel for the budget that you'll be spending in the sub $150 range. unless you'll be doing corporate level applications, i'm sure you won't fret over burning a CD or DVD two seconds slower. my guess is that you won't be doing much overclocking, so go with AMD for the best performance/price ratio. the only reason i prefer intel more is because i cant stand keeping things at stock speed, and AMD chips really suck at overclocking. HERE is a chart to show performance vs price ratio so you get the best bang for the bucks. hope this cleared things up more than "AMD sucks! and intel is better"

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
eXtreme PSU Calculator Update	mnemonik23	Computer Cases, Power Supplies and Cooling	18	03-13-2008 03:25 PM
Need Help choosing: AMD or Intel ?	chaabk	Desktop Computers	10	07-16-2007 01:13 AM
AMD slower ghz?	Zabarl	CPUs and Overclocking	36	07-19-2006 06:47 PM
Amd 64 Fx-53 Or Intel Pentium D 2.8	mrfatpockets	CPUs and Overclocking	20	10-20-2005 02:08 AM
AMD outsells intel	maroon1	CPUs and Overclocking	1	10-16-2005 03:16 PM