Intel? AMD? Help!?

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.
 
dgast06 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
aviation_man said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...?
 
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.
 
hackapelite said:
It's not cowardice; it's called "Tactical Retreat":P

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 :(
Click to expand...

"tactical retreat" no, its not. :D

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
 
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"
 
WhiteFireDragon said:
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"
Click to expand...

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!
 
Last edited:
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
 
I'm having a great time with a Intel E6300. Very good, I'm not going to be switching to AMD until they start making proper CPU's and ones that can compete with Intel.


BTW... is it true that AMD runs a tad hotter than Intel CPU's?
 
well i would have to say um

well from what i hear the sempron ran a bit hot but i dont know which ones hotter celeron or sempron out of the budget single core cpus cuz i havent experienced with a sempron but i had a celeron and that thing wants to scream when i run games even when im just playing a game like guild wars which isnt that demanding it hits nearly 80 celcius some days depending on how hot it get in my room do to having the he at on at certain temp but it will do that even on hot days where i dont have heat sometimes i have to have my window cracked while playing game so for the note i dont think i'll be building what i though would have been fine for gaming i wont be buyign a celeron to put in my home cpu no more since they tend to run so friggon hot

umm other then that i dont know about the other cpus that arent so low budget

and what do you got your e6300 clocked at
 
i always thought it was the other way round,Intels ran hotter.

well the older pentium machines ive been on was,especialy my uncles P4 rig @ 3.2Ghz...you could cook an egg on that but thats because of crappy cooler.

although i think intel done a great job on the core 2 duo series,they run realy cool even when overclocked.

i have my e6300 clocked at 2.7Ghz and it runs at 35-39c idle and not over 49c on load.

danny (kornowski) also has an e6300 and has his clocked at 2.8Ghz currently.

i would like to go to 3ghz but i dont think it would be worth it.
 
I don't know why you guys arguing about the clock to clock performance. I personally don't care about clock speed. All you need to know is which perform better with same price.

E.g. for $100, AMD X2 5000+ BE better than E4500 at stock. However, when come to overclocking intel win. It is that simple, all just depends of what you use the PC for.

For $200, Q6600/ E8400 better than Phenom 9850 in most case. No doubt.
 
wow

i dont have a intel core 2 duo and those temps is unbelievable cool lol. much better then what i get on this machine.

and yeah i thought it was just my celeron but pentiums at 3ghz run so hot and celerons at 3ghz run hot too

so you saying i should get a E6300 to start out when i build my new gaming rig but what about when they come out with better stuff im stuck between the choice of a quad core or a dual core cuz i want to upgrade so well i wont have to upgrade for some time i want to upgrade well enough that the onlything id have to upgrade if time comes would be video card and ram
 
what a flamefest. look at any benchmark. the amd 5600+ is blown to pieces and DEMOLISHED by a el cheapo fast + trusty Intel e6550! E6550! @ 2.33 GHZ!!!!!!!!! OWNS THE AMD'S 2.8Ghz! AMD shall bow down. it's being beaten like a caught run away slave.
 
Last edited:
Interested said:
what a flamefest. look at any benchmark. the amd 5600+ is blown to pieces and DEMOLISHED by a el cheapo fast + trusty Intel e6550! E6550! @ 2.33 GHZ!!!!!!!!! OWNS THE AMD'S 2.8Ghz! AMD shall bow down. it's being beaten like a caught run away slave.
Click to expand...

Or you can run it at 3.1 ;)

Wow, this is a useless post.
 
Interested said:
what a flamefest. look at any benchmark. the amd 5600+ is blown to pieces and DEMOLISHED by a el cheapo fast + trusty Intel e6550! E6550! @ 2.33 GHZ!!!!!!!!! OWNS THE AMD'S 2.8Ghz! AMD shall bow down. it's being beaten like a caught run away slave.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Switching from my X2 5600+ clocked at 3Ghz, then getting my E8400 @ stock. I couldn't notice a difference in regular tasks. Though games seemed a bit snappier.
 
bigl2007 said:
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
Click to expand...

Pipelines...umm?? I think what you heard is that Phenom is a "True" quad-core chip - it's actually got all those four processors on one single die. Intels quads, however, are only two dualcores in one package. Intel's chewingum'n'ducttape soluton still beats Phenom, though, there's no doubt of that.

I think that most people would agree that when it comes to quad-cores, Intel is the way to go, there's no question about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top