Bloomberg Anywhere Remote Login Bloomberg Terminal Demo Request


Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.


Financial Products

Enterprise Products


Customer Support

  • Americas

    +1 212 318 2000

  • Europe, Middle East, & Africa

    +44 20 7330 7500

  • Asia Pacific

    +65 6212 1000


Industry Products

Media Services

Follow Us

Bloomberg Customers

Intel vs AMD

Posted by: Cliff Edwards on August 15, 2005

Could it be the folks over at Intel are getting a little nervous?
Word on the street is the rival Advanced Micro Devices has been eating their lunch in the small, but very lucrative four-way server business (that’s four or more processors in one system). AMD also is doing brisk business in the entry-level server market.
Never a company to take any lost sales standing still, Intel announced today it “is accelerating the availability” of its dual-core Xeon and Xeon MP processors, introducing new chips at some unspecified time this year instead of next. They’ll be targets at “early adopters and evaluators of dual-core technology.”
In an oddly worded release, the chipmaker then adds that these new processors really are a prelude to two other chips that will be introduced in early 2006.
What gives? Behind the curtains, one might expect to find that Dell has been pressuring Intel to come up with something to help them compete with hot-sellig systems from HP, Sun and others, who have heartily been jumping on the AMD bandwagon.
And AMD execs likely are smirking at the idea that dual-core technology still needs a lot of testing, since their own products have been flying off the shelves. They say they have an inherent advantage over Intel because their architecture is vastly more energy -efficient, on top of being powerful in their own right.
While Intel is still making a bundle off its Xeon chips, it seems clear they’re feeling the heat for the first time in a long time from AMD. And if researchers from IDC or Gartner in coming weeks confirm that AMD continues to gain share in that space, it’ll be a black eye that will make Intel very unhappy indeed.

Reader Comments


August 15, 2005 10:15 PM

INTEL is having trouble copy AMD64 instructions to pentium-M, that's why their Pentium-M based 64 bit chips won't be available until 2006. On multi-core front, INTEL is year behind.


August 16, 2005 11:19 PM

Either way, Consumers will win. AMD needs to keep the pressure on INTEL. Intel has huge ammounts of money and resources, when intel starts to fight, intel will have the upperhand. Until then, AMD seems to have planned very well.


August 17, 2005 11:55 AM

AMD is always a better product anytime. Intel has made lot of money cheating people. Intel is for people who does not know about performance. It is purly for Illiterates.


August 21, 2005 3:36 PM

Considering performance:

"When multiple applications are running, the clear conclusion is that the Intel Pentium 840 Extreme Edition is superior to the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+."

"however, when we ran single applications on each system. Here, the AMD system performed distinctly better (by just about 30% on average) compared to the Intel system."

Who runs single applications nowadays? Anyway, I think it's a tie. I think I would choose Intel, it's served me so well for so long to forget.


August 29, 2005 5:05 PM

AMD outperforms Intel and it happens the other way around also, but not too often anymore. The simple fact is AMD has been extremely honest about the performance of their CPU's. Pricing them appropriately compared to the intel counterparts and to their own. Intel blows smoke and uses the media hype to drive their processor prices up(actually to release them with high prices). AMD doesn't need any of that just honest performance that proves itself. Intel might have money but it doesn't help them catch up to AMD in terms of 64-bit processing and dual core. Most people in this world just want a low cost pc to use for the 3-5 years they last on average. AMD offers low-budget and high-performance in the same package. Right now only 64 bit processors are gonna last long enough for the avg pc user. AMD has a 64 bit processor for $100 with 939 CPU's starting at $130. Intel EMT64 starts at $180. I bet if AMD didn't release the Athlon64 then EMT64 wouldnt be out for another year and would be priced terribly high. I for one am so greatful for AMD CPU's ever since my first AMD 386 system. Then my k6-2+ then my Duron, Athlon, Athlon XP and now 64. By the way i have also bought the pentium, PII, PIII, and P4 at one point in time. Now all my intel systems have been sold. I still have 3 XP systems in my house and they all work perfectly for what i use them for. Gaming machines and media centers/home theatre pcs. I play the newest games like BF2 on my older Athlon XP systems great. Besides lacking ram, 1 gig isn't enough anymore even on my amd64! any other game ram isnt an issue.


September 5, 2005 6:45 AM

i meant em64t


December 13, 2005 8:11 PM

The one thing people don't mention when they talk about AMD these days is that THEY can take on Intel and even beat them because of their partnership with IBM... the company that traditionally would have the most patents every year in the US.


December 22, 2005 9:43 AM

The IBM partnership will help alot, IBM have already produced an affordable ultra high performance chip, that is designed for the Play Station 3.

And Dishonest Intel? What are you talking about. Intels prices are high a few years ago because they owned a monopoly, it would happen to AMD if AMD is in the same place.

The only reason AMD is on the lead is because AMD caught Intel with their pants down. And the Under Dog must always fight harder, in order for the underdog to win.

AMD is like Hyundai/Kia, they cut down the prices and and give the consumer more features to win loyalty, and its happening already.


January 31, 2006 2:16 AM


I have just bought an AMD Athlon 64bits. But i could not figure out which is best because some people tell me AMD Is best some Tell Me Intel P5.

So i am waiting for an an plz answer me soon


February 2, 2006 11:06 PM


I too have that kind of problem. But I am waiting for someone to reply... which is better? AMD or Intel? Setting price aside what do you think is better?


February 4, 2006 9:07 AM

Intel vs AMD? I have both and the what I found is dependent on the application. Either chip you buy will problably be discontinued (Intel and AMD are releasing 65nm and 45nm this year). If possible test the applications you going to use daily and see if there is a difference, then decide if the difference is worth it.

Check for compatibility issues. Also, if you are not a techie, don't forget about support. Don't assume that the hardware or software vendor will develop a patch (they have decide if its worth it).

As far as performance. If you are willing to pay for it, you can usually match the performance between the two of them.


February 15, 2006 12:27 AM

I'm sorry, but I'd have to say that current AMD processors are better than Intel's. My reasoning is based not only on 3D performance, but mainstream performance as well.

In most benchmarks, the current AMD Athlon 64 processors beat out comparable Intel Pentium 4 processors without needing to be overclocked. Also, AMD processors have a much, much better price/performance ratio than Intel's. If you also research about the power requirements, you will find that in EVERY benchmark that AMD Athlon 64 processors use LESS power than their Intel counterparts. The last benchmark that I saw on the newest Intel Extreme Edition processor showed that it used over 275 watts at full power!! Most people nowadays have an avarage power supply size of 350-400W, so you can see just how much power an Intel processor uses!!

My recommendation, go AMD. Cheaper on your pocket when you buy, and cheaper on your pocket when you use it....and at least the same if not better performance.

Last thing to think about...AMD produced a line of chips based on 1 architecture (Athlon) that has lasted over 6 years. The only major changes to that architecture were 1) the FSB was increased, and 2) the amount of L2 cache grew. Beyond that there were NO new changes, and even with Intel's quad-pumped bus, it was still quite evenly matched. With AMD's latest AMD64 chips, the technology has been available since 2003, and Intel actually had to play catch-up in the 64-bit arena. AMD developed the x86 64-bit extensions, while Intel had to copy it over a year later. Also, with the oferring of dual-core chips, AMD's Athlon 64 architecture was built for dual-core from the ground up. The idea for the memory controller being IN the processor itself was pure genius, along with the Direct Connect feature - the processor doesn't have to go outside itself for memory calls. You would think that Intel would have thought of that first, but they still use the FSB/Northbridge for all communication between each chip, which slows performance. Also, AMD became the first to develop dual-core ahead of Intel.

You've gotta give it to AMD, they've worked hard to beat Intel, and they're finally doing it...and doing it well. If you see a computer built with and AMD chip, they're usually priced at LEAST $100 cheaper than those with an Intel chip...and they offer the SAME or BETTER performance. Believe it!!


February 18, 2006 12:24 PM

You guys are all wrong!!! Im an Intel worker, and there's is nothing better than the Daul-Core Pentium D. It clearley outperformers the AMD dual-core X2, and costs WAY CHEAPER!!! For us, Intel workers, we think we outperform the AMD chips. And were also going think about how to use better artitecture. So go Intel!!!


February 18, 2006 12:32 PM

u guys are wrong. I would always go for intel, and u konow how good it is?? I have both an Intel and amd daul core chips, with every same parts. 500gb disk, 2048 memory, and on. This is what i do. i use my Intel CPU for all multitasking bussiness application, and also play good proccesor work games, like Half life 2, Halo and more. For my AMD chip CPU, I do the same thing, but dont use it as much becuase for me the Intel Pentium D 950 is a better work and play proccesor than the Amd Athlon X2 4800+. I go for intel mostly becuase to me Intel is a way better choice to me. And if i were u i would do the smae thing


February 21, 2006 2:54 PM

Thats interesting how the person that works for intel says that intel products are better. I disagree, i keep seeing article after article proving that AMD products have outperformed Intel products. This is not just on price, but peformance as well. I have always used AMD products all my life..oh by the way did I forgot to mention that i work for Intel?


February 26, 2006 12:06 PM

INTEL is, and always have been a lot of hype. I have always use AMD Chips. I did not care what CPU engine I was using, as long as I was getting the same horsepower out of the chip. Now, AMD have always had the same horsepower as INTEL. So, I went with the cheaper Chip. Now isn't it ironic that INTEL HAS LOST THERE advantage ON THE MARKET?

My 1st chip was the AMD 25Mhz that will take you back some years. I am currently using the AMD 64 4000+ a speed demon.


March 6, 2006 6:40 PM

I've always had intel, but I am trying Athlon 64 now. Hopefully, I'll be pleased with it!


March 8, 2006 9:40 AM

65nm are 65nm(and soon they will be 45), 3.4Ghz are 3.4Ghz....come on guys Intel is better that's 100% proofed.There are some fun programs that produce fiction units in amd favour, but the really truth is more GHz, more instructions per second!!!:)
And one more thing, if you whant to test intel vs amd, do it that way:
for best performance whit pentium i suggest P5WD2 Premium or something else but with intel chipset too, not some silly experiments with nforce chipset or other stuff like that!!
for best performance whit amd you can try with nforce chipset!
p.s. for best results compare for example with task manager in Xp - what will be the % of processor usage with same applications(processes)!


March 12, 2006 4:07 AM

Does Intel pentium 4 have what is called a 64 bit, as does AMD Athlon 64?


March 16, 2006 4:50 PM

Yes Intel EMT64, now go read news out there about Intel Supporting 64 bit.

AMD, I read someone told they are lke Hyundai /Kia and hey they are right. It is like Hyundai and Kia and not Ferrari!! One thing I can say about Intel as a DataCenter Manager, it is STABLE!! Yes I said STABLE!! Cant find that in AMD!!


March 26, 2006 8:05 PM

Intel IS more stable than AMD. AMD does have a higher ratio than Intel does on frequency, but the ratio is not as high as you think it is. So Intel is still pretty fast.

I rather have a stabled and fast computer than a really fast computer that is less stabled.


March 27, 2006 2:53 PM

I recently built an AMD system with a Athlon 64 3000+ and in a side by side test with my friends P4 3.2, my computer is still faster. Load times are anywhere from 10-80 sec. faster with the same amount of ram. About stability, I've had this thing overclocked by 400mhz (2.2Ghz) with the fan off and it takes 10 minutes of COD 2 before it crashes.


March 30, 2006 2:46 PM

well folks, AMD is getting there.Intel must be alarmed,180k units returned by apol computers,whew!
intel now is very strict in quality issue.AMD is trying its best to be on top of the market..Intel must not be too confident,or one day they will wake up AMD on top.Did i mention AMD website is better than Intel..
im more satisfied in amd than can use your AMD for 5 years +,but in intel processor less than 5 yrs,because AMD produced a line of chips based on 1 architecture (Athlon) that has lasted 5yrs+ ..while intel uses diff archi on diff processors,thats business strategy anyway. Intel must copy AMDs 1 archi..
well its us consumers who will benefit from this AMD vs. Intel war...Wake up intel!!wake up!! before AMD takes over...

Yannick Giard

April 5, 2006 2:11 PM

There is two major difference about AMD and Intel cpu's, AMD runs at full speed at all time and the cache is on the processor, Intel's cache is on the motherboard and it speed slows when it's temperature rises that's why they won't burn. I use AMD with good parts like you should in any computer and it runs perfectly for everything i do. I see test all over internet where they use known test machines and recent games and programs of video editing, image editing and more,
AMD always outperforms in most test intel even with there lower clockspeed and the've been honest.I chosse AMD :)

Do someone knows when the first AMD 3.0ghz will be available ?

Stefano Fiore

April 13, 2006 8:29 AM

Guys it is this simple. AMD is the best, and any real computer person would know that. AMD has spent its time increasing speed without increasing power consumption. AMD has increased how information flows through the chip. Intel has just increased the GHZ (easier to do). AMD was the first real dual core. The GHZ's are lower in AMD right now, but the 4800 and FX 57-60 (2.4-2.6 ghz) smoke's the intel 955E's (3.8 ghz) in every benchmark without overclocking.

The cream is the AMD FX 60 Dual core. It is untouchable right now. Intel will be releasing a new processor this summer, and it is supposed to be faster. However, I would bet it will run hotter and consume much more power.

Intel has spent the last few years increasing ghz (basically factory overclocking) where AMD has improved information transfer rates in the processor. AMD can be overclocked so far beyond intel it is not funny (without heat problems). There is no doubt if you want a real processor that will last for a few years. BUY AN AMD!


April 14, 2006 4:55 PM

every one
FROM my first pc i use AMD Processor.
and i got them better and faster performance than
fucking intel. intel got popular but in 2003 launch of AMD Athlon 64Bit make that intel loose every where and in every match . me just not saying that coz i like AMD i just wana say that AMD got reall technology, INTEL using more cache's and more Ghz than AMD but why intel looser. AMD are cheapers than intel
using K7... DDR with EV6 Alpha bus and now in these days AMD Athlon 64Bit the reall and top rated Processors
just got performance not ... popular name(fucking intel) lol

ok every one
good bye
GOD bless u all
from PAKISTAN ..


April 15, 2006 8:50 PM

seems like amd much of a better choice.

so comparing
intel 3.2GHz and amd thlon proc.3400

i guess amd is better?


April 16, 2006 1:18 PM

If Intel is better, how come Dell bought Alienware? amd 64.


April 17, 2006 10:43 AM

Just a quick ?
if i bought say a Amd 64 3200+ (2.0GHZ) how many intel GHZ would equal the same performance?
Ive heard AMD is more efficient with their GHZ so say a 2.0 GHZ has the same power as a intel 2.8 GHZ(i made those numbers up) so what are the real numbers? if i bought a 2GHZ AMD Athlon 64 how many GHZ would a Pentium 4 need to equal it?


April 19, 2006 4:16 PM

I'm a solid Intel user every since I started building my own computers (10 years ago) the reason why had to do with the AMD K6 processor. This machine running next to an Intel P2 350 was 30% slower and 50% hotter than the intel. It also had crap load of compatability issues (seemed like every piece of hardware I put into the machine took hours to configure) with the AMD. Every since I have have used intel. Well due to all the news and, I was about to build myself a new computer anyway (for gaming), I bought myself a new AMD 64 4000 to compare and ran it side my side my current intel (P4 2.8 i built 3 years ago)I found that my old machine with all the crap (dust on the board from neglect, programs on the HD, etc. etc.) ran just as fast if not faster than this "brand new top of the line AMD" that I keep hearing is so far better than anything else. During the course of a lan weekend, the amd (mind you its brand new with only Dawn of war on it) had program crash after program crash and was slower to load. The only benifit to the amd was the temperature. I must admit AMD is a much cooler running machine and they have come leaps and bounds in relability and speed than the k6 days. But unless AMD does something more about increasing its reliabality (which was the main problem I had with the chip 10 years ago)to put it even in the same bal park as intel, i'll pay the extra money for a chip that I know will run with stability time, after time, after time and so what if the intel is hotter, thats what fans are for. The way I see it is what use is a chip you can't depond on I don't care if its cheaper. Some times its as basic as the old saying "you get what you pay for" and AMD is the cheaper chip. You be the judge


April 20, 2006 6:00 AM

I used intel quite some time now, but after the switch to amd, my god, I would never go back to intel..I tested the dual core intel with the dual core amd, no comparison..I'm not sayin intel is not fast..But if you want a beast stick to AMD..I'm very happy with my AMD 4800 friend is trying to sell his on ebay haha..


April 24, 2006 12:16 AM

an amd 64 4000+ will rip an intel 3.8 into shreds ,and it runs cooler all the same,you my friend have to be the most uninformed that i have saw a post from or not know nothing about computers at all,amd 64s out perform their intel counterparts in 99% of benchmarks.not to mention an amd 3400+ at $200 dollars humilliates the $1200 flagship pentium extreme edition,i get sick of reading these stupid post of people complaining that not alot of pograms or software are compatable with an amd machine just because their used to buying somthing theve seen on tv and fear change,amd chips use the same sse,sse2,sse3 instructions that intel uses plus 3d now,so everything that runs on an intel runs on amd also,maybe your 2.8 p4 works for you and thats great, but real gamers know that powerful gaming lies with an amd based rig,they wont even use intel,

Charanjyot singh

April 24, 2006 11:25 AM

hi everyone
im using intel pentium 4 processor 2.93 ghz 384 ram (compaq presario 1435il)i works greater than amd .amd is just for sake of name .with 384 ram and 2.93 ghz my pc is like a jet.People don't like intel becoz its costly than amd .
bye everyone
charanjyot singh


April 24, 2006 3:30 PM

Yooo Folks!! I'm looking forward some serious answers please. I read all the comments, yet i'm not convinced. Is there anyone now that can convince me about the issue of AMD VS INTEL. I'm about to buy a laptop. Please Folks!!! I need more info


April 25, 2006 3:11 AM

amd,s do more instructions per clock cycle, that is why a 2.0 gig athlon will stomp a 3.8 gig p4,and by the way,stop saying that everybody buys amd because they are cheaper price wise,i paid $1200 dollars for my amd-fx60, because it is killing the p4 extreme edition by more than 2 football fields in benchmark tests,as a matter of fact amd processers are more expansive than intel processers at the moment and i believe amd has every right to ask for more money because they clearly have the better product by a huge margin,intel dosent even have a true dual core, ppl call it fake core because its nothing more than 2 old p4 presscott cores molded together,also to the last poster who asked about the laptop choice,if you want all out raw power get the amd if you want longer battery life and decent performance get the intel,


April 26, 2006 7:42 PM

i think that amd currently has an advantage over intel
(1) Best 64 bit processing.
(2) ANYONE in the gameing world knows that AMD proccesers consitently beat intel on the performance tests (same goes with duel core).
(3) Lower price than intel.
(4) if you are building your own pc i think that you have a better motherboard sellection and it is way easyer to choose a socket type.

(1) lowest $$$ duel core proc

(2) as of april 26,2006 i have heard rumors that intel has a new design comeing out that beat amd's current cpus on the market
-->Amd also has a proccesser in the works but is yet to be realeased so..... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right now id go with a socket 939 amd if you plan to upgrade or go duel core and a socket 754 amd if you want a pc that will just be fast for 2 yrs
to buy the stuff go to
(best site EVER)


April 27, 2006 3:08 AM

OK, lets set this str8, AMD vs Intel, im goin to say that Intel has been betting AMD, AMD was aways that little bit behind, FSB, the clock speed and even at the in DDR vs DDR2, but thats to change on June 6th the reses of AM2 sok, whitch will sopport DDR2;), AMD are on DDR and they still out Perform the Intel any day.

Intel say they have 3.8Ghz right, 800FSB, to like 1066Mhz tops, "and there 64bit $h!t, is well... $h!t, AMD rok, eg: my mate has got a, AMD Athlon 64 4400+ dual core running Win XP with SP2, i wont him to run X64 but hay, 2gig dual ch RAM DDR400, Westin Digital HDD total of 860gig, XFX Geforce 6800GS XXX edtion, and so on, and it plays F.E.A.R on 1600X1200 on ultra high at 120fps witch i think is all u need, and renders Adobe Premiere 2 Pro very fast.

Unlike the PC i have at the College, witch run Avid Xpress Pro, on a P4 sok 775 3.6ghz 800FSB 2gig of dual ch DDR2 Ram and 400gig HDD, and a Leadtek nVidia Quadro FX4400, and is not very impresive at all, also running Win XP SP2...

ALL in ALL AMD have the floor, and Intel needs to just keep tryin...

I will also say that AMD have been doin the right thing sinc the Athlon XP, and the 64 is just great, and AMD have been better on the gaming side of thing pritty much sinc then.

Intel, I have found can be better for processing Windows XP, and simple applications...they uses2 have the grunt...but now nut

post bY dArKNeO_7712


April 28, 2006 3:42 PM

AMD 4 ever!


May 3, 2006 1:34 AM

Intel put their money into advertising for a long time. When did you last see an AMD commercial? (I saw one once, on late night TV.)

AMD put their money into research and development, not ads, and they are now producing fast chips that people want, especially in the gaming community, and gamers are insane when it comes to needing the best and the fastest and we want it NOW! Gamers will sacrifice food and women (though not beer and potato chips) to afford the best and latest computer and OS.

I have four Pentium computers and one AMD, my latest, and the best. From now on I will be buying AMD and AMD only. To me, Intel is just fluff while AMD is meat and potatoes.

A64 is faster than P4

May 3, 2006 4:58 AM

Ok guys.

There is a ton of different opinions here. Well, I do respect them a bit, though all those stating that Intel is better ARE WRONG! it should be said that AMD is CERTAINLY SUPERIOR to current Intel chips. Why?

1) TECHNOLOGY: Athlon64 core design is WAY MUCH better than the Pentium4 one.

Someone voiced an opinion that MHZ's are more important. Well, that is TOTALLY WRONG.

Let's take a look at VIA C3 Processor.

Speed: 1GHZ
Performance: comparable with Pentium 2 and AMDK5-2


2) NetBurst technology used on P4 is just plain stupid. In the early times of P4, P3 was much faster than its successor.

3) The Majority of Intel products are expensive on comparasion with AMD ones.

4) Someone said that Athlons crash more frequently. Well it's even more stupid than all that "MHZs are better" fuss. Pentium4 and Athlon64 are both VERY STABLE if USED CORRECTLY AND NOT OVERCLOCKED.


1) That new Intels technology they use in Conroe is SUPERIOR to Athlon64 AND AM2.

SO in a year or half when Conroe is going to be released, AMD will be the one behind. Currently it is VICE VERSA

khas kifas

May 3, 2006 9:06 AM

I am planning to buy a comp.

i dont kno whether to get a amd or a intel processor

if i get a amd64 which motherboard should i buy to
support that .

also help me to select a good mid-range graphics card and sound card .


May 4, 2006 4:43 PM

khas kifas
ASUS makes good AMD boards, 7600 GT 256mb ($261)nvidia cards are nice, and if you get a SLI board you can use 2 video cards on it. Which is nice too. Im in the process of buying one myself. Im getting FX-EXTREME soundblaster, its $150 so that may be more than you want, theres SB Augigy4's out there for like $70 (these are CDN prices)


May 9, 2006 10:44 PM

Hey I'm planning on buying a Comp this summer. I'm thinking about spending around $500 to $650 dollars (package with tower, monitor, and printer) I'm pretty much going to use it for homework and gaming. Should I get like a AMD 3500, or a P4 for like $100 more? From what I've read here AMD chips own Intel chips even though AMD clock speed is lower. I'm definetly leaning towards getting an AMD.

If I were to get an AMD processor, is it worth paying about $80 more for a AMD 3800 compared to the 3500?

yusuf qamri

May 10, 2006 8:30 AM

Hey Guys, I am A 15 year old boy and have been using an intel celeron 800mhz since i was 5 years old, you know, if you were to sell an intel processor which is old, you will get more selling price, compared to an AMD processor. Intel is the best... and that is why i am Purchasing a new intel pentium 4 tommorow. It is the best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


May 11, 2006 12:15 AM



May 13, 2006 12:08 AM


atul gupta

May 19, 2006 9:04 AM

amd or intel which is best as language and os support

Rob Geoni

May 21, 2006 12:45 PM

I want to know why a 15 year old boy using a 10 year old computer thinks that is worth anything. Computers only last for 3-5 years, you are more than double that. They just don't build them like they used to. I started building computers at your age when you were in diapers. Now that I have graducated from College with a BS in Computer Science, and having taken EE course, AMD is currently superior. Now Intel does not like being second, so they are going to try and change that this year.

But I just replaced my Pentium 4HT with an Atholon 64x2, and it beats the pentium hands down. I have compared it to one of the servers at work which has a Quad Xeon and and 12 gigs of memory, and it runs comparable to my Athlon 64x2 with 2 gigs of RAM.

A note on workplace computing, (high security domain) I currently have a mix of AMD Athlon 64 and Pentium 4, and one Pentium D, I like the Pentium 4 in the business Domain, however, that is only on a high security domain. For home users, and small business AMD rules, higher performance for tasks you run.

Bottom line, compare AMD in Intel in a store with programs you run and get which one works best for you. In my experience, AMD has the edge for my home computer

Mitchell Keller

May 21, 2006 10:43 PM

First off, don't trash age 15, this is about Intel vs. AMD, not generation X vs generation Y.

Secondly, AMD's only advantage is price, so if you want a cheap machine with no actual performance go ahead.
"But Mr. Intel Zealot, Intel runs their processors 700-800 MHz faster than AMD, so per unit AMD is better."
So, what you're saying is, buy AMD because you can't compare apples and oranges? Performance is performance, if Intel processors are faster, Intel processors are better. Period, full stop if you're British.

Thirdly, AMD cannot compare cooling devices with Intel. Intel is a larger corporation and can hire more, better engineeers to create better heat sinks, and more efficient fans. This allows Intel processors to be overclocked to a higher degree with less uncontrolled heat.

Bottom Line:
Buy AMD if you want a bunch of cheap computers for a office or business, Intel for your home where performance counts.
Intel: 2 AMD: 1

Roy G. Biv

May 22, 2006 8:26 PM

If you did a search and replace on this page, you could replace "AMD" with "Apple" and "Intel" with "IBM", and you'd have another *inane* exchange circa 1985-1995.

Or go a little further back and you could use Atari 800 and Commodore 64.

The ramblings here are so emotional. And pointless.

Anyone who would rely on the toothless banter in this thread to make some sort of buying decision would be a bonehead, indeed.

This is one ridiculous thread, and the vast majority of you are idiots!

(Note: I thought this thread was in danger of actually containing any usable content, so this this post's only intent is to incite a flame war - on me, of course - so fire away).


May 23, 2006 5:50 AM

can anyone provide me with a top end AMD system configuration ???? (Along with a graphic card)


May 26, 2006 4:01 PM

I have a friend whose computer is 1.5GHZ and compared to my AMD 1.0GHZ its almost equal sometimes my AMDcomputer is faster.

On the Stability of computer, i think it depends on the user how he/she uses/handle his/her computer.

AMD OR INTEL it doesnt matter as long as they compete we will have better computers



May 26, 2006 9:41 PM

Athlon 64 > Pentium 4
Sempron > Celeron D
Turion 64 > Pentium M

AMD > Intel


May 27, 2006 6:14 PM

Hello !

Well i can say that in mutithread and we, prety much anything intel is a better made product this days,despite all what u see on diferent sites. I use both an AMD64 3200+ and one Intel P4 630 3ghz with HT + a pentium D 930. Ill tel u about P4 and Athlon64 now and i guess i can have a fair opinion and u take it as it is. In every mutithread situation, and i mean here even from starting the OS and loading programs at startup, etc, Intel does it faster and the HT of P4 is some real good thing if you work with many programs at the same time, or u want to play a game and listen some music too (for example). If i do that with the Athlon64 it will FREEZE or in the best case will move slowly and have to reboot. If you want to play games everyday you can do it well on both of them, but on mutithreading situations and that is some 80% of all situations these days, AMD is handicapated.
As for A64 x2 vs Pentium D, i can`t tell u much, i just choose intel for its overclocking potential and low temperatures. It seems that p4`s HT is good for multitasking as the Pentium D, somehow, is no much diference till u use an aplication that demands alot of power, then Pentium D(or a dualcore i supose) is better indeed.
For gamers...theres no difference between them, games are single threaded so even a dualcore will work as a single for a game. For other people, is whiser to choose an intel with HT, and for people who need more computing power, a dualcore is a good choice.


May 29, 2006 10:22 PM

Lo all,
Well here are my 2 cent: As for the theory as to AMD being a cheaper chip, and thus being given a car analogy previously , any person who knows what they are talking about know that currently AMD bests Intel in the market. As previously mentioned, it's by no sheer coincidence that Dell, as company known only for using Intel chips, will soon be offering PCs with AMD chips. Don't let brand loyalty get the better of you. It's like those who swear that Sony makes the best TVs out there right now (uh, yea if your still gonna buy a Wega CRT). You can almost never listen to a salesperson at retail. Even in BestBuy(they need to sell their computers--> stocked and comprised primarily with Intel chips. Just do the research for yourself. There are many websites to choose from and the benchmark numbers don't lie. I'm gonna be building a PC soon. And it will be with an AMD 4400(ASUS Deluxe, 7800GT OC x2, 2gigRam, 600watt psu, and all the other goodies). I am a gamer to boot, and any real gamer goes AMD. For those in the masses who care less to research, you get what you deserve. Good luck to all.


May 30, 2006 12:46 AM

I agree with Lex ^
If ya aint gonna do the research to see which one is better, you deserve the crappy Intel that brand loyalty made you buy it.
AMD > Intel H1 > H2 :)

Luis Dos Santos Domingos

May 30, 2006 7:46 AM

Hello. I don´t know why i came up to this forum but anyway.

I´m a computer engenier i have studied both sides of informatics(Software and Hardware)in Portugal, that is, as you know, or not, extremely rated in education. They have got the best Universities.Thats why i´m in U.S working for Intel.Corp. (best engenier's are not American, i know what im talking about, i´m Portuguese ;))

I´m going to speak only for people who understand of informatics and that have the knowledge to speak about computers, in this case processors. And im not in Intel.Corp side, im here to talk about facts.

First of all its not right to say AMD "rocks" on gaming, well they were made for that (3Dnow, arctecture based on 3D priority when needed)but, thats very bad for people who want multitask performance, because, giving the priority to 3Dnow you will not be able to get performance on backgroun operation, as hearing music while playing. Thats sad for a Company like AMD that speak about performance every time, the term performance can not be described only for single aplication matrix.

Now speaking directly because i dont have enough time to write much.

Intel is MORE stable, Faster in Multitask and it as the best performance in heavy aplication matrix's.


You want the explination why? In engeniering terms?
Ask me. Give me your e-mail i´ll explain you.


May 30, 2006 11:08 PM

AMD "rocks" :)


May 31, 2006 12:01 AM

Well, I have to really take a good long hard look at a comment made from Mr.Domingos in regards to his blatant disregard of the PC gaming community. Obviously, you still haven't addressed the numerous websites that can refute your claim. Because in the gaming world presently, it is all about AMD. Perhaps you should leave the PR spin to the reps at Intel. Things can change in a heartbeat in the PC world, since technology advances bi-annually. I am aware of the Conroe chip coming from Intel, and it's business model to regain footing in a market it lost over the last 3 years. That segment of the market I'm referring to being the gaming community. When I think of Intel nowadays, I think of Sony with their PS2's uh "Emotion Engine" Don't believe the hype. PS2 won the last console generation, but the PC community is of a different ilk. Long live market competition! Better for consumers.


June 1, 2006 10:38 AM

Well i'm on hte verge of buying a new pc... but this forum really hasn't helped much so far.. An intel cpu has a faster clock speed but an amd is supposed to be faster in other ways?
i'm going to be getting an radeon x1900xtx graphics card (512 mb) with 4gb of RAM ect, but wit the processor i'm not sure? is the clock speed more important than what amd are doing? i'm going to be using my pc for gaming in very hight resolutions and with ultra high graphics oblivion is a main game and also i will be doing some video editing so can someone help as too choose amd fx60 or intel 3.8ghz? thanx


June 1, 2006 11:05 PM

Yo Help
From what i've heard and researched online (independent testing, comparisons etc.) AMD is the way to go if you're going to be gaming hardcore. It is true that AMD has a lower clock speed but iS in A Lot of ways faster. In conclusion...AMD is what you want if you want to game game game. Only disadvantage to an Athlon fx (along with other single core AMDs) is that it doesn't semi-multitask as well as an Intel with hyper-threading, but who the heck cares when you're going to be gaming right? Anywho, get the AMD, its better for gaming, and if you dont believe me go on some sites and do the research. I've seen FPS bar graphs where low end AMD semprons get better FPS than three pentium 4 models =0, Just goes to show.


June 1, 2006 11:13 PM

Yo how 'bout them new
Turion 64 X2's eh?
From the looks of it ( competitive comparison) the Turion X2 pwns the Duo
For example...
X2:64-bit, 2 x 128kb L1 cache, 2 x 512kb L2 cache, 1600mhz FSB, up to 17.1 GB/s bandwidth, 90 nanometer

Duo:not 64-bit, 2 x 64kb L1 cache, 2mb SHARED L2 cache, up to 5.3 GB/s bandwidth, 65 nanometer

Almost identical watt usage too

I think the Turion X2 comes out on top.


June 2, 2006 1:46 AM

I need to give some "Help" :) You seem to be putting together a nice gaming rig. For you, it may be a matter of timing. Consider that what you will build now, will be no longer be considered cutting edge by year's end. I will tell you that, for now, the Intel 3.8ghz that you are considering is not even close to the FX60 in terms of performance. But if you wait, Intel will be releasing their CoreDuo chips (aka: Intel's equivalent to AMD's X2 line) no too long from now, which is slated to be much better that the current creme-of-the crop, FX60. It is just the way technology goes. As I've said in a previous post, reseach is essential(one site to try: Don't you really want to piece together a rig, and feel like you're getting your moneys worth? Good luck to you. Hope I've 'Helped'


June 2, 2006 8:55 AM

Well i'm on the verge of buying a new pc... but this forum really hasn't helped much so far.. An intel cpu has a faster clock speed but an amd is supposed to be faster in other ways?
i'm going to be getting an radeon x1900xtx graphics card (512 mb) with 4gb of RAM etc., but with the processor i'm not sure? is the clock speed more important? i'm going to be using my pc for gaming in very high resolutions and with ultra high graphics oblivion is a main game and also i will be doing some video editing so can someone help as too choose amd fx60 or intel 3.8ghz? thanx


June 4, 2006 6:54 AM

Well it is really hard to accept things some times special when you are a Amd fan for years,After completing and passing the a+certification In Hoory Georgetown Technical College , it game a new power of view about Cpu and how it is so important the components we use with it, special the mother board!!
I did many experiments with both cpu and i can tell you guys out there when it come to data transfer,gamming,and a big push of power ,INTEL is impressing me every day with L2 Cache and 3.8 Ghz/64bit cpu`s.Im now Working With TIME WARNER CABLE and have seen many costumers Computers, the young one`s having they pc real pretty with that fancy looking case . Intel guy are much more uniform standard case but i see on intel pc more power and efficient whery quiet machines and also more clean from the inside!!!
After it all i come to a conclusion that Intel is the best , price wise not all ways , but any way i dont consider my self a cheap guy ,i give respect to the hard work one`s , and there is no chance at this time for AMD even with the high FSB.There is to much to list there is to much to check , in my opinion INTEL IS the BEST!
Thanks for reading my comments !!
Joe Bts

Anas M.M.

June 4, 2006 7:11 AM

I Do test the both cpu's in the same M.B the same game "NFS MW" and AMD Wins


June 5, 2006 12:48 AM

I on the verge of buying a new compy. I need it soley for HW and mild to moderate gaming. I've looked into both Intel and AMD umbiased from the start and I find AMD better. Right now im on an eMachine AMD Athlon 64 3400, with 1GB RAM, and 200GB HD. It's great and is whisper quiet. Another thing i've noticed bad about Intel is that they're so friggin loud! I was at my friend's yesterday and he has a Compaq Pentium 4 HT and it was the loudest thing with the fan blaring in the back, and nothing was going on, just the main windows up.
GO AMD my friends...and may the force be with you


June 5, 2006 8:13 PM

I have read through all of the gibberish posted by Intel and AMD gophers alike. Yes, it seems to me that if you go to a local retailer and look for similar specs on machines, you'll always find that an AMD system is a little cheaper. But this is with respect to retailers who have marked up all of the machines to whatever they think they can get for their lousy systems. This is true because they know that the label "Intel" has alot more association with branded systems than the AMD systems which are associated with all of the "Cheaply" labeled machines. Does this mean that an AMD performs better than Intel at a lower cost. Hell no..!!! Just do the math yourself at building a Dual Core Intel Pentium D system from the ground up using a local wholesaler and doing the same thing with a Dual Core AMD processor.

aka yasa

June 6, 2006 6:26 AM


I am currently looking into this and there does not seem to be any conclusive evidence.

There are several technicial issues surrounding all these chips, AMD were behind on DDR2 on addressed with their new AM2 socket chips, Intel used to be better on thermals, the chip slowing and shutting down on overheating, whereas the AMD would catch fire (video was on Toms hardware guide).

AMD switched the way they labelled their chips and therefore stopped competing in the Mhz arena.
can't remember the exact wording but they reckon the new number would be an equivalent Mhz or something like that.

Now you need to remember 1Mhz = 1 instruction i.e. the more Mhz the more instructions - Yes?

I am looking at the AMD4400+ AM2 vs intel 950, currently in the UK the Intel 950 is about £100 cheaper???????? It also has 2x2Mb Cache whereas the AMD has 2x1Mb. Bother appear to support 64bit, hyperthreading etc, but in a complete reversal AMD runs cooler(65 /89W) then the Intel which is alegded to use 275W under full load !

I haven't reached a conclusion yet.....?


June 6, 2006 6:19 PM

Yo Yasa, I ain't a super all knowing person about computers but I can tell you this. I guess AMD is "behind" on not using DDR2 533mhz but rather using the DDR 400mhz RAM. I hear that the DDR the AMD uses is 'slower' but it has lower latenency which is better for gaming (hence AMD is better for gaming). And about the L2 cache both processors work differently and utilize L2 cache differently. In general Intels have more L2 cache for example the some Pentium 4s but they have way lower front side bus (fsb) at around 533mhz. On the other hand a comparable AMD 3500 has 512kb L2 cache but 2000mhz FSB. Both use L2 cache differently/more effectively than the other (hint hint AMDs). If you wanna know more do some research and find out from professional comparers.


June 7, 2006 5:41 PM

Well, I feel really dissapointed with Intel. Why?, here is my recent history. I have built a Pentium D 930 3.0GHz, 1GB Ram, Sata HDD, ATI Video card, 945PSN Motherboard. I'm talking just about 1 month ago. I have overcloked my processor to 3.99 with the stock fan which really nice at that point. Ironically my Dad's Computer is an AMD with a processor at 1.8GHz, it is a Sempron or something like that, I do really know AMD. Well the point is that my dad's Computer with 1GB Ram but 1.8 GHz AMD processor kills my expectations about intel perform. I' realllly reallly dissapointed, No matter even if I badly tweak my Windows. It just feels like you really get performance and performance out of your system. My Dad paid $499 for that system. I paid $820 and I built it myself. Conclusions: What made me think Intel was gonna give me the best thing? I don't know. All I know so far is that I have started reading about AMD and learning about their technology, something tha could saved me a bunch of dollars if I would started it before!!... Yeah honestly I feel Intel has stolen my money and nothing will make me buy not even an INTEL's sticker from today on. I'm just getting info to start building my new AMD, better performance, half of the price. That's basically my History. If anyone is interested in buying and Intel Pentium D 930 3.0Ghz, 945PSN, 1 GB RAM, 80 GB HDD, Ati X550, etc... Please feel free to e-mail me at I just want what It costed me, $800 and it's brand new, nice case with lights is also included... I will even pay shipping costs. I JUST WANT AN AMD...... :)


June 8, 2006 3:14 AM Chek out this cheap dual core, and the review by a highly accredited site.
AMD= Gaming and MultiTasking Intel=Single Process, Internet, Applications

Intel is better for the big business's, AMD is excellent for games and media awesome home and general use. I did alot of research and looked at a lot of arguments and comparisons, to me it sounds like AMD has turned things around and with this 3800 64 dual core being a nice cheap chip and out performing it Intel counterpart (thought the intel is a bit cheap) the AMD outperforms it in this review from

"The choice is clear - the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is better in every way than the Pentium D 830. For Intel's sake in the enthusiast community, Conroe had better be very competitive next year - because ever since Prescott, the Pentium 4 has been an utter disappointment."

To me it sounds like Intel is commin back with the Conroe but believe me it will be expensive, best go with the AMD w8 about 2-3 years and see how AMd responds to the Conroe.
My first computer was Intel , so was my second computer, personally i found them to be slower them AMD build even though the mhz were larger so its not about mhz its about how they are built and AMD has built it and everyone is coming!

Also i know guys who build computers and they told me go with AMd for gaming and media, go Intel if u wanna do word processing and business stuff like that.

If ur going iwth daul core go with this 3800 cheapest amd dual core and can be OC to AMd 64 4200 speeds easy.

i built this new comp with amd in mind and it has cost me just a little over $1000 cnd and its a beast of a gaming rig
A64 3800 dual core, asus a8n sli mobo, enermax 535 psu, cooler master case, 6600 gt sli video, useing onboard sound, dvdrw, cdrw, benQ 17 in lcd, ocz 1 gb ram dual channel. yea only 1 6600 gt atm sli soon enough, i bought an artic cpu fan for better cooling for Oc just to be safe though its not needed.


June 8, 2006 3:25 AM Look at more evidence to support AMD clearly AMD has an advantage at this point. i will get back with more website reviews

Julian Dennis

June 8, 2006 6:49 AM

The comments on this forum speak for themselves LOL. You know who I'm siding with!! P4? YEAH RIGHT

William Johnston

June 8, 2006 1:47 PM Look at more evidence to support AMD clearly AMD has an advantage at this point. i will get back with more website reviews

Way to quote a 2 year old article. Welcome to 2006.


June 8, 2006 2:48 PM

First let me say that I have never seen a thread with quite so many ill informed ramblings that hasn't been locked over 6 months after the initial posting. For some reason I got a laugh out of trawling through it all though.

Secondly, as a hardware engineer with some experience in various aspects of processor design I can categorically state that "more MHz", ie. a higher processor clock speed, does not necessarily mean more instructions per second/a faster processor as people keep claiming. Most instructions take more than one clock cycle to complete. The exact number of clock cycles depends on how complicated the instruction is and how the internal design of the processor does the work.

This is compounded by other aspects of the processor's design (architecture) such as pipelining where more than one instruction can be in the process of being completed in the processor at any one time.

So, a processor which has a clock which cycles 1 million times per second (1Mhz) may chew through more (of the same) instructions in that second than a chip of a different design which has a 1.2MHz or even 2MHz clock. The example given above of a 1GHz Via C3 performing about the same as a lowly Pentium II (~0.45GHz?) is correct.

Next, different processor architectures lend themselves better to different uses. A Toyota Supra acquits itself better than a Toyota Landcruiser on a racetrack, but the Landcruiser would perform better in extreme off-road conditions. It is difficult to say that one is better than the other based purely on that fact though. If you do a search for Intel vs AMD performance reviews it becomes pretty obvious what the strengths and weaknesses of the current batch of processors from each are.

Also to be considered are of course cost, power consumption (ie. heat dissipation) and robustness. We can assume that each have a range of compatible associated hardware available (motherboard, RAM), but if there's a price discrepancy between the different gear then it needs to be considered too.

So for my two cents worth:

Robustness: Intel is probably more robust in systems which will be neglected or abused. Much of this comes down to the choice of RAM and motherboard used however.

Loudness: AMD currently has the edge when putting together a Media PC/HTPC because there isn't as much cooling requirement (read as fan noise in theory).

Cost vs speed: AMD has the edge ATM.

All out speed: AMD

Gaming: AMD

Business environment: Intel

Value for money: AMD if you know what the term MMX once referred to without having to do a Google search, Intel otherwise or if the machine is for an office environment.

The choice of motherboard is just as if not more important than the choice of AMD vs Intel. AMD on an Asus board vs Intel on a "Mr Chips" board and vice versa just aren't fair bases for comparison.

Roy G. Biv said it best though:

>> Anyone who would rely on the toothless banter in this thread to make some sort of buying decision would be a bonehead, indeed.


June 9, 2006 9:22 PM

for those of you who remember the 80286s
didnt amd used to make cpus for intel?


June 12, 2006 7:50 AM

Well I sat here and read most of these posts. I will say I am now an amd user with athlon 64 3200. I also have a p4 2.8 gig p4 on a toshiba laptop. My father runs a turon 64 laptop now. I am first and formost a gamer.I my self will be upgrading soon to an fx60(waiting for price to drop just a little bit more)I will say AMD holds the cup now. For a realy interesting bench. I read in PC gamer when fx 60 first hit the market. I was varry impressed. Becouse it was compard to an intel extreme that was overclocked to 4 gigs and got its teeth kicked in. They also ran nero and launched fear. Now thats impressive even if fear ran only at 15 fps or so. All i got to say is if you want to compare do a google search for bench marks and compair. But dont relie on just 1 bench. But in my book and reserch amd. Unless intel comes with something hard, I will continue using amd.


June 13, 2006 1:44 AM

Previously... I was an Intel user... defending Intel in every way possible... boasting intel's multi-tasking abilities, Sadly I bought a Pentium 4 3.0GHz HT with 1MB internal cache. It only lasted for 1 year!!! At first it performed fine in earlier games, but as games got even heavier to process, it started to overheat terribly... i couldn't even run Battle for Middle Earth 2 for 3 mins. My system would simply keep on restarting! and I have to rest it for say 10 to 20mins. before turning it on again... Eventualy! it broked two days ago... It just kept on resting... It wouldn't turn on anymore... So I say go AMD! why? I also have an AMD Athlon 64... and used it for rendering animations... I would frequently leave it turned on for 3 to 5 days straight! and wouldnt have to worry about it getting overheated! Conclusively! AMD performs a lot cooler than its Intel counterpart... and much faster even. So again go AMD!


June 14, 2006 12:33 AM

-AMD > Intel-
Im about to buy a computer probably within the next week or two (hopefully). Lately i've been looking into overclocking and found that the sempron 3100 and 3200 at 1.8 Ghz are extremely great PCUs to overclock. Like getting them up and around 2.5 GHz fast and stable good. I was wondering if its worth it or not. I mean overclocking is risky and it would be my first time. Either I get a Sempron and overclock it to awesome speeds and probably end up paying more (more better RAM and cooling devices) or just friggin buy like the decent athlon 3500 thats on a 939 socket board. What do you all think? O.C. a Sempron or just buy an Athlon.

p.S. I wont be gaming on it hardcore. Mostly just for homework and moderate gaming.


June 15, 2006 7:07 AM

only read half of the .... "discussion". seems, alot of people dont know whats they are ralking about. Anyway. AMD is the right choise. AMD consumes less energy. they are as stable as intel. More perfomance per MHz, now doesnt it say something? people realy care at AMD and in my oppinion Intel is all about the MONEY. With the right support AMD will kill Intel. But then it might come to monopoly again after years..... will AMD become Intel??? and Intel AMD????


June 16, 2006 9:58 AM

Would there have been these discussions 5 years or even 2 years ago? That fact that this topic is even being talked about so often and so passionately by so many is just a testiment to how far AMD has come in their battle against Intel. Yes, each offering has different advantages, but just being in the game as strongly as they are is a victory for AMD.


June 21, 2006 11:29 PM

OK, I work at Intel. I have seen tremendous waste of money in that company. Today they bought pen holders to hold ink pens, and usually there a few bucks. Intel custom made them for $250 each. Spending a total of 9 thousand dollars for these parts. What a waste of money, a dixie cup would of worked just fine. If you want to support a company that is truely wasteful with marketing and money, buy Intel. If you want a PC chip without all the hoopla, buy AMD!


June 26, 2006 1:03 PM

W00t!~ today i bought a Compaq Sr1830NX with an AMD Athlon 3500 with 1 gig RAM and a 200 GB HD with lightscribe, a media card reader, and it came with a 17'' CRT and printer. For only $490!!!!!!!!!! W00t W00t Go AMD!

the dox

June 30, 2006 12:20 AM

well, these things are just all like the endless eternal warfare. Its like ATI and Nvidia wars,

and i am a true Intel supporter but i have to say with the performance crown, AMD has got it and got it well. i'll have to blame Intel's lazy decision just to go increasing Mhz, i mean they knew they could have come up with something better during their times but not a lot of people (after reaching their crown)still be consistent.

AMD accepted their previous place as second, fought well and deserved their win with the 60-64 x2, now its Intel's turn (man i do hope the conroe will smoke the 60), and then vice versa....


June 30, 2006 3:48 PM

Amd is the best solution for every computer. Its
cost is on normal aspects and their performance is
increadible. The intel pentium systems is old and
their architecture is dramatically surpassed by
the Amd . Everyone now knows that the top prosessor is the AMD Athlon 64 FX60 althought it costs almost 1.000 Euros. And for the low budget
systems an AMD Athlox 64 3500+ is upropriet CPU.

Intel pentium is old and surpassed. The only thing good on this cpu its the super high Ghrz
thats all!


July 2, 2006 7:02 AM

There is one love AMD 64 Athlon
just tell me does my Pc better than any intel
AMD64 3200+,MSI Motherboard,1GB ram,Gforce6600Le


July 4, 2006 6:50 PM

Seems to me intel are fighting back/
the intel pentium d seriese of chips.
"intel pentium d 930" for instance is a competitor,

its a dual core at 3.0ghz with 64bit processing capabilaties and can be over clocked extensivly "depending on cooling"
its Cheaper than a dual core amd 64 and preforms conciderably well in comparison.

the AMD chips do however preform better when running games. Even though they have less processing power.

but for me I need a decent high powerd dual core 64 bit processor to handle the work loads that my server pc endures.

the pentium d chips are cheaper than there amd counterparts,
they run prety cool. and are capable of working under emense work loads.

When it comes to multi tasking or compressing files (win zip ,rar, ace, ect) or running any complex equasions youd better use An intel chip.

If your playing games then an amd chip even with less ghz can out preform an intell chip.
(but in all honesty you can play games on both)


July 5, 2006 4:19 AM

i first remember that i read about this war around 5-6 years ago, when i bought a new pc. i used AMD for quite some time.more than 5 years.i really like it.i used athlon 700 for 3-4 years before i decide to go for athlon 64.with 1 gig ram, truly appreciate of course very nice.playing half-life and need for speed most wanted, make me wanna cry coz of their pic very nice.still going like this there'll be no end.actually it's up to end user to decide know better than anyone what you want...


July 8, 2006 3:04 PM

Intel D940 or Amd 4200 for Sonar 5.0?


July 10, 2006 5:02 AM

AMD 3500+ or INTEL 3.0ghz?which is faster in gaming, could anyone out there help me.


July 10, 2006 7:02 PM

guys, AMD is clearly better. AMD CPU's do 9 instructions per clock cycle, while Intel only does 6. Thats why a 2Ghz AMD is just a good preformance wise as a 3ghz Intel.Plus, AMD is a whole lot cheaper


July 11, 2006 4:13 AM

This will explain how much better AMD processors are compared to Intel.


July 13, 2006 8:51 AM

Good Lord.

I have been sitting here sifting through all this all-out war, and found only one comment helpful!

Thanks Ozzie! :D


July 15, 2006 8:16 AM

AMD will always beat intel any time as intel is losing in the dual core race amd X2 FX dual core is 40x faster than the intel xeon and the opteron far surpasses the intel most powerful proc available considering the side bus on the opteron on is 26ghz and the intel really can't compete with that so AMD OWNS intel's ass


July 15, 2006 8:06 PM

Dark_destiny and all you AMD fanboys are in the dark. Where have you been the last 2 weeks. Do you guys read any news.

Game Over? Core 2 Duo Knocks Out Athlon 64 report at


July 17, 2006 11:12 PM

If Intel is better, how come Dell bought Alienware? amd 64.

Posted by: LUIS at April 16, 2006 01:18 PM

thats easy...they eliminated their competition ... lol


July 17, 2006 11:47 PM

I'm not interested in die hard (and hard headed) fans of either CPU as I want a true to heart opinion based only on performance.

That said, I am not concerned with the price, or even the price/performance ratio, I simply want to know what the absolute BEST processor on the market is. In addition, I plan on installing a liquid cooling system in along side a couple of high end fans, so I am not concerned about the temperature during normal or overclocked performance either. Once again I want to know what's fastest.

I am seeing things like, "Intel's instructions per clock cycle is not as effective as AMD's so GHz doesn't mean anything..." but I also know (from experience) that AMDs have had problems with reliability...could that be due to improper cooling or do AMD's just like to crash?

If, with proper cooling, the AMD will not only outperform the intel then I will get it BUT if the Intel runs faster or the AMD crashes regardless of it's cooling set up then I will invest in an intel. Where all EDUCATED opinions for either side are appreciated, base arguments like, "So and so is dumb and doesn't know what they're talking about..." as well as the ever popular response, "AMD/Intel ROCKS!!!" will not be missed.

I hope to gain some insight into building the best computer possible and thank you all for your help.


July 21, 2006 2:44 AM

Pentium Core 2 Duo surpasses all current processors including all previous Intel and current AMD chips.


July 27, 2006 1:51 PM

For a person soon having to decide between AMD & Intel, without much knowledge of either, your comments have been very helpful to making a decision.

BOTTOM LINE: AMD is considerably cheaper, and close to or even matching performance. Obvious Choice: AMD.



July 28, 2006 11:28 PM

I strongly support Intel technology as I've both AMD and Intel PCs at home. Intel still provides the stability and reliability in many cases compared to AMD based PC.

Furthermore, Intel Core 2 Duo which was released recently really outperformed AMD processor's performance.


July 29, 2006 1:07 PM

For now Core2 is faster but not worth it if you have a fast AMD cpu, in 64bit the Core2 is only 10% faster than there AMD counterparts and with the price drop AMD makes up for that. Core2 is only worth it if your running one of those crappy Pentium 4's or PEntium D's. I did a little benchmarking myself on this issue, for gamming a Ahtlon 64 3000 beats a Pentium D 820 hands down, but in video rendering the Pentium is faster by a small amount, so Id assume that dual core AMD cpu's are faster than Pentium D. I did the same testing for AMD XP 2600 vs P4 2.6ghz and the XP won, then I ran a K7 600 vs a P3 650 and the K7 won on all tests. Core2 is faster than anything right now, but if you have a highend AMD system there is no point to upgrading, especially if you have a highend 939 system, you have alot of money tied up in DDR, CPU, and board and you would have to replace all of it.


July 29, 2006 5:12 PM

I know that amd is better choice than intel in performance. But I want to know that can amd processors work properly when I have my room temperature of 35 degrees for at least 12 hours. Please answer it quickly as i have to soon make my buy.
thanks in advance.
kunal vyas


July 31, 2006 6:27 PM

I have a Dell Dimension 2400 with a 2.39 processor. I am considering buying a AMD64 3800 with a 2.2 cpu. Is this going to be any faster for video conversion. Will I see a difference overall. My processor is also a celeron not a pentium. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.



August 1, 2006 11:28 AM

AMD is the best as far as i know
Intel sucks & its just for making money


August 3, 2006 8:19 AM

Please note, for anyone wanting to choose between AMD and Intel. AMD chips run at a much lower clock speed, but still get things done faster. AMD names e.g. AMD 64 3500+ are designed to equate to what clock speed an Intel chip would be. Thus the AMD 3500+ in my work computer, whilst running at 2.2GHz is equivalent to a 3.5GHz Intel (at least!).

AMD's on board chip memory controller was a breakthrough that Intel must be cursing about. An since AMD chips (since the 64 bit range started) are designed from the ground up to be able to be built duel core, I think the next year or two will show us that Intel are having to catch up there as well!


August 3, 2006 8:56 AM

Well, the best recommendation that I can give at the moment is to forfeit going to the X2 (AMD DualCore) because of the new release that AMD has done on the amount of pins in the cpu, the new 940 pin AM2 cpus have creamed all over any P4 processor, 3ghz and below core duo's and the 939 pin 64bit AMD processors. Because of this new pin setup AMD is planning to release their new X2 cpus in the AM2 pin . This will greatly increase speed of all parts of your PC, because it allows for the full capabilities of the DDR2 ram which has been out for a while but nothing has been up to the task of it, until now... Now Intel just has to copy and create a new chipset that enables the use of DDR2 ram, just like theyve done in the past.
By the way, for anyone who is not so good with computers parts etc. go for AMD always, theyll always keep the pressure on Intel and therefore always produce better quality products.


August 5, 2006 10:39 PM

As a director of a computer manufacturing company with over 15 years in the I.T. industry (And a Ph.D in computer science to boot) i have been through the gigahertz wars with these two companies. Pre-gigahertz race (the first to reach the 1ghz barrier, which AMD won by the way...) intel were running the desktop and mobile processor market. Amd were just there as an alternative company. However the athlon series of AMD's showed that AMD were not just there as an alternative to intel but were a serious competitor. The Athlon XP with its quantispeed architecture matched intel's P4 line impressively. And similarly with the Athlon64 line, Intel, again has proven to themselves that raising the mhz is not the solution to better performance. As A computer manufacturer, we use both intel and AMD chips in our desktops, leaving the decision to our customers. We deal with the public, business and government. we have found that the general public (for the most part) want value for money, i.e. less money - better computer attitude. We have found that AMD sempron desktops, as a budget system, by far outperfom intel's celeron line, even the D celerons. Many people here suggest that intel are better for business because of the intel's ability to perform better for day to day applications, this is generally true, and probably why we have found that our government customers have always bought intel systems from us. However this is in part, due to the misinformation and gradual 'educating' on intel's behalf, via advertising either through the big brand names or intel direct. (remember all the system requirements software used to have: "pentium pc..." no mention of AMD) The bottom line is, for my company to maintain its success thus far, we couldnt have done it without AMD. AMD allow us, as a business to not only offer a great performing computer, but also at a low cost, on comparison with an Intel computer of the same spec. Of course as the performance level increases, so does the price. It is also worth mentioning that in the 236 computers sold through us this year thus far, 3 have been Intel systems, we have had 1 intel system returned due to an instable system (processor overheating whilst gaming causing resets) and no faults with any AMD system. It is my experience also that AMD's are generally better overclockers than intel. This is possibly because intel are already overclocked to provide the high factory ghz. I have an 'old' p4 system we use for processing invoices. It is a p4 3.2ghz with HT running on an ASUS P4C800-E Deluxe motherboard (one of the best overclocking skt478 boards made) yet i can only squeeze the processor to 3.36ghz without it crashing, there is plenty of adequate cooling but the prescott doesnt want to go higher than 3.36ghz (5% overclock). Intel's core duo is certainly a contender for the x2 athlon64's, but i guess the real results will show upon the launch of vista and how the processors will perform with the OS. I think over the next year or 2, intel may indeed make a comeback over the performance wars, for now, at least, AMD is the best overall choice, not only for budget systems but for high end systems and indeed servers (with the opterons, which in my opinion crush the xeons hands down.) whoever mentioned that intel were more stable than AMD has obviously never had an AMD. AMD opteron's are the current processors running in the largest servers on the planet... doesn't that suggest just a little bit of confidence in their stability?


August 8, 2006 2:44 PM

For everyone who is an Intel fan.....go to this website. These are the ACTUAL BENCHMARKS comparing the two processors from an UNBIASED PARTY! If you were wondering why its on AMD website and kinda get skeptical...remember, AMD cannot put false information about Intel, otherwise they would be sued.

They compare an Athlon 64 3800 to the top of the line DUAL CORE PENTIUM D!

I happen to own an Intel Pentium 4 and its the worst thing out there, low L1 cache so the processor cannot calculate as fast as if it were higher. FSB is horribly slow, the RAM chunks up (I have 1 GB Dual Channel by the way). And the worst thing, HEAT! I had to trash a motherboard because it couldnt take INTELS HEAT! WE WANT MORE CALCULATIONS per CYCLE....NOT MORE CYCLES PER SECOND!!!!!!!!!!!! You people need to look at the facts and not just go "OH, IT'S AN INTEL AND IT'S GOOD!" GARBAGE! And I can say that because I own an Intel. My friends AMD Turion ML-32 wastes my INTEL PENTIUM 4 on 3D Modeling, gaming, and even simple applications. So don't talk unless you have the facts!!!!!!!!!!!!!


August 12, 2006 6:39 PM

I use PC's with Intel's P4 CPU at work all the time. These CPU's are running anywhere from 2.2 to 2.6 Ghz and perform fairly well. For my personal computer which I built myself I use the AMD FX60 Dual Core processor running at 2.6 Ghz (no overclocking). Now considering this is a dual core 64 bit processor that is running applications that don't take advantage of it's architecture, it flat out CHEWS up any P4 I've run yet, including a P4 running at 3.2 Ghz. The previous computer I owned had a P4 2Ghz processor which is no match to my current PC. I have an ASUS A8N32 SLI-Deluxe mobo with dual SLI graphics cards (PCI Express/nVidia) with a combined vRam of 1 Gb and 1 Gb PC3200 DDR2 ram. The biggest thing about my new system is that running without overclocking my processor runs at about 35 degrees Centigrade, which I understand is quite low. I would advise checking out AMD if you want performance, definitely.

2 masters 1 phs and lots of computers

August 13, 2006 12:25 AM

Having plenty of education and experience I can say that intel (e.g. pentium 4) is better than AMD. Due to its lower price AMD has a vast amount of fans but also the larger amount of computer problems ... don't know why but they get slower with time ... that doesn't happen with pentium pcs. put this way... Pentium (intel) is for professionals of all levels in all professions. if you are not going to use your pc a lot, then get an AMD but if you are serious and know what you are doing (and earn a decent salary) get a pentium. why do you think the best companies use pentium? ... because the wouldn't jeopardize their reputation by using less reliable systems.

thank you... to all you AMD users ..experience will make you wiser...



August 15, 2006 11:17 AM

I am looking for a notebook, and saw the option of the processors of intel vs AMD. I am seeing that with all of the previous posts that AMD seems to be mostly for the gaming community. I want to know what will be best for my needs. I plan on using the notebook for Xcel, still picture editing, DVD burning of home videos, and itunes for my ipod. I do also plan to use it for business stuff like quicken and making newsletters, signs, and flyers for the store. My sons may get on to play games off Disney or Nickelodeon. My older computer now just really freezes up and is slow, it is reaching the 5 year mark. What do I need to look for?


August 17, 2006 5:06 AM

now a days amd opteron is leading the google server runs on amd.


August 19, 2006 2:53 PM

Jen if you're looking for a notebook and you're not expecting to do anything CPU stressing like excel, burning CD's, and itunes etc. you should stay away from the really expensive stuff (~$1000) cuz laptops outdate themselves and prices so rapidly anyway. I'd recommend something with at least 512Mb of RAM, and an AMD Turion64 ML-32 or 34 (1.6GHz or 1.8Ghz it doesnt really matter). If you want to save some more money get a mobile Sempron, BUT DO NOT GET A CELERON M, they may be a little cheaper but they suck and will disappoint. In conclusion you don't need something expensive with a dual-core processor or 1Gb of Ram, just something decently priced around $450-$650 at your local computer electronics store.

Athlon64X2 --4eva

August 21, 2006 8:38 AM

intel has made unhealthy sums of money with all there proccesors from p1..p3 and when p4 hit the market people where just so conditioned into believing that pentium is the best that everyone jst went for it (INCLUDING BIG BUSINESSES)and not because of peforcmance jst cos its been the big name for sooo long ..while AMD where working hard in the secret underground labs perfecting the art of processor development ..take for instance the pentium D830 vs anthlonx2 3800+ (read this: >> if u read this you would see AMD WON !! (amd:1000 Intel:0.001) AMD rules it cant be beat .. ;)


August 22, 2006 10:20 AM

I got to say, I'm told my home Intel PC should be

substantially faster. I've got a AMD work PC now as my first

time using an AMD. I don't play any of these big 3D games

like many others do that I could compare speeds with. I ran

some performance tests on both machines that indicate my home

3D stuff runs much faster than my work PC can. That being

said and with 2 similar OS's with similar software layed down,

my work PC seems much more responsive all the time. My AMD

loads up Adobe Photoshop CS2 in a fraction of the time

compared to my home PC, maybe half the time. Visual Studio

2005 is the same, loading faster, and those two applications

are memory hogs as far as I can tell, while they seem to run

OK at home, they blaze on my AMD. I'm not a hardware guru. I

tend to fumble around when it comes to that. I'm strictly a

software/web developer, but I do love this AMD. Perhaps if I

get 2GB of memory on home Intel PC, the tables would be

turned. The performance tests, except for 2D graphics tended

to indicate my home PC was generally faster, but I truly have

come to love this AMD as it may be more suitable for the way I

actually use my system and for the programs I run.

Btw, I read the following comment above...

An amd 64 4000+ will rip an intel 3.8 into shreds ,and it runs cooler all the same.

My AMD office PC ran between a good 20 to 40 degrees cooler than the home Intel... I get the impression that those particular Intels run hot... I learned that when a fan died on the AMD and had to replace it, ran under 50, cant remember exactly, but maybe near 20 to 40, while home PC, I checked out later was constant around 60 to 70...

Home (Intel P4)

Model Name VGC-RA825G(UC) -- Sony Vaio
OS Version 5.01.2600Service Pack 2
CPU Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.60GHz
Clock Frequency 3600 MHz
System Memory 1024 MBytes
Cache Memory 1024 KBytes

Office (AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor)
Windows XP Professional Version 2002
Svc. Pack 2
2.41 GHx, 1.96 GB of RAM


August 22, 2006 11:52 PM

i've recently purchased a laptop which has an AMD Turion 64 processor, 512 mb of ram, and 80 gig of hdd... i would be using the laptop for architectural drafting as well as 3d rendering.. do you guys think the specs are aduquate, or should i have opted for an intel-core duo?


September 1, 2006 3:00 AM

Dear AMD Fans:

Please visit this site...

satinder singh grewal

September 1, 2006 8:48 AM

hey there,
i have been using a p4 2.0 from last two years.and franckly telling i had no problems till date.but now as more heavy applications are being developed the p4 has satrted giving problems.i tried to run pinnacle studio 10+.the machine got hanged.leave this i tried tu run hitman blood money but in vain.
i am thinking of a new machine and i have made up my mind for amd. acc. to my research the amd`s are far better than intel`s.
no doubt intel is being used worldwide but i am afraid to say people who don't know about performance use intels.
from satinder,


September 2, 2006 8:12 PM

I am a university student looking into buying a laptop. Currently, our family computer is a pentium 4, which i find really fast compared to our older computer (which i got handed down, thats why i want a laptop), which is an AMD (sorry, dont know which one) but it takes like 7 minutes to start up!! programs take forever to load, and it ALWAYS freezes!! so for my personal experience, intel is much better. but after reading all the comments here, i'm a bit confused. i'm not a gamer at all, and will only be needing my laptop for the internet, writing essays, doing research, powerpoint presentations, and the occassional game of minesweeper or pinball. what do all u techie's think is better for me? as i'm looking into laptops, the 2 for intel that stand out are the centrino and centrino duo, and for AMD is the turion 64 and turion 64 x2. please, anyone? i really need some help here.


September 7, 2006 3:44 AM

Well its all said and done.After reading through a whole lots of test done by various companies i guess both AMD and pentium have got something unique in them.Most of all i'll prefer AMD to pentium based on 2 thing.
1.Energy saving
2.AMD been less expensive.

If one need computers to feed its office or anywhere i guess AMD is best.Cuz its about~30% less expensive in terms of power consumption compared to Pentium.And this make AMD have a better advantage over Pentium.
Apart from the fact that its less expensive to purchase an AMD compared to Pentium, they all run a little at the same speed.


September 16, 2006 9:12 PM

well i have seen the big debate over intel and amd and honestly i dont have as much experience with this analyizing but about 10 months ago my cousin bought a intel celoron m 380 80 gigs dvd burner cd burner but i would have too many problems with it im not trying to say that im a geniues at computers but im a gamer web browser and he payed 1000 dollars for a celron m im trying to tell yto you people wat i have found out that a long time ago lets say pentium 2 pentium 3 era weell it was all intel if domebody told me amd id say who the helll ru youre crazy intel had the market completley werent we paying like a 1000 dollars for a pentium 2 or 3 now we cab get ok computers for 500 to 800 dollars people think about it im not daying amd is the best but did a survey to 50 gekks all over florida and gues what they prefferd they said amd all the way but amd may be a litlle slower and i recently got a hp pavin dv2047 cl entertainment note bokk 100 gigs 1 gig hard drive let me tell you i dont know how bu t it blows my cousind celoron m but they have the same gigs im not trying to force anybody to buy amd but i would strongly recomend it as a gamer for me as 50 gekks that i have iinterviewed and i am starting to become amd only i am so happpy with my amd i hope you will be to i just cant recomed intel anymore if u have anycomments feel free to messege me at


September 18, 2006 3:14 PM

Who's got the best processor? Who gives you the better deal or more for your money? These things change like 3 times a year, people. If your looking to buy or build a new PC, you need to research it and find out. Look for best buys in the magazines and see WHY they are best buys. Look at prices on processors seperately and with store bought PCs and compare all of them.

If you're not looking to buy or build anything new anytime soon, then who cares? The honest answer to who is better will change in a month or two anyway. That's the way it should be.


September 19, 2006 10:34 AM

Im going to be fair to everyone and i can tell you some fact about AMD/INTEL.
ive been repairing computers since late 80`s from apple to amiga(commadore)while u kids was still in your nappies.
we all started from pentium/cirus mx`s and others. ok pentium is the business, be honest ibm only just started out at that time. cut the story short lol. i build another pc with a amd 500 after i had a cirus processor kept on freezing my computer just like the 386 pentium (IM A PRODUCER FOR MAKING MUSIC USING LOGIC AUDIO)
i needed more poke!!! i dont care about the benchmarks on all cpu`s, all i was bothered about is, can it handle my music software.
i went on to PII-PIII then i was happy for a bit when i got to p3`s and i still needed power. till i got the AMD BARTON 2.5. I was very shocked when my mate had a p4 running the same music program next to my compuer struggled to play extra plugins (synth) and i was using 12 more pluggins and it hasnt stopped, DID I SMILE lol.
I had my first AMD 64bit VENICE SINGLE CORE. i notice it was less power than the new pentium and does knock the p4/g5 for 6. now im running a AMD Athlon 64 FX60 San Diego 2MB cache 64 bit pc that ive built, ive not seen any pentium match my AMD and even my friend has got the lates Intel Core 2 Duo Extreme X6800 2.93GHz and this time we was trying to kill our processor running protools/ cubase sx and logic all at the same time and dont get me wrong, both processors are very rapid but only wrecked the pentium by far.
What im trying to say to you all is every processor has its own speciality. i use AMD for music and games, friends do heavy graphic design on a pentium. computers are computers. if you want to purchase a PENTIUM OR AMD, think what you really need it for GAMES OR DESIGN.
both processor are good.


September 20, 2006 2:08 AM

Thats what all the intel people say, they THINK its faster! We amd people KNOW amd is faster thats why we are "profitable" and in the LEAD end of story .

Xtreme PC

September 20, 2006 10:35 AM

I sell PC, all the customers want AMD's! One in five buys a AMD. I myself also buy AMD, because they have better Gaming performance and are much cheaper! I also buy AMD because the come from Germany!!!!!!!!


September 21, 2006 6:36 PM

The intel worker who said Intel outperform AMD, you must be nuts. You are not too bright to work for Intel, if u really r workin for Intel, no wonder AMD can kick Intel's ass nowadays, AMD would love to have more people like you working for Intel.
Now my opinions about AMD vs Intel.
When pentium 4 first released back in few years ago, i bought one, i liked it very much especially the stability and quietness. (I had an AMD Athlon before) At that time, AMD chips have problems like overheating, instability of running software, and also compatibility. The same programs that i can installed and run well on Intel P4 system cannot be installed on AMD Athlon system. But eventough, i still sold my P4 system when i came to a point that i need a faster PC to play Counter Strike (At that time, AMD improved abit) Surprisingly that i had my P4 system for 1 year, when i sold it as second hand, the money i got is enough to buy me a new AMD Athlon XP 1800+ system. At first, i was abit regreted that i sold my P4 system, this is mainly due to the noise! My AMD was driving my girlfriend crazy at night, she cant sleep with those thunder storm noises from the fan. I have had to shift my computer out of the room. I was thinking of watercooling but it was too expensive. No doubt that the performance was far superior than Intel when playing CS. About the stability, it was alot better than my previous AMD system which proved that AMD really working hard to overcome its weakness. And i am still using my AMD Athlon XP1800+ now, i know it is out of date but i can still play the games i like in reasonable good performance.


September 22, 2006 8:42 AM

This has been an experience, it was nice having everyones opinion however I am still confused can someone please send some links where professionals that are not getting kick backs from either company (independent researchers) to dial down the facts I have been researching for about a month now, and from what I see

AMD's are cheaper

But cheaper rarely means better, like an emachine and a HP or VAIO and a HP, there's always a better product

I am not trying to do anything technical, but just play simple games, watch movies, and web surf

I am looking to buy a lap top and not break the bank please let me know for my purposes does it matter, I am not really into all those crazy games, but good graphics and sound is important, and speed, I hate to wait

Thanks for your response


September 25, 2006 10:24 AM

I have just recently bought this bad a$$ computer system. AMD of CORSE ya so anyway my friend swears up and down the new intel is faster just cause of the numbers. my NEW AMD is the AMD X2 dual core 4600+ and isnt all that top of the line and still fuck!ng hauls A$$ multiple progams singal programs my personal opion and the TRUTH is that AMD is a much better performace and gameing computer. and if you can run games therfore the proc can run just about anything else.

AMD !!!!ROCKS!!!!


October 1, 2006 1:12 AM

still trying to figure out wich one is better, check this review, end point!

old but still in use.

Kevin Deegan

October 1, 2006 5:02 PM

Hi all I have to confess to not being a computer expert but in my experience of having owned and used both INTEL and AMD processors, I have found the Intel to be better for video editing IE:mpeg encoding and the AMD better for gaming. I currently own a system with an AMD 64 3500+ cpu,Maxtor diamond max 10 200gig HDD,nVIDIA 256 MB 7600GS GPU,and 1 gig of giel value ram in dual channel mode.

I also have another system using the same configuration but with an AMD 64X2 4800+ CPU the 3500+ system is great for games but falls short on video editing, although the x2 4800+ system is great for both I have used for a short time an intel core duo system for both games and editing finding the AMD better for gaming and the intel better for video. I hope this helps Oh yes I almost forgot the mother board in my 4800+ system ia an ASROCK939 DUAL-VSTA which is as most of you probably know a budget board I also had a budget board on my core duo system.


October 9, 2006 5:32 AM

this must the the longest and most nub filled post in existance...

AMD 3200+ @ 2.4 ghz
XFX 6800GT
DFI NF4 Ultra D
Seagate 250 gig SATA
Its old but its quick in all the games

My point is, most of you guys who have asked for an opinion about whats quicker, you will most likely be very happy with both
If you want a new machine, go the Core 2 Duo, its quite obviously the quickest and quite cheap if you look in the right places.
AMD is behind at the moment, and will probably be for quite a while concidering Intel are developing quad core processors to be released next year

Also... has anyone noticed how damn long this post has gone!!, congrats lol

Im still laughing at some of your comments

But whoever is still looking for a serious combo
Core 2 Duo 6400
Gigabyte 965-P DS3 Mobo
1-2 Gig off DDR2 667 (it doesnt really matter which brand)
Decent HDD
Leadtek 7900GS

It will crush for aeons to come

Ive got a few friends with this bad boy processor and it wont dissapoint

Thats my 2 cents


October 13, 2006 9:51 PM

Intel Core 2 Duo - price, power, stability, efficiency... AMD just lost the war! Everyone knows AMD did have the advantage, but I guess all that money that Intel had wasn't just wasted on fluff and advertising after all...


October 21, 2006 2:19 AM

How about waiting for say 6 months, by then the price of the desktop/notebook you have been googling every night would have drop considerably that you can now buy two computers with AMD and Intel processors. At least you have covered all the fields from gaming to dvd/music to emails to graphics/engineering designs...all those multitasking activities. I guess you would be happy with your not so latest toys.

Ayotunde Olatunji

October 21, 2006 11:53 PM

I see that many people compare their old computer with the one they recently bought. They were not made in the same year, so the new Intel pentium 4 might have more advantages than the old AMD processor you're comparing it to.They might have different operating systems, different hard drive speeds, etc. You might read an article that says AMD is the best and you think you know the best one for you and you go ahead and buy a Computer with an AMD processor. A few months later it starts giving you problems and you get confused. The truth is that we can't really know which one is best unless we give both processors the same hardware specifications. For example you might buy a Dell computer that has an Intel Pentium 4 brain that runs at 2.0Ghz and 533Mhz FSB and you might have a Hp computer that has an AMD Athlon xp processor that runs at 2.2Ghz and has 1600Mhz FSB. Surely,the Hp computer would run faster, because the AMD is faster in speed, it has a faster bus speed and they might both use different motherboards. You can't do that and conclude that AMD is the best that is TOTALLY WRONG. The best thing to do is to buy or build 2 PCs with the same brand name, the same model, motherboard, the same Ram speed same hard drive speed, same operating system,same Cpu speeds, same bus speed etc. The only thing that should be different is the processor brand, you put AMD in one Machine and Intel in the other and you can conclude on which one has the best performance. Do the same thing to another computer brand and record your results. There are many factors that might prevent a processor from giving it's maximum performance and I can't keep typing all of them. As we know that both companies are competing with each other,and because of the pressute on the both comanies, Intel might make an error that would make AMD better than that version of intel .If you want to buy a PC, you can choose any one of those processors,they're all good. As for me I will always choose Intel.


October 22, 2006 9:21 AM

my first real computer was a cyrix 333Mhz (My first was a commodor64, then IBM pc jr), my next one was a intel p3 666Mhz the power was great for its time and it lasted after 8 years I gave it away still running, got a AMD64 2.2 SOLD IT for a pentium D 2.66 the 64 ran much faster so I sold the P-D and now have two systems VIGOR AMD64-FX with 4gigs ddr2 2 300GB HDs 2 nvidia-512mb cards and a Mac pro with Intel inside.
I game alot in my free time ( Oblivion rocks) do video and website mm. stuff.
AMD and Intel are both good its price and loyalty to brand that make them the best in MOST peoples eyes when it should be PERFORMANCE and how long will it last and will it be supported in the near future like when quad core comes out.
I will stick with my 64fx till then..


October 25, 2006 8:46 PM

To the guy asking how to compare AMD & Intel processors..

Generally, if you have an AMD 3800+ processor, it's supposed to be equivalent to a 3.8ghz pentium. However, more recently these comparisons are getting more difficult as Intel have changed their structure somewhat.

It's still a good rule of thumb for performance though,


October 26, 2006 1:07 PM

Everybody is wrong! The best cpu for programming,capturing and things like this is the Intel, the best cpu for gaming is the AMD. The most people like AMD because it is not expensive and it is for gaming. But think about that every game is programmed in Intel, and think about that without Intel SERVER CPU's you will not be able to play in LAN or on the Internet with your friend, because AMD hasn't got a SERVER CPU, because they are not so fast as Intel. Thanks to the Intel now there is a new technology an Intel Xeon 3.4 GHz with 16 MB cache. It's the best server cpu in the world. I say that Intel is better than AMD in more ways

sampath kumar

October 29, 2006 11:36 AM

i am not an supporter of AMD nor INTEL

i am using AMD ATHLON 64 2800+ with ASUS mother board K8VMX RAM (Twin mos DDR 256 mb), excellent
performance i had ever seen. AMD ATHLON was very good when compared to INTEL .

INTEL - MONEY cheaters ,NO performance

AMD - VALUE FOR MONEY ,HIGH performance for both business & gaming

if anyone planned to buy PC ,contact me


November 5, 2006 9:29 AM

who cares about the chip it's all in the motherboard the speed between what you want to where it is going that depends on the bus speed and the ram i could have a pentium 2 running better but since the ram and bus is slow i'll be waiting for my bus transfer new technology is the best but i would suggest starting with an AMD with a 939 chipset motherboard that way upgradeswill be much easier and you will a top of the line computer p.s. use windows X.P. pro


November 7, 2006 5:38 AM

I read all the discussions above and i am still confused which processor is better.


November 7, 2006 10:37 AM

Sallam and Hi,
In short my friends i have an option of buying Dell intel 2.4 HT 800MHZ with 512 ram, and AMD Athlon 64 with 2 ghz and 512 ram. Now am confuse which will be best specialy am living in pakistan where temrature is almost 40 to 45 degree and i my usage is gaming like FEAR and 2nd video editing Pinacle 10 which is very heavy. want a good sugestion with WHY and WHY NOT.
I will be very pleased. have only 3 days left to decide.


November 7, 2006 6:13 PM

Hello i dont know much about laptops or pcs but am thinking of buying a laptop for my studies and the main pupose its going to be used for studying, although i need reliability. i also have a budget and want to get the best deal. Which one out of the two would you recommend.

Intel Core Duo T2050 Processor 1.6GHz

533 MHz FSB

2 MB Cache

1024 MB RAM

60 GB Hard Drive

DVD ReWriter SuperMulti

15.4" Widescreen TruBrite Display

Microsoft Windows Media Center

128mb Intel UMA 945 integrated Graphics


DELL £399


Mobile AMD SempronTM Technology 3500




60GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (5400 RPM)


15.4" Widescreen WXGA (1280x800)

Graphic Card

Integrated Graphics

Optical Drive
Internal 8x DVD+/-RW Drive#

56K Data Fax Modem

Price £399


Mr. Know

November 9, 2006 1:07 PM

Hello gentlemen. No need to argue. I will explain the difference between AMD and INTEL for your folks who keep thinking that one is better then another. Let me introduce myself. My name is Know. I worked for Intel company for 10 years and then moved to AMD. According to my experience, Intel and AMD are mostly the same. For those people think that AMD or Intel is better, they are wrong.
Let me start with AMD. AMD is mainly built for speed and focus on graphic. AMD has been the world technology leader of speed and excellent on handling DIE-HARD graphic. This is pretty much AMD can do.
Intel is mainly built for business use. It's focusing on stability and does an excellent job at multitasking. Intel has different path and goal to help their customer finding a way to get their works done.

If you own a AMD or INTEL, please don't feel or good that you have chose the right one or wrong one. No matter which one you chose, it will be the same. It doesn't matter if you are playing hard 3D games or perform multitasking, it just depends on what your you are using it for. Both of the processors will work the same and deliver the same speed.
Now you can see that AMD has its own path and its goal is to satisfy customers as well as Intel.

nicky dave

November 19, 2006 5:27 AM

I read all the discussions above and I think there's no better microprocessor between AMD and Intel. And best performance depends upon on how, what and where you will use your computer for.


November 21, 2006 11:46 PM

Well..well...everybody will say their PC is the best...infact (I've read) the one using Celeron 800Mhz also says that his pc is the best.

Why not we ask Why Apple Inc. migrate to Intel core duo NOT AMD...why? I dont think we are as good as Apple Inc. Why dont we follow the steps that Apple Inc. have taken. Unless you can produced much better pc than MacPro with XeonQuad Processor. Talk less ,,,work faster.

Yuriy Krokis

November 24, 2006 6:43 AM

I think that there's nothing to compare.
Intel is a part of a pop culture and mostly is used by people who doesn't have any idea about a processor architecture (may work well for a 15 years old). Lets look back the history starting form pentium 3:
1) Intel Celeron had 66Mhz FSB compared to duron 100 and ran 2 times slower in any applications. It also had many stability problems.
2) Amd had 133Mhz bus as Pentium had but had twice as greater architecture and higher performance - BE REALISTIC.
3) Amd was the first who introduced dual front technology to the market and made first 200Mhz processor.
4) Intel Pentium 4 was a rash for Intel and they had to make a power-defficient processor not to loose in the market competition.
5) After that is you still believe Intel is better - you've been manipulated by Intel marketing specialists.


November 24, 2006 2:29 PM

I will always choose AMD. Intel sucks. My PC has a AMD that runs at 2.0GHz and runs more faster than my friend's intel that runs at 2.7GHz. If you guys going to buy a processor i recommend AMD.


November 25, 2006 5:39 PM

AMD Turion 64 x2 or Intel Centrino Duo? Which one is faster? Which one is more reliable? Which one performs better overall?


November 29, 2006 1:01 AM

I own two computers: an Intel P3 and an ADM Turion 64,and I can tell that the AMD is way better.My friend has a Pentium 4 and it crashes all the time my Turion 64 never crashes and I use it to render plans for home designs on a CAD an 3d based software.My friend's P4 crashes when using power point or Word.
I am not a technician but I know about computers and about performance (more than average computer users ,I am a software designer and software evaluator too) and I can tell that depending on how you use your computer and for what purposes AMD is much better.
By the way my Turion 64 was $600 cheaper than my friend's P4 and $400 cheaper than the Intel-P3 computer I also own.And I was pleased when I bought my P3 but I can tell you that when I experienced the Turion 64 I was amazed, it really rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!


November 30, 2006 1:14 AM


Vishal Raut(India)

December 6, 2006 7:06 AM

I thought I'll get a good comparison chart to select between intel & AMD, but sorry to say it has led fight between AMD & INTEL lovers.
For Gods sake give an authentic comparison.


December 7, 2006 3:24 PM

Are we all forgeting or just unknowledgeable to the fact that AMD used to make processors for Intel back when they were just getting started and AMD was using Intel patterns to create processors it wasn't until the mid 90's when AMD finaly broke the pact with Intel to make their own processors and that is when AMD really had taken off AMD has done their best to stay on top of current and advancing technology they are currently at a holdback right now on their quad-core cpu's due to the extravagant features that they plan to integrate into the cores of this monster chip. AMD will be on top for ever and for always AMD doesn't put their name out as much as they should intel intel intel is all you here to day and it makes me sick intel trumps foreward currently as AMD sits in the midst awaiting the release of the new QUAD-CORE CPU AMD is going to lay the smack down on Intel once and for all

Rene Banzuela

December 9, 2006 7:41 PM

i started my PC rental shop way back late 1999,that was the time the PIII-500 was lording it over here in Metro-manila, Phils. i used AMD
K6II-500 and it performed good enough and its cheaper by about 75% at that time. i upgraded to
AMD Duron the following years and, yes AMD performed better than its Intel counterpart, well the only problem i encountered was the excessive heat, AMD processors sold here in the Philippines are of the tray type not in boxes, thats why the processors were paired with cheap HSF(heatsink/fan) I replace the Duron HSF with that of Athlon HSF which are bigger and more effective, my Duron processors ran cooler. at present i am now using the Sempron processors and they run cooler and faster than it's Celeron counterparts. AMD is the best pricewise, also in performance as well. my PC rental business survived, the once using Pentiums,had closed shop long time ago.

Dan Maire

December 11, 2006 9:39 PM

I have had numerous computers. All running an Intel processor of one kind or another. I have had only one computer with an AMD processor. And it never gave any problems at all. Wish I could say the same about Intel. Though Intel does make a good product. My personal opinion would be, put your money with AMD.


December 23, 2006 3:58 PM

I have a Intel Pentium D 3.0 Ghz.I have always gone for Intel...They say that Windows XP was never designed for Dual-Core Processing,and that Pentium D systems would have an awesome peformance boom when Windows Vista appears on the map.They say that games don't peform well with Windows XP on a Dual-Core Processor,as some games where also not designed for Duel-Core Processors.I have also heard that Intel chips overheat faster than AMD,but are more stable....and that the re-sell value on an Intel system is higher than AMD.Intel has proven themselves,and remains the more trusted name in the game..

George Smerda

December 24, 2006 4:14 PM

AMD is a company that was put in business by Intel. It is useless to argue otherwise. AMD's chips have always been rated in terms of functionality, as benchmarked by their Intel counterparts. A 1700+ AMD chip would be 'comparable' in performance with an Intel chip running around 1700MHz. That isn't always true, and it definitely doesn't mean your system will run faster one way or the other.

A system's actual speed depends on the FSB, the RAM, and for gaming purposes, on the RAMDAC FSB internal clock speed and number of pipelines. With the technology available today, the chip will always run faster than the rest of your computer. It comes down to application performance, and there IS a distinction.

I have been building systems for about 10 years and I have used AMD, Intel, and even Via/Cyrix chips at one point or another. AMD and Intel have made mistakes which ultimately cost the consumer, not the companies. When you have an oligopoly on chip manufacturing, the consumer loses, because one must choose. It's just like politics, you choose what you think is the best of the two, but you still get bagged in the end.

Technology being sold today is a few years behind the technology being developed in the R&D departments of Intel or AMD. They have to pace the release of technology, so that they extend the life of their product, although they do cannibalize their own products to keep the edge going. The field of personal computing is a short cycle field; the average competitive life of a chip is counted in months, not years. So, if anybody out there believes he or she own the latest and greatest, prepare to be dissapointed. Spending top dollar on the latest release is stupid, hands down. Everything new has bugs that need to be worked out, so it is better to bid your time and wait a little while.

NEVER believe the claims either company makes about their own product. They are much like used car salesmen and you'd have to be out of your mind to believe it all. Wait until independent, techie-run benchmark reports come out before deciding. Try to buy up your MB, RAM, and video card, save some money and buy what you want, not what's on sale. Stick with tried-and-true brands: MSI, ABIT, ASUS, nVidia, Kingston, Corsair, and the such. Make sure you UNDERSTAND what you are getting and why you are purchasing that particular brand, if you want quality and reliability with upgradeability built-in.

This is not a good forum to get information, this is rather an opinion poll where every computer-illiterate and uneducated wannabe Tom, Dick, and Harry can voice out half-assed opinions. This is a shout-out scene, so take it for what it's worth: much ado about nothing. If you must get an opinion, techie and enthusiast sites are a better place to find out about your prospective purchase. Most of the time, techies know about things that are still on the R&D table at the Big Two. Gather in as much info as you can before making a decision, unless you don't care how your money's spent.

In terms of comparisons, you must understand that AMD is still using 90 nanometer processes, whereas Intel stepped up, or I should say down (the process is smaller in size) to 65 nanometers. Comparing the two is like comparing a muscle car and a minivan. HOWEVER, for the benefit of the masses, I'll have to say that the AMD processor still outperforms its Intel counterpart if we consider gaming performance. Once AMD releases the next wave of processors, it will probably better the existing socket AM2's performance and be significantly superior to the current Core2Duo chips, quad core or otherwise. This is not my opinion, but rather the opinion of engineers and tech enthusiasts who have stress tested and benchmarked the Intel and AMD chips and have put that info out for you to see and compare.

Do yourselves a favor and become educated on the technology, the manufacturers, and the products. If you are a beginner, research and consider before you buy. And ONE MORE THING: build your own computer rather than buying it from a cookie-cutter manufacturer. No brand computer, save Alienware, can really give you the latitude and flexibility you want to OC the chip and screw around with the settings until something happens. Most definitely, don't be fooled. The only advantage to a brand computer is that it comes fully configured, but fully lobotomized in case you want to know. Stay away from brand comps and BUILD YOUR OWN. Regardless of your choice, if you are knowledgeable and apply yourself you only stand to gain. Have fun and stay healthy. God bless.


December 25, 2006 6:15 PM

i have a 5 years old intel 1.7Ghz celeron, and until all these days it's still ruining without any problem.and i'm using windows vista ultimate.and i let him 2 days without shut down ,and i play NFS most wanted no problems (i have inno3d geforce4 MX4000)and i have 512 pc133 sdram,and he is way faster than my friend pc who have amd 2400+
i was planning to buy a pentium D pc but after all these comments i'm not sure if i most get an AMD.
but i think that pentium d is better coz:
first of all it's cheaper than AMD X2 processors
and second it's better for multitasking ,and no one can tell me that he open just one application at the same time!


December 29, 2006 2:30 AM

Let's talk integrity. Intel released a chip with no math coprocessor (486SX) and made you buy an overdrive chip which made it the equivalent of a different Intel chip. The whole thing was a marketing gimmick.


December 29, 2006 2:10 PM

look everyone no one is getting anywhere on sorting this fact out. i am currently using a intel pentium 3 laptop and it works apserlutly fine when running windows ME but a little slow on XP. but im just waiting for my last 2 components and my new AMD desktop computer is ready to go!!
it consists of a:
AMD 5200+ X2 AM2 processor
1gb of ddr2 800 mhz ram
200gb sata harddrive
asrock vista-am2 motherboard
i-cute gaming case
2 dvd-rw dual layer optical drives
sont floppy disk drive
and a 500 watt power box.
hopefully ill be pleased with it.

but lets look at the facts why has AMD got a lower clock speed, well the answer is as followed,
the data busses on the AMD pipeline is alot bigger than intels there four there is no need to boost up the clock speed.
AMD did create the 64bit processor first so its quite acceptable that there 64 bit processors will be stabler and faster than intels.
but that isnt to say that intel can strike back with a more better 64bit processor.
anyway i am a AMD supporter but i dont see why people are fighting over it a processor is a processor i would say intel is a good make of processor but AMD just takes the biscuit from me as it isnt the speed it gives me nor the stability i get from it but its the quality.
i would personally go for the AMD but thats not to say that the intel isnt any good


December 31, 2006 10:15 PM

if you really want to know the best processor just look at what you want it for eg: gaming, server, office work, etc...


January 13, 2007 3:02 PM

hi all ...
I had bought new
AMD64bit 3200+ AM2,
MSI NVida chiset board
ddr2 512 533mhz ram
Seagate 7200 SATA HDD 120gb
Great Performance, Itz really a powerful pc..when compared to..

Intel pentium D 3Ghz
1gb ddr2 ram
seagate sata 250gb hdd
price of AMD is low..than intel...

SO GO AND BUY problem with Multitasking tooo...he he

Joe Smith

January 18, 2007 1:44 PM

My friend (Scott McNealy) at Sun Microsystems (, says, in very simple terms, the following...

If you have a lot of money then buy an Intel (you will spend a lot more to get the amount of power equivalent to that of AMD)

If you want more power for the buck buy an AMD (and spend less money too)

Paul P.

January 24, 2007 6:41 AM

i'll go for amd


January 25, 2007 11:46 PM

AMD VS INTEL, has anyone really been able to answer it without putting personal favorites into play? I do not think this can be answered in away that everyone will be happy with, because there are to many factors to be taken into account. Are we attempting to compare only CPU to CPU with out regaurd to chip set cash memory and how the programs are written to uses the instruction set. I do beleave you can compare the instruction sets between the two cpu’s but even with that you still have to see what instructions the program you are running are going to uses. EXAMPLE you can write 2 programs one that will run faster on the AMD than it will on the INTEL, and the second one that runs faster on the INTEL than AMD, it has to do with how many clock cycles are needed by the instruction set for the over all program to run and how many times it stays in and jumps out of its cash limits. AMD has some instructions that uses less clock cycles than INTEL and INTEL has some that uses less than AMD. I hate leaving you with this but try to find something you will be happy with and pray for the best. My choice is, “I WANT AN AM-TEL PROCESSOR” can someone make me one?


January 30, 2007 9:16 AM

LOL Is it just me or are all the people who are bashing AMD with the INTEL is better crap need to go back to school? None of the INTEL backers can spell worth a darn. Just by reading I would take AMD or INTEL any day. For the record I use a Pentium 4 - 2.8 but, I really miss my last AMD 2.1. It would eat this computer up. I have used this for about 7 months and although I do like it I will say that overall AMD is flat out the winner. I am a computer Tech and for the record, I very rarely see computers with AMD in here to be repaired. What does that tell you!


January 30, 2007 8:27 PM

If you look at AMD and Intel they are both great chips. But the one thing you have to look at is what are you going to use your computer for. Im a big Intel fan ive always had intel but if you look at them they both have their advantages and disadvantages. AMD is great for gaming, so if you want to game then go AMD, but if you mainly use your computer for applications and multitasking then go Intel. But right now intels core duo has blown AMD out of the water.


February 1, 2007 8:38 PM

ok I've always had an Intel Celeron 1.7 since it came out, my little brother got one a year later with a 1.4 AMD Athalon i think. Even though his computer was weaker then mine especially with his ATI Radeon with only 16 megs ram while i had 64 megs. there were still some things his did better then mine even after he got a bunch of viruses lmfao my next PC is prolly gonna be AMD but im waiting for the next Generation to come out to see who makes the bigger strides with the Quad Core, and im saving for it


February 2, 2007 7:26 PM

Tell you what. I'm running Intel's Core 2 Extreme on Windows Vista Ultimate, and let me say, it is the greatest PC experience EVER. Tried AMD, got fried on the first day.

Intel. D♭ D♭ G♭ D♭ A♭. Win.


February 5, 2007 10:35 PM

I've been building computers since I was 12, my first being a Pentium MMX 200, followed by an AMD Athlon Thunderbird 800, a Pentium 4 1.6Ghz and my latest an AMD Athlon FX-60. I also have a HP Pavilion ZD8080us laptop with a P4HT 3.4Ghz. my FX-60 runs quieter and it has more fans and video cards in it. The same laptop with an AMD has longer battery life. I'm sticking with AMD for performance and ease of use. If you have problems running programs or crashes, first set up Windows correctly to run your AMD with the Windows hotfixes and AMD downloads. Once I did that, it was evident that my FX-60 was an awesome choice and my scores on PCMark 05 compared to overclocked Pentiums are much better and I'm sure at a lower cost. Shop around and compare. Yes, now Intel has stolen some thunder with their Core Duo, but look at AMD's timeline for new chips and fabrications and with them acquiring ATI only good news to come in the future for gamers and multimedia consumers, which is mostly mainstream computers.


February 10, 2007 4:18 AM

I too have bad experience with intel processors including their customer support service when their processor gone wrong. I have never use overclock on processor but using high grade fan and CPU temperature monitor that it always lower than 50 degree celsius, but most of the P4s PC i have built often has problem after sometime. When it comes to warranty intel finds ways and excuse to replace. I would say intel might as well don't provide warranty. Also I have one P4 fail to run precisely right after 3 years. Intel processor really sucks.

Michael S

February 11, 2007 7:40 PM

I keep hearing AMD is better in gaming. Ok! it's better in gaming. Here are my daily activities:

Outlook, 3-4 excel sheets, firefox, IE, 2-3 powerpoint, Visio, itunes, GAIM, Quicken. What you guys are saying is with AMD my itunes is going to jitter every now and then and I am going to be annoyed more than an INTEL based PC if, for example, outlook is downloading my emails in the background while I am switching between apps and working away?

Give me some examples. What do you consider a problem? What would cause all my activities above to be noticeably disrupted? From what I hear AMD runs cooler. Better fan to run it cooler will guarantee no hick-ups?

I got interested in AMD (any maybe linux) after talking to a friend. Doing some research on www. Current system is INTEL Centrino Duo, 2Ggz, 1Gb, 80HD - IBM T60.
Appreciate your comments. -Mike

ALok Vats

February 14, 2007 1:33 AM

i did read a couple of blogs on this page on the AMD Vs Intel tussel. AND i am still confused? But her is what i know through my profession and understanding of solid state devices and processing. there is a limit to scaling up the CMOS i.e the gate length!! 90 nm then 65 nm and then 30 nm duh like the more smaller you go you may win on scaling and putting more transistors per square inch, but you can never scale the heating due to the resistance or impedence of the device!! the smaller the faster AND faster it fries!! A lot of heat generation in smaller gatelength devices!!...

i dont like intel and for that matter AMD. they talk about power and all that flatulent discription of their product line, but never have they really disclosed about the rationale behind their design or architecture! was it performance or was it reliability?

most of my work on computers is related to scientific computation. running recursive algorithms. And i still would say i would like my processor of choice to be reliable and fast!

also i would like to add that when i say fast i dont want to see 1 million extra transitors on my chip in the same square inch area. i would rather like a dual core!! now thats a brilliant idea! y not make it 3 cores or four cores!! YES! i am talking about parallel computing made posible due to these ingenuin ideas and affordable under 200$ well thats PRICELESS!!..

well i want to see both intel and AMD fight on who give more # of processors in one computer rather comparing who's single processing unit is faster. wuteva u do you cant have a perfect architecture. its a constant effort of R&D and both these companies have a lot of $$'s. darn it i have said enough! i ma stfu

laterz guys


February 14, 2007 7:03 PM

No AMD processor can keep up with Intel's core 2 duo line. More energy efficient, runs cooler, and faster!


February 14, 2007 7:10 PM

Most of you guys just read pc magazines and listen to what they say. Read maximum pc and pc worlds. And also try out these processors for yourself. Intel Core 2 Duo outperforms any AMD by at least 10%. They may cost more but if you want cheap processors you will get cheap performance.


February 14, 2007 7:22 PM

I build computers and I always use Intel. Just read reviews of processors. Don't listen to these guys. Intels core 2 duo is way faster than AMD. Even faster than their FX line. Intel already has quad core cpu's out.


February 15, 2007 9:34 AM


February 18, 2007 12:41 AM

Ever since I found out about AMD as an alternative to Intel many years back, I still had an edge for intel until I actually started gaming on AMD platforms. I must say AMD does out-do intel on gaming definitely. Since then, I've always been with AMD: they are reliable, more independent, and less likely to get sued, lol. Intel simply has had a popularity edge over AMD forever because intel makes their name be known in HP, Dell, etc commercials. When will there be AMD tv commercials? Probably when intel gets their market share taken out of dominance. Until then, you'll have the average consumer 'automatically' buying an intel system before seeing the light with AMD. As for more throughput per clock cycle, I would rather have that with AMD than more clock cycles overall. AMD develops with an underdog stance. Even if what they make is truly better than intel's, AMD has to fight long and hard to gain your average consumer's attention before intel overwhelms him or her with their 'automatic' popularity. AMD deserves to show the public what's better and that IS AMD.


February 20, 2007 3:58 PM

Unfortuently, I have to disagree with all you AMD fans out there. Intel has been on the market for many years now and yes they have crushed the market for being the most popular. Around 1-2 years ago AMD were the gamers choice in CPU's, but nowadays that has all changed due to the New Intel Core Duo 2 and the Quad Core Extreme. They are more performance and will leave AMD Fx's standing. Now many of you probably will disagree and that's fair enough but we have to face facts here. Intel are more Energy Efficent and will appeal to the Eco Market and with increased performance, no wonder the likes of Dell are using them in their XPS and Performance Range. We have to realise that Intel are not only looking towards a better Processor but a better expirence for their customers. No wonder people continue to buy Intel. So Intel go towards a more exciting future and all AMD can do is watch. Intel thrive on success and that's why they are SUCCESS. I leave you AMD fans with one last note INTEL RULES.


March 5, 2007 1:01 PM

Amd beats intel anyday!! we have 2 pc one intel 2.80 ghz 512 mb ddr ram 512 kb l2 cache.
And the other is an amd athlon xp at 1.67 ghz 256 kb l2 cache. the intel one chokes when the hard disk gets too full less than 20 gb left out of 60. and half life 2 freezes alot. the amd has 256 mb sd-ram 60 gb hard disk. with 6 gb free space runs a dream!!! even with less ram!
So who wins?? I go for amd!!! buy amd!! and it is cheaper!! When we build a new family pc amd it will be!!! we will never buy intel again!!! they are not bad but do not beat amd!!


March 6, 2007 7:27 AM

All Intel lovers, maybe its time for you to check this website where AMD outperformed INTEL even the Extreme Edition. After reviewing the decide. heehehe! AMD RULES!!!!!


March 7, 2007 2:50 AM

I wanna buy a new processor I'm looking into dual 64bit. Yet i can't decide which one Amd or Intel? Could Someone who REALLY knows this stuff please email me with an answer, and by the way I'm a gamer.(if that makes any difference.


March 9, 2007 2:11 AM

Intel is the brain of around 80% of computers on Earth, ever wondered why?


March 15, 2007 11:01 AM



March 19, 2007 3:55 PM

I choose AMD. better better cheaper cheaper

Maks Guyd

March 29, 2007 12:39 AM

AMD is much better then Intel. I build computers, and all my AMD costumers have no trouble with AMD at all. Intel, well I had to stop to work with them, to much trouble. Get AMD, less trouble, cheaper, more reliable. Go with ASUS made chips, very good quality staff. By the way AMD has a better website:)


March 30, 2007 3:20 AM

Amd and intel are both the same. but i would rather go for the cheaper chip. amd. amd rulez

Asadullah Ansari

April 5, 2007 5:09 AM

Why you people talking about money!!! Just go for performance. If you are going for single application program then AMD is better than Intel But for multiple application program, INTEL is the best...>> So guy just see and think what's is your requirement>>>


April 12, 2007 11:53 AM

I gotta say you all have gone off over and over again that amd is better or intel is better i have found that the truth of the matter is that neither are better. It's just in how the person uses them. I have had many intel and amd PCs and neither of them have been better to me and i have had and worked on computers since the 8086 processors (old XT computer) through so far an intel core 2 duo and i have had the amd as well and again i will say with all the games i play neither one is better than the other.


April 15, 2007 12:11 PM

if any of u say ur amd got fried, its for sure cuz ur fans is placed incorrectly...! wow, what a surprise. im running an x2 for like 3 months now, and now problem, runs so nicely... Ive pushed it with hl2, css, and other stuff, running at 4x-5x celsius, NO PROBLEM


April 15, 2007 6:00 PM

So this is the future of computing?
Adding core after core,etc.
What a load of crap!I feel the future of computing is heading backwards!
Why only in the last few years did they decide putting cpus in tandem would double peformance.
Cant they just produce a single chip with more power!EG:2x GFORCE 7600"S DONT BEAT A 7900GS!
[Do you see what im getting at]
Why not AMD 256bit with 64mb cache running at 10ghz!
Its a proven fact that less is more and i just hope in 10 years we dont have overheating octa-cores running at a decent 5.7ghz.
Call me crazy.
Ps i prefer AMD 64[No core as its good enough on its own dammit!]

Bill Gates

April 16, 2007 8:21 PM

There sure is a lot of controversy over what processor is better. I could be honest with all of you and tell you right away that Intel has higher perfomance processors than AMD. However AMD has much better quality and pricing, if you are poor and can't afford gadgets like me then you should stick with something less expensive. Intel has been around longer and know a little bit more about proccesors. Intel has some tricks up there sleeve for the next couple of years. I hope you all are READY FOR THE INTEL I-10-10
It is equal to 10 Core 2 Duo Processors, the cost is what is going to scare many away. The base price is: 12,350.00$ just for the processor alone!
It will mostley be used for super high perfomance computers.

The guy in charge on Intel

April 17, 2007 10:13 PM

AMD pwns and always will. I have an Intel in one of my systems and it sucks. I have an equal AMD that destroys it.


April 18, 2007 9:43 AM

I am an intel user.At present I am using Intel centrino mob tech 1.60 Mhz. and now i am planning to buy another computer, I asked few people about which processor is good i.e. Intel dual core T2060 or AMD turion 64X2 TN-52 but hasnt got a proper answer yet.I have never used AMD so I can not compare which is best ,but I am not very happy with my Intel based laptop....cuz it produce lot of heat and its impossible to keep it on laps after 20 to 30 minutes ,thats what I hate most and buying another laptop. Is it because Intel processor produse more heat than AMD ? Please let me know which one is better. I want to buy any of these > HP Pavilion Notebook PC dv6205/CT ( AMD ) OR HP Pavilion dv2200 Entertainment Notebook PC serie(Intel)... Thanks


April 18, 2007 8:46 PM

Core 2 Duo decimates AMD, and id like to point out

AMD is putting on DRM protection, yes such a great company.

Intel is the way to go.

Id say upgrade to a core duo at least though.

Anythings better than an AMD at this point though.


April 19, 2007 8:04 PM

Rink was wondering if Amd produces more, heat? to answer you question they both produce the same Go with the one you like, I really think both are great.


April 25, 2007 5:27 AM

i am really amazed by the wide variety of comments posted on this subject!

let me tell you my experience!

i had a P4 HT(i still have!). amazing processor! have run tons of code on it and trust me it never back fired! and i dont think AMD is any worst. i dont think there is anything to compare between these to brands! except for price... AMD is catching up breaking monopoly of intel and i wud say they r doing good.!

i feel its on the consumers to decide wat price they want to pay and wat r their requirements!

i see many of you just talk about speed related to running games well for me that totally video card and RAM, and a little about processor. these new bread of processor r being designed for wide variety of needs. gaming is just one where people start to compare speeds and wut not hahaha. well i think the consumer needs to get smarter and make there pick on wut to choose. the only important parameter in hands of a common man is $$. spend it in wut u think is good for u!

for the people who really understand computational power wud know that parallel computing is the in thing and all these core processors are nothing but a adaptation of parallel computing in a very RAW way. well to the people like me who use computers as computational resourse wud always like to see dual cores or multiple cores! thats the way to go! make them cheater and we will buy either intel or amd which ever is cheaper!LOL
anyways have fun guys


April 26, 2007 10:18 PM

Lately I have been looking at getting a new notebook from hp. I was looking specifically at two models, the dv9000z and dv9000t.

they basically have the same specs. The only difference is the dv9000z is about $100 less after I fully customize them. The dv9000z has the amd processor but I'm not sure if I am going to be dissapointed with it.

Should I spend the extra money to get the intel core 2 duo 2.0 GHz, or will I be satisfied with the AMD dual core 2.0 GHz ?


May 3, 2007 12:20 AM

i have a Intel Pentium d 820 1 gig of ram 250 hd and a 7600 gt video card and it sucks my friend has a amd 64 3500 same video card but only 512 mb of ram and he gets about 10 fps more than me :(

Ruffus Jones

May 3, 2007 3:20 PM

Im told Amd's handel calculationsmore effeciently. So my question is how can i tell from looking at the specs is this is true? i was comparing my amd athlon 3200+ to an amd dual core the HLT on mine is 2000 Mhz while the other was 1000 Mhz Is less better? also i noticed the L1 and l2 caches were higher in the dual core does that really make the difference?


May 28, 2007 2:34 PM

I have an Intel Core 2 Duo 6700 and the new Windows Vista Home Premium,I have to admit the processor is pricy, but the performance is awesome, better than the Pentium 4 at 3.00GHZ, and even better than the AMD processors


May 30, 2007 3:00 PM





June 3, 2007 11:12 PM

i think amd athlon 64bit x2 is better because it has smoother performance with gaming. and if it can run a high performance game, its about good with everything else. so i'd suggest getting a hp pavillion amd athlon 64bit x2 than any other type of processor.


June 3, 2007 11:14 PM

obviously amd is better

Sanjit Vignesh

June 8, 2007 1:43 PM

Intel's the best!!!

The core2 duo processors outperform the amd64X2 in both mainstream and 3D performance.

It is all due to INTEL's hard work!!!!!!!!!


June 20, 2007 1:16 PM

AMD first invented Dual core. Nonetheless, Intel copied it. Too bad AMD did not bother to do anything.


Online Coupon Codes

June 28, 2007 9:26 PM

Personally I haven't bought an Intel for years. I always get great deals on AMD from AMD works perfectly for me. I know that high-end C2Ds noticeably outperform my AM2 with similar stabilty, but I still went the AM2 route. In the next few months we will see AM2+, and everything I have read has said it will smash C2D's performance. It will be easy for me to upgrade to AM2+ or AM3 when the time comes.

As for ATi, I have owned both cards. I think ATi hardware is awesome too, but their drivers suck in comparison. I bought an 8800 when they first came out. Even so I will be switching to one of the DX10 ATi cards when I upgrade. They are also supposed to kick-ass. I just hope AMD starts giving us better drivers on a more regular basis.


July 7, 2007 7:14 AM

I'am sure that AMD is the best.
Not only for it's new chip,but also for all it's chips


July 11, 2007 8:29 AM

go AMD!! Keep getting better!


July 13, 2007 12:32 AM

amd k6-2 450 s3trio 3d, gf2 mx400
pentium 4 1.8 gf2 mx400, gf fx5200
pentium 4 2.0 gf fx5200, r9550xt
celeron d 2.2 r9550xt
sempron64 2600 r9550xt
athlon64 2800 r9550xt, r x800pro

all my intel experiences were crap.
even at overclocking celeron d to 2.7 it lags especially at doom 3. my amd k6 is still alive. i disposed all my intel and sempron. i love amd


July 31, 2007 8:04 AM

So in the end story people, which is better? AMD or INTEL? Which is better for gaming? I am still so confused with which one is better.


August 11, 2007 4:07 AM

i am planning to buy a laptop . still confused which to go for AMD Or INTEL.I dont want to go for cheap but some thing that is good.have heard good reviews about AMD .


August 16, 2007 9:48 PM

As a computer engineer and hardware aficionado, I have used both. Intel is a better server platform, but when it comes to gaming, AMD is the right choice. Furthermore, because of AMD, PC prices have stayed low.
Therefore, I recommend AMD for daily use. For normal use of desktop, laptop w/built-in wireless and graphics, gaming and desktop publishing, business apps, etc. AMD Athlon 64 is the way to go. See for yourself:


August 19, 2007 6:39 AM

hi doing my BE..jus hav a doubt of which prcessor 2 buy im sticked 2 amd s 4200+ k or shall i buy 4800+ and ll both the processors fit 2 M2NPV-VM motherboard.many of my friends had the prob that the board was dammaged .. so s it advisable 2 buy amd or shall i go for intel.reply asap..thank u!!!!!


August 19, 2007 7:48 AM

Hi everyone

ive had the same problem on choosing between an amd and intel....
lets compare prices... (all in the box) an intel computer would cost me $1700 and have a poor 32 bit processor and 2GB ram 1 graphics card. now AMD $1600 the 64 bit 6000+ 4GB ram 2 graphics cards!!!!!!.... i would choose an amd over intel anyday... the new dual graphics cards KICKS BOTTOM.
AMD FTW..... intel is like my dads computer who can do exel and word.... AMD my comp i choose for gaming like oblivion FULL GRAPHICS!!!!!
amd love u


September 5, 2007 3:12 AM

ok I want to buy a new lap top amd i was going to buy a comp with a dual 2 core centrino processor but after all these comments i think would be a good choice to wait for a couple of months while either amd or intel release a new model that convince each and every one of you guys, although everyone has preferences i hope you could recognize when there is a better product that the one you have bought...



September 12, 2007 12:45 PM

i use heavy softwares like dream weaver cad adobe photoshop etc

plz suggest me which and why??


September 25, 2007 11:03 AM

go to this site and you can decide what Processor to need-I love AMD!


September 26, 2007 3:50 PM

that amd chip in a long run is going to great...


September 26, 2007 5:04 PM

I m just as confused as all the guys have been here since the first post.I prefer intel for multitasking and AMD for gaming.BTW HAPPY posting till another year,or maybe a decade, or maybe a century.Who knows???Afterall technology is all about Upgrading to a newer level faster or quicker!!

amd cool

October 23, 2007 7:05 AM

my amd is 4years old and hes better than intel 2years old!!!!!!


October 25, 2007 11:25 AM

I have read a bunch of reviews here, I personally have been on computers with both intel celeron, pentium 4, amd 3400 and 4200. The difference to me was the motherboard and not the processors. I had a really good motherboard for the intel processors and the motherboard for the amd was not the greatest. The amd processor makes up for the lack in motherboard quality. The intel processor will NOT help you out if you buy a cheap motherboard-- amd will outperform intel any day of the week. I do not compare processors but everything else in the system--power supply, memory, motherboard. I have read many reviews and some component systems have not been compatible even though the graphics card is 8800 from nvidia and top of the line memory has not been working right in motherboards and so on...Crashing on computers from what I have experienced usually is not the processor it is the rest of the system failing to process.

vasant shete

October 26, 2007 4:46 AM

AMD is better than Intel bcoz it pipeling technology more HT speed good L1 cache than intel have./
intel have FSB of 533/800/1066 mhz.
AMD have FSB of 1600/2000 MHZ.
so guyes u decided which one is better in performance as well as in price matters


October 27, 2007 9:59 AM

amd is better than intel..

intel only wants your money..
intel processor also hot better than intel..

jangan lupe lak yg amd nie pasang kat Malaysia..
hehehe.. dont understand rite..??

amd is a good choice..

pankaj dhakare

October 30, 2007 1:31 PM

from my point of view and the facts i read above, AMD is better choice than this intel, though i have both the processors, AMD gave me some very outstanding results.
try amd turion igb ram, 2mb cache
and intel core2duo...>>AMD ROCKS!!!


November 6, 2007 11:20 AM

my PC: AMD Athlon(TM) XP 2000+ 1.7GHZ is better then my friend PC: intel 2800GHZ


November 6, 2007 11:22 AM

AMD is better than intel


November 9, 2007 6:21 AM

All depend what are you going to use it for. Say you will have to run Win server 2008 64 bit. Will you buy AMD system now just to find out that there will be no drivers for integrated devices for it? Like RAID or LAN? And it's not AMD's fault. It's what you get on your MB. And I can assure you will get some crap and there will be no drivers for future OSs. I've seen it so many times, I lost a count. You want to be cheap? You'll get cheap system.


November 9, 2007 6:36 AM

I just got Intel E6750 with DP35DP Intel MB. For that one specific reason. Need to test stuff on different OS. So far I was able to install every OS without any problems. Vista 32/64, XP 32/64 and 2003 P2 server 64 bit. All on board devices worked without any searching for drivers. Worked right from the MB CD. And I am sure all future stuff will work too. Not sure it will be so easy on AMD based machines. Or for that matter for Intel based computers too with some other party motherboards.

Intel worker

November 9, 2007 3:40 PM

Forget Intel chip they are too expensive and bad. I worked at Intel and will never buy Intel products. They are bad business. That why they are going down the hill. Everything they do are screwed up...

Intel worker

November 9, 2007 3:48 PM

I worked at Intel and very disappoing at Intel management and the big shot. All they want is your money and their chips are not that great anyway. I bought AMD chip for my home computer and I'm in favor for AMD, I will not buy anything from Intel logo. Big company like Intel should be off the market soon if they doing bad business at work..


November 22, 2007 5:55 AM

Hi, Just want to know the equivalent in overall performance of AMD Sempron 3500+ in Intel line of processors..


January 6, 2008 8:17 PM

i have a hp desktop with a amd athalon 64 3600+ and a hp notebook intel core 2 duo and i think that my notebook is much faster and has better graphics than my amd. although i upgraded my desktop to vista premium and my notebook already had it when i bought it and it slowed my amd alot. but over all i think amd is better.

Asadullah Ansari

January 9, 2008 1:06 AM

Graphics cards are different that Processor. Dont compare graphics stubs. Only by processing performance, and other equipments uses by Processor.If you wanna compare both then at any instant take the CPU uses in both processor that should be same.then run a same process on both CPU and find out CPU Ticks not general time as seen by you.

>>>> Asadullah Ansari


January 20, 2008 2:35 AM


AMD is good but only for gamers lol?
where is amd in laptop market lol?

Sanjay Kumar

January 29, 2008 1:49 AM

I know that amd is better choice than intel in performance. But I want to know that can amd processors work properly when I have my room temperature of 35 degrees for at least 12 hours. Please answer it quickly as i have to soon make my buy.



February 5, 2008 10:09 PM

im livin n a tropical place (asia), my first computer (2005) is an Athlon XP 3000+ with a kT600A Via Chipset. it equals the performance of an Intel LGA 3,0 Ghz that cost double though.

now i just bought the AMD X2 5000+ Black Edition with a 2 x 1024 Mb Cache. the multiplier is unlocked and its VERY good for multitaskin. although its not the best on the 64 platform. the best is Phenom QuadCore 9650+ now (maybe)

i think with a Us$500 i can have a n X2 5000+ Black edition, Corsair Twin-X 2 x 1Gb, Western Digital 320Gb Sata 16Bit/sec, Geforce 8500gt 512mb, thermaltake Cooler System A3, Altec Lansing 2.1 Speaker. and im satisfied.

u can render as much movies as possible. an u even can overclock the X2 5000+ to an astonishing speed or 3,2Ghz. (6,4Ghz total)

i might spend like almost US$750 for intel chipsets in similar performance, but in asia US$ 150 is a lot of money,..

do your judgements,. only craps that buy an intel. pure computer freaks knows what to buy,,..


February 11, 2008 5:35 AM

Its easy for the Requirements and Recommendations Listed for ex.Crysis are

Minimum CPU: Athlon 64 3000+ 2.0ghz or
Intel 2.8ghz

Recommended a Dual-core CPU by Athlon or Pentium D)

2ghz AMD = 2.8ghz Intel


March 6, 2008 1:35 AM

Intel is the best(since they signed up with my company).

Glenn Hodson

March 6, 2008 9:56 AM

PLEASE HELP! I want to buy a quiet pc for music production whith SONAR 7; a 64bit DAW. I am comparing the AMD X2 6000 with the INTEL E6850, both are 3Ghz but which is better? The DAW's recomendation is a 2.8Ghz processor so i could opt for an AMD X2 5600 or INTEL's equivalent? Ultimatly which is best for 64bit processing, AMD or INTEL?


March 7, 2008 4:07 AM

This is best explaination i can give

A - A
M - Machine in
D - Demand

I - Inconsistant &
N - Never
T - To
E - Economy
L - Level


March 14, 2008 10:26 AM

Hey need to know which one is better AMD phnom or Intel core 2 quad.Amd is having 512kb per core L2 cache and 2048kb combined L3 cache.while intel has 8mb total L2 cache so which is better for multitasking ,gaming and reliability.
please tell me fast i am in hurry to buy pc


March 16, 2008 10:18 AM

hey guys i am using intel core 2 quad 2.4ghz, RAM ddr2 3 gb, i am so worried bcoz my fren say he going to buy a pc with amd phnm and he says tat his pc will perform better then mine. So what u guys think

i even not try amd and i using intel for 9 years

WHY all cyber cafe are using amd????

anyway intel is better than amd

Mike chiu

March 19, 2008 5:54 PM

phnm is better than core 2 quad because phnm uses 4 separate cores and the architecture is better. while Intel uses 2 duo cores stick together to make a quad you may probably think wow! 2 duo cores thats gotta be awesome! but the 4 single cores dispatch the load equally to one another where as the the duo cores are only meant to transfer loads between the two cores so one side is overloaded for intel whereas AMD's is evenly spead out so the performance is better.

But hey im just a 12 year old kid why do i care? i only care about gameing.

OH ya and AMD rapes Intel up the bum crack


March 28, 2008 5:36 PM

pravin nike

April 4, 2008 6:53 AM

hi friends
right now i use intel p4 i purchase this before 5 years ago it is better than todays intel core 2 duo because recently intel chips wich are come in the market are vorce. but AMD still go with his quality and technology
if intel want to stable in the market it must come with his past quality and new technologies


May 1, 2008 10:18 PM

i allways go with intel. Thier more trusted on. I dont usally go with AMD beacuse some of the people i know that have AMDs are allways satisfied. Im running on an intel pentium III, and it still goes fast for its old age.


May 3, 2008 1:48 AM

Am an IT student who is studying microprocessors. 1 key thing ppl should know is that this guys intel n amd all come form the same place. intel or amd. Ryt now intel has a better range of products that out gun amds best. But on a one to one basis. i would go for amd a 2.0GHz amd is a god compared to a 2.0ghz intel. but if u have that money then ur choice should be intel but know that u will have the best chip for only a few months as intel will make a much better and more expensive cheap. If u want a platform (where you mount ur chips?) then u will go for amds. The thing about amd is there dont know how to market (advertise) while intel they r all over the place. want do i use myself well i use an athlon 64 x2. and i run lots of games, i have 4 oss. 2 linux and 2 windows. i really hate the amd cache its sucks but then it has 3 levels. One more thing for some strange reason most intel mp will get a higher vista rating ( by 0.1 really nothing i tell u ) than amd processors.....i tried not to take sides as i have also used alot of intels more than amds. For laptops unless u r willing to buy a $4000 alienware (top of the cream) then do buy an AMD as they can go up to 3.0GHZ on duo on intel would blow u if it was to reach such speeds.
but u should consider graphics, ram , motherboard, etc

Asadullah Ansari

May 12, 2008 1:55 AM

If you concern about money then AMD is the best.I measure performance on both processors
1. If both Processors are single then
approximately same performance.
2. If used multithreading programming i.e.
parallel computing on that time processors
having more than one processors i.e. core
dual, etc then Intel giving better
performance than AMD.

So only depends on your requirement. Both are good as per your needs.


May 18, 2008 5:07 PM

Well i heard that AMD gets hooter in Laptops after working some hours...!!!! Is it Ture? if Yes! then please explain me...cozz im going to get a new AMD based HP notebook...DV6700.


May 23, 2008 12:40 AM

Indeed AMD dual core chips are by far superior to the Intel chips. CNET did a comparison test between 4 AMD chips against 4 of Intel's counter's to the AMD chips. The leading chip was the AMD 4800+. Furthermore AMD chips give more bang for the buck especially the AMD 4400+.

Overall the AMD dual core outpaced the Intel's dual cores. CNET says that one of AMD favored attributes is that the memory controller is built into the chip. Intel has the memory controller built into the board hence there a greater lag time in processing for an Intel chip as compared to the respective AMD chip.

What is more, is that the AMD chips didn't simply beat their Intel equivalents but were also victorious in their battle against Intel chips that were superior to the respective AMD dual cores.

Anyway a 1.9 GHz AMD dual core coupled with 3 or 4 GB of RAM and Vista Ultimate 64 bit edition proved to be an excellent combination when loading and playing Warcraft III. I could just imagine if I had the 4800+ AMD dual core which goes up to 2.2GHz. The 1.9 was amazing!!!!

The Red October

June 3, 2008 10:53 AM

Im planning to build a new PC.

Im confused of which is Better setting aside the Price cuz I have all the thick $$$$Dollars$$$$.

I don't care how much I will spend.

I just want to now Which Is The most SuperHigh Performance Bet. the archrivals AMD and Intel CHipsets..

as I Know.. AMD Is superior In 3d Applications and at the same time, Intel holds the title in Info Processing...

Just Please tell me All the top of the line products on the market and I'll start building my most powerfull Pc Ever....


July 7, 2008 10:33 PM

Hi all,
just suggest that before you think about CUP,what first you think is Price, Capacity and in the future:
AMD vs Intel, i think that AMD will win and beat intel in the nearest future. also Intel just waste your money to pay on it, it's charge much money if you compare with AMD.
the largest Computer corporation,IBM always supporting with AMD also i heard that in this recenlty,America Government Server let IBM to create server to test Nu Cle Er by using AMD.
also AMD is smarter that Intel so far. intel just waste your money.
AMD will defeat and won intel soon with Capacity and power.


July 10, 2008 9:21 AM

Hi all,
I'm AMD's fan. And right now I'm looking for notebook that are using AMD. Apparently, in my country, Indonesia, there are not a lot of them using AMD. In fact, with my limited budget ($800 US & below), I can not purchase them at all. hiks hiks. Anybody can help me?
There are 2 brand that came into my budget, Toshiba and Acer. The problem are: Toshiba with AMD are black market (not came from licensed reseller, so the warranty only valid from the store, and not from the original one).
So, my choice is only ACER.
I hate this brand, because in my country they are sucks. A lot of problems come out after 1 year buying ACER (keyboard not working, shutdown automaticaly after you just turn it on, etc).
So, Any sugestion, guys? I don't want to come to the last option which is buy notebook with intel.
My first question is: How come there are not a lot of notebook with AMD in the market?
My second question is: Even though there are several brand have it, the price will be a lot more expensive than notebook with Intel (at least $1000 US & above, and the diferrence will be more than $300 US)?

That is all. Hopefully somebody can help me.....

AMD fan who is desperate,



August 11, 2008 9:52 AM

-Intel for everyday use. Good for multitasking (runs smooth while surfing, IMing, music, wordprocessing simutaneously) Does only fair for games, multimedia editing, 3d rendering

-AMD for applications where lots of processing power will come in handy. Tend to beat intel despite lower clockrate because amd cpus work more efficiently. Doesn't do multitasking very well tho.


August 20, 2008 2:01 AM

Hi everyone.

Nice thread. BTW, I'm an ex-Intel supporter. After supporting Intel products since the 80286 era, I finally changed side AMD. My previous Intel rig were: i80286-12, i486-DX2 25, Pentium MMX-166, P3-500, P4-2.8 and my last one was C2D-E6700.

Wondering why suddenly AMD? to tell you the truth, I used to 'hate' AMD processors. I 'hate' AMD because there were too many times where AMD punched, kicked and stabbed Intel (in benchmarks). I eventually had this 'urge' to have one AMD rig. Finally, just last week I bought myself an AMD Spider system (Phenom X4 9750 + Radeon HD 3870) and wow!!! I almost forgot my hatred (towards AMD).

-and after running benchmark(s), test(s) (i.e. 3d rendering, audio processing, video rendering) and comparing it to online score(s), I'm now confident that AMD is a real power house!!!

BTW, Intel still have a role in the market no doubt about it.... but AMD is always the winner.

Now I LOVE AMD!!!!

ah kien

September 7, 2008 11:03 PM

Hi.. some people tell me AMD will free supply pc parts to new cyber cafe when opening. this is true ? can tell me more information about this ? thanks Q


September 25, 2008 1:32 PM

yes i too have a amd athlon 64x2 with 512 ram having windows vista
belive me it run faster than a window xp with ram 1gb
any way amd is the boss
no one can beat amd
love u amd u r the superhero


October 3, 2008 7:22 PM

i am a computer administrator and i must say that amd is the best in performance and design. i try to run grand theft san andreas on an intel Pentium 4 with 256mb onboard video and 1gb ram and it crashed the system. when i ran it on my old amd athlon 64 with 32mb onboard video and 512mb ram and it didnt even hitch.

pradipa pal

October 5, 2008 10:09 AM

AMD is king...i hv intel core duo and AMD x2.same process take more time on intel machine.
so guys go for AMD.


October 10, 2008 3:49 PM

which is better in multitasking Amd Phenomx4 or Intel core2 quad? and does higher memory cash make a big difference? please help


October 12, 2008 11:11 AM

I need help PLEASE!!! I am going to buy a laptop and I'm a student.

AMD Turion 64 x2 Mobile Technology tl-60 or Intel Centrino Core 2 Duo?

Both are 2.0 ghz, 2gig RAM and 160 HHD... PLEASE I NEED A GOOD ANSWER?

vinod srinivas

October 12, 2008 4:54 PM

guys,i plan to upgrade my pc.shud i go to amd or intel?i use photoshop cs3,usual word processing,surfing,music,movies,and some normal stuff.i plan to use adobe premiere and maya 2gb ram enough for all these?pls help me out of this dilemma


October 28, 2008 2:09 PM

any one can not see deffrince between intel and AMD untill you dont try using both.If you are using intel and you want to upgrade your system than go form amd . dont upgrade your system for intel many times try one time intel and one time amd than you can note diffrince. some time your performance of cpu depand on your mother board also. every one must support both compaines to let them improve technolgy.


November 4, 2008 8:51 AM

I think AMDs are doing better at the moment because of there AMD opteron which is like the ultra dual core processor matching with intels quad core extreme


November 24, 2008 10:45 AM

I love my AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+...

Intel users are not intelligent, they've been fooled by this idiot company.


December 1, 2008 8:07 PM

It's kinda hard to decide which one is better. I am trying to buy a laptop and I need to know which one is better fast. So overall..please give a straight answer..INTEL OR AMD....

My friend is like a computer freak.. He once told me that INTEL was better but now he is telling me that AMD IS BETTER. grrr so confusing.

Based on performance, WHICH ONE IS BETTER?


December 6, 2008 5:26 AM

I'm planning to buy a new pc with intel core2quad processor. I had used P4 1.6ghz pc and intel celeron 1.5ghz before and i'm not familiar with amd. If comparing the quad-core architechture of amd and intel of same or almost equal ghz, which one is better? Are there any real test that have been performed to compare amd and intel processor on their performance, stability and etc that are realiable? Not a test performed by home users in their own home using limited set of hardware combinations.


January 2, 2009 7:57 PM

The funny thing is AMD have to split into two different companies just to stay afloat. Who did you say was the better company?


January 20, 2009 7:06 PM

Who cares what company is better. I only care about whats faster. I have an amd turon with 2.4 ghz and 4 gigs of ram but my XP profecional machine with 3.0ghz p4 and 1.5 g of ram beats the crap out of it when running aps opening new windows and downloading. I'm not a computer genius but if my new machine is so much faster it does not mater cause I cant use the alegid speed.


January 24, 2009 3:57 PM

Intel is like Bose, they spend money on advertising, bose poducts suck, (no highs no lows, must be bose!) Intel chips are good but their better ones are extremely over priced. I have an AMD 6400 X2 currently and FSX still runs both cores to the max, it does a good job but I need to go quad core.

Every comp I had in the past had intel, all of my home builds have been AMD, the speed for normal apps and "normal" gaming is excellent, FSX runs great too, I get bursts of 60-70 frames per second in the VC. Intel may have a 3.2 ghz for 1550 dllrs and they can keep it, cause AMD just released their quad 3.0, and its 235 dllrs, I am going to have to stick with AMD.


February 8, 2009 11:02 PM

base on my 10years experienced...AMD is better than Intel.. 3d games, online games, video & audio editing.. etc. and if you are comparing which is run faster & reliable etc.. look for their price.. if AMD processor worth $1,000.00 then go same price for intel also..
Learn from your experiences!

Fazri Efendi, Selayang

February 24, 2009 3:43 AM

intel:Intel was well know branding in semiconductor industries. There have a huge fund for execute their RnD, Technology capability and maketing. as we know intel was now establish with 65nm (plan go through 45nm and 35 nm) with 300million transistor in 2 core duo processor.The smaller architecture allows CPU manufacturers to build processors that use lower power and run at higher clock speeds, as well as cram more transistors on a CPU die. But watch up... their will claim all this with high prize for every intel product.. unless you dont care about prizing and looking on stability and high efficient processor. that is INTEL will give...

AMD:One of the biggest CPU makers, had a lots of inovation in their technology recently. play around 65nm (road map through till 45nm) one of main competitor to Intel in multicore series. advantage in direct connect multicore design. Integrated DDR memory controller with hyper transport will provide high speed data signal handling. AMD comeout with high speed processor by more value price.


March 12, 2009 2:03 PM

hi guys, my friend uses AMD ethlon 4400+ with NVidea 8600 DDR3 graphics he plays GTA Iv with medium and i use Intel 2.4 same graphics but my system is better


March 22, 2009 10:46 AM

INTEL is the world's best processor

well well,, there are a lot of fools around here who thinks AMD is better than INTEL.. cheaper doesn't mean its best, also if you are using MS windows, it has to be intel processor for a best match.

Benchmarks are totally bullshit, I'll let you all know my personal experience, probably sempron was designed by some moron, my first proc, later I bought P4.. now I'm using core2quad and I've installed win7.

the same dvd of w7 i tried to install on my friend's comp which has a phenom or whatever it is.. on my sysm it took only 12mins to completely install and create a user account, to do the same on phenom based, it took like 23mins, he got better configuration than mine in the way of RAM, he got 4GB while mine is 2GB, this is not the only reason.. i've seen AMD's showing hell in computing for users.

A friend of mine works for AMD, he himself has admitted that INTEL is far superior than AMDs.

why do people buy ferrari or BMW not others?? there are so many cheap and better cars than ......

IF YOU ARE NOT USING INTEL, OR IF YOU HAVE NOT USED INTEL.. then its a waste of life you are living


March 26, 2009 10:51 AM

INTEL is used very good tech
& INTEL can,t (heatup) than AMD & do not releas large amount of heatnees
when AMD system start its speed is very good but when AMD system is (heatup)
there speed will be decease.


AND R U LIKE INTER????????????????????


March 26, 2009 10:51 AM

INTEL is used very good tech
& INTEL can,t (heatup) than AMD & do not releas large amount of heatnees
when AMD system start its speed is very good but when AMD system is (heatup)
there speed will be decease.


AND R U LIKE INTER????????????????????

Tom C

May 25, 2009 9:13 PM

Hi, I started off using a AMD K-6 processor, I can not remember the speed though I think it is about 350 MHz, 128 MB RAM, 20 GB HDD, 1 MB On-Board graphics I think.... Then got a Intel Faileleron which was a 850 MHz, 384 MB RAM, 40 GB HDD, 8 MB On-Board....
I found that AMD can run better than Intel in the long run....

I had Windows 98 on them both, both had the same amount of apps to be fair.

AMD K-6:
Fast start up, Good endurance, good for money....
Intel Faileleron: Fail.... Slower start up of about.... 20 seconds...
Took ages loading a simple program..... (Internet explorer 4 or 5)
The moving up to 2004, my first AMD Athlon XP chip...
2 GHz, 256 MB RAM, 80 GB HDD, 256 MB Nvidia GeForce ( a bit further up the time line)

My Brother has a
Intel Pentium 4 2.88 GHz, 80 GB HDD, 512 RAM, Slightly higher GFX card (Not sure on model)...

I am now speaking to your people on my COOL, QUIET AND FAST!!!!! AMD Athlon XP 2800+ .
But with these upgrades...
1.2 GB DDR 400 PC3200 RAM, 320 GB HDD, 256 MB GFX CARD...
Reason why...
Cheaper, better preformance even on heavy loads...
Simply better!

People that are buying new PC and want to save money and get superior preformance..... Go AMD!
Couple of months ago....
Intel broke.
Newer aswell....
Ge it's a shame how it never got to see 2009 but my AMD did.

I Love You AMD!
Shitel Shall Die aswell as Vista.

Faileleron = Celeron
Shitel = Intel.
Good Night people.


June 14, 2009 1:51 AM

Hi Guys listen
AMD is Always Better Than INTEL
Because Cheaper, better performance even on heavy Applications like gaming and multimedia.Am musician keyboard I using Steinberg NUENDO 4 Software For Composing Music. In INTEL NUENDO 4 Software is Run Very Slow......
In AMD Very Fast Rendering And Response.

from INDIA


June 24, 2009 6:23 PM

ok peeps let me sum this up for all of you.
intel I7 extreem quad core 3.2ghz $1000.00
AMD phenom II quad core 955 black edition $298.00

thats the first point.

AMD processors are built rugged and tough to handle 7.0 ghz per core stable!overclocked go ahead and check the resources and you will see.... intel flopped out at 5ghz per core so basically for Extreme overclockers and high end users it rules! now think about this if it can run stable at 7.0ghz per core hows it run at 3.2ghz factor? pretty damn smooth. so to sum it AMD all the way.i mean a $1,000.00 can get you a whole built computer with a phenom II 955 quad core in it.


August 11, 2009 12:07 PM

new updated info. for those of you who benchmark your system. the amd phenom II 955 black cpu just broke the 3Dmark06
benchmark record of 43,000!!! it benchmarked 45,693 running at 6.5 gzh per core stable. TAKE THAT INTEL!!!!

Joe sayor

September 9, 2009 10:26 PM

Wow whos the noob who said intel flopped out at 5ghz, of course, it's hyperthreading noob, which means that 8X5 is better than 4X7 .... Omg people can't calculate. Intel can crush amd anytime but amd can crush intel anytime with the price. performance = intel by far
price = amd by as far


September 11, 2009 4:19 PM

Hi Joe,

i have been building high end computers that include both Intel and AMD for around 18 years there chief and thier so called hyperthread technology isnt faster and cooler as a true core.just because they put in 4 cores then split,thread them to divide the work load doesnt mean its faster.Run a program that Monitors the core usage and run a few different programs at once and see just how well your hyperthread technology works.I'm my Past Studies doing that exact test, 3/4 cores running with I-7 extreme with 4 programs stressing the cpu.Ran same test on the phenom II 955 black wich if you know yer stuff...was never meant to compete with the I-7extreme to begin was built to Compete with the I-7 940.anyway ran same programs and only 2 cores of the phenom II brushed the tasks off like they were nothing.That of course means that the under heavy load on the Intel had to work harder running 3 out of 4 cores with "hyperthread".the load variences between the 3 cores was all over the place. Wile the AMD ran 2 cores and split the load evenly.So i raise a glass to the one who decides to call me a noob, you are definately a treasure.know your facts befor you come at a pro


September 14, 2009 12:40 PM

i'm doing a project i need to compare and contrast intel and AMD. Can you Give Me a few lines.


September 25, 2009 12:39 PM

The winner is...

It wasn't even close.

After reading the round-by-round account of our dual-core desktop CPU prizefight, it should come as no shock that AMD's Athlon 64 X2 chips are the runaway victors here, laying out the Intel Pentium D and Pentium Extreme Edition 840 chips pins up. If we had to call out one chip, AMD's Athlon 64 X2 4400+ is an outstanding bargain given the competition, but as our results show, any AMD dual-core CPU will serve you better than its similarly priced Intel equivalent.

If you're wondering why there's such a striking performance difference between the two companies' processors, it likely has something to do with the memory controller. Among the technological differences between the two, AMD's memory controller--the component that sends information back and forth between your system's CPU and the memory--is an integrated part of the Athlon 64 X2's chip architecture. Intel's memory controller, however, exists as a separate piece of silicon on the motherboard. The additional distance between the CPU and the memory controller adds to the processing lag time and likely plays a part in Intel's lower scores.

Whatever Intel's strategy, it doesn't seem to have held up. We're very interested to see what happens when the next generation of chips and chipsets hits the market starting in January. But until then, AMD's Athlon 64 X2 should be your dual-core processor of choice.

Find out more about how we test desktop systems.

Intel test bed
Asus P5N32-SLI Deluxe motherboard; Nvidia Nforce 4 SLI chipset; Crucial 1,024MB DDR2 SDRAM 667MHz; 256MB Nvidia GeForce 7800GTX (PCIe); WDC WD740GD-00FLA2 74GB 10,000rpm SATA; Windows XP Professional SP2; Antec 550w power supply

AMD test bed
Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe motherboard; Nvidia Nforce 4 SLI chipset; Crucial 1,024MB DDR SDRAM 400MHz; 256MB Nvidia GeForce 7800GTX (PCIe); WDC WD740GD-00FLA2 74GB 10,000rpm SATA; Windows XP Professional SP2; Antec 550w power supply

CNET Labs project leader David Gussman constructed the test beds and performed all testing.

Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Round 7

Post a comment



Bloomberg Businessweek writers Peter Burrows, Cliff Edwards, Olga Kharif, Aaron Ricadela, and Douglas MacMillan, dig behind the headlines to analyze what’s really happening throughout the world of technology. Tech Beat covers everything from tech bellwethers like Apple, Google, and Intel and emerging new leaders such as Facebook to new technologies, trends, and controversies.



BW Mall - Sponsored Links

Buy a link now!