Intel vs AMD

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.

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.

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.

Considering performance:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050603/index.html

"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.

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.

i meant em64t

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.

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.

hi,

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

hi,

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?

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.

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!!

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!!!

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

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?

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.

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

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)!

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

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!!

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.

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.

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 pentium..you 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...

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 ?

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!

HELLO
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
I AM USING AMD AND REALLY HAPPY ABOUT PERFORMANCE IN ALL TYPES OF APPLICATION GAMING AND MAINSTREAM TOO
AMD KICKED ON INTEL'S BALL'S
AND NOW INTEL GOES OUT OF RING

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

seems like amd much of a better choice.

so comparing
intel 3.2GHz and amd thlon proc.3400

i guess amd is better?

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

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?

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

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 +X2..my friend is trying to sell his on ebay haha..

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,

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
india

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

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,

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR INTEL
(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
newegg.com
(best site EVER)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/26/06
--SGM

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

AMD 4 ever!

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.

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

NO COMMENTS

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.

NOW SOME FACTS TO SUPPORT INTEL

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

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 .

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)

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?

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-AMD RULES-

I have amd athlon 1600 with 603 megs of RAM and an old Intel Pentium 3 500 mhZ WITH ONLY 256 MB OF RAM. MY OLD INTEL RAM FASTER AND MORE STABLE. MY AMD RUN SO HOT AND NOISY AND OFTEN HANG OR FREEZE. WHILE MY OLD INTEL P3 RUM QUITE. I DON'T EVEN TURN OFF MY INTEL COMPUTER AND NEVERHAVE PROBLEM. I THINK INTEL PROCESSOR ARE MORE STABLE. I AM PLANNING TO BUY NEW INTEL EXTREME EDITION FOR MULTI TASKING AND GAMING.

amd or intel which is best as language and os support

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

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

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).

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

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

AMD BEST FOR GAMERS
INTEL FOR BUSINESS

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

AMD > Intel

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

Simple.

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

AMD "rocks" :)

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.

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

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.

Yo how 'bout them new
Turion 64 X2's eh?
From the looks of it (AMD.com 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.

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: FiringSquad.com). 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'

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

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

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

I too...am 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

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.

Hi,

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.....?

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.

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 yoni5002@comcast.net 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...... :)

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2484&p=13 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 anandtech.com

"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.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1982&p=10 Look at more evidence to support AMD clearly AMD has an advantage at this point. i will get back with more website reviews

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

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1982&p=10 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.

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.

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

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.

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!

-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.

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????

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.

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!

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!

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....

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!

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

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)

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 it.game 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 it.you know better than anyone what you want...

Intel D940 or Amd 4200 for Sonar 5.0?

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

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

GO HERE:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html
This will explain how much better AMD processors are compared to Intel.

Good Lord.

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

Thanks Ozzie! :D

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

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
http://www.Tomshardware.com

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

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.

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

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.

Cheers.

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.

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.

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

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.

Thanks

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

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!

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.

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?

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.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/AMD_Athlon_64_Benchmarks_May06.pdf

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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...

;-D

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?

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

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.

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: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2484&p=1) >> if u read this you would see AMD WON !! (amd:1000 Intel:0.001) AMD rules it cant be beat .. ;)

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)
3800+
Windows XP Professional Version 2002
Svc. Pack 2
2.41 GHx, 1.96 GB of RAM

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?

http://yh.yayhooray.com/thread/87919/AM2-vs-Core-2-Duo?page=2

Dear AMD Fans:

Please visit this site...

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,
india

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.

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.

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 Birdman0@gmail.com

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.

HI EVERYONE
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.

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 .

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!!!!!!!!

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.

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

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.

Colin
AMD !!!!ROCKS!!!!

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

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html

old but still in use.

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.

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

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...

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.

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 o