Intel or AMD

[Parker 1st MRB]

I'm planning on getting a new computer and I wanted to know what you guys thought of Intel and AMD Athlon. I usually go with Intel and I've had AMD before, I'm just curious what you guys prefer and why?

[Jasko]

1st off, if you are buying Amd, you should by a PhenomII, and second the only thing Intel has on Amd now is their hyperthreading (which most programs dont support today) and their 6-core processors. Best band for your buck is an Amd. For more power at an equivalent speed to a similarly slocked Amd is about a $100 price difference. It's up to you.

[Greco]

it depends. With an i7 system your looking to spend around $400 more at least than a PhenomII based system. In gaming the PhenomII 955 or 965 both perform the same as the i7 920. I use amd, I personally have a 955 and have loved it for a year now since it was released. I personally suggest you get PhenomII 955 or 965. AMD also has some new 6 core processor coming out soon...cant remember when exactly. If you go i7 920, that is $300 for the processor, $300 for the motherboard and you have to buy the ram in sets of 3 because it uses triple channel instead of sets of 2. You wont regret AMD. Get the 955 or 965 if you can spare the $30 more, 8GB of OCZ, Crucial, corsair, or mushkin ram which will last a while before needing to upgrade, and a Gigabyte motherboard and you will be set. =) Also solid state drives are nice. =) I want one.

I also see a lot of votes for Intel...yet no one explaining why you would want to spend the extra $400 to get the same gaming performance. If you guys are going to suggest he spend more money on Intel you need to explain why. At this point in time there is no need to have an i7 for gaming. There are plenty of benchmarks on the web showing that while gaming the i7 performs little differently vs the 955 at stock speeds. Sometimes the 955 actually beats the i7.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Greco 1st MRB

[Parker 1st MRB]

Ok I should have been more specific.

Intel Core 2 Quad Processor Q8400 or AMD Athlon II 630 Quad Core

[Goodwin 1st MRB]

I voted Intel, simply because it's what I have experience with.

They've always ran VERY solidly for me, and performed what I've asked of them flawlessly.

I did have an AMD machine at one point, and always felt as if it was just a touch less responsive than I cared for. It only lasted about a year before I upgraded.

My vote was COMPLETELY personal opinion, and not based on any sort of 'research on testing', but rather how I've always felt about how they've performed for me personally.

That said - I'm in the poor house, and my next build will probably be whatever I can scrounge around for - and most likely won't be for another couple years anyway.

[Ford 1st MRB]

I love the AMD/ATI supporters who always spout the same lines.... Same performance for cheaper.

It's getting old guys. They aren't the same, be it performance, price, whatever. They are not really even comparable.

True, Intel is more expensive, but as the saying goes, you get what you pay for. AMD makes great products, Intel makes better products. Pay less for an AMD if money is an issue. Pay more for an Intel, if it isn't. That's the only difference. Personally, I have used both on several different occasions. I build PC's for friends and family. AMD is good for certain things, intel is good for others. They both are good for gaming, Intel is better for multi-tasking. As I said, it all comes down to what you want to pay.

I didn't vote but If I had to choose, the Intel would be the one I would go with, and that comes from the many different experiences I have had with both brands. They just make a better product.

[Janke 1st MRB]

Being on an iPod, I won't type much, however I chose Intel because I've had better experiences with them, and traditionally AMD has been a bit behind Intel, though they're getting more caught up now than ever before. I'll post more when I get on a computer.

[Greco]

Being on an iPod, I won't type much, however I chose Intel because I've had better experiences with them, and traditionally AMD has been a bit behind Intel, though they're getting more caught up now than ever before. I'll post more when I get on a computer.

Traditionally AMD has not always been behind intel, only lately they have been. P4 was blown away by Athlon. And the only reason the core2 series picked up the pieces was because of the help intel was given from AMD. And the fact that AMD has better price/performance is that..its a fact so it will continue to be used comparatively as such. If you are doing extreme multitasking and/or video encoding, then of course the i7 will pull ahead. However in countless benchmarks, differences between the i7 and 955 in gaming are minimal. So for someone who is a gamer, I go with amd and save a few hundred dollars and laugh at everyone who think they get an i7 because "it makes my gaming faster and i gets me more fps". If you want more fps get a better graphics card. Iv had more than enough personal experiences to back this up. I do this for a living. Iv had 2 i7 920's as well as my 955 I have now and I have to say im glad I did comparisons of them cause I made a lot of money selling all the intel stuff i didnt need cause the 955 was more than good enough.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Greco 1st MRB

[Ford 1st MRB]

So what you are saying is....

Intel, a multi-million dollar company, is knowingly selling the exact same chip as far as performance is concerned as AMD for $400.00 more? Or AMD, also a multi-million dollar company, is sitting there saying, hey, we make the same product, let's take a huge loss and sell it to the public for $400.00 less than it's worth!!!

These guys are rich because they aren't stupid, and to do what you are saying is just stupid. I'm not calling you stupid mind you, just look at it like I said. If they know the products are exactly the same, the prices would be closer together. AMD isn't playing "the nice guy" and lowering their prices to make sure the consumer is happy. Companies don't work that way. They are aware their product, when compared to a similar competitors product, isn't equal and therefore should be sold for less. It's simple economics.

Does that mean the AMD won't out-perform the Intel in some field? Absolutely not.

What it means is, both companies are aware which product is better for the all-around everyday user. True they may perform very similar for gaming, but let's be honest here. Who uses their PC strictly for gaming? I like the fact that when I finish gaming I can load up a file in flash, edit it without lag, work in Hammer editor to make maps and not lag, listen to music while i'm surfing the net, downloading a movie and still not lag.

As I said before, you get what you pay for. I personally prefer to pay more.

***THIS IS JUST MY OPINION****

[Greco]

So what you are saying is....

Intel, a multi-million dollar company, is knowingly selling the exact same chip as far as performance is concerned as AMD for $400.00 more? Or AMD, also a multi-million dollar company, is sitting there saying, hey, we make the same product, let's take a huge loss and sell it to the public for $400.00 less than it's worth!!!

These guys are rich because they aren't stupid, and to do what you are saying is just stupid. I'm not calling you stupid mind you, just look at it like I said. If they know the products are exactly the same, the prices would be closer together. AMD isn't playing "the nice guy" and lowering their prices to make sure the consumer is happy. Companies don't work that way. They are aware their product, when compared to a similar competitors product, isn't equal and therefore should be sold for less. It's simple economics.

Does that mean the AMD won't out-perform the Intel in some field? Absolutely not.

What it means is, both companies are aware which product is better for the all-around everyday user. True they may perform very similar for gaming, but let's be honest here. Who uses their PC strictly for gaming? I like the fact that when I finish gaming I can load up a file in flash, edit it without lag, work in Hammer editor to make maps and not lag, listen to music while i'm surfing the net, downloading a movie and still not lag.

As I said before, you get what you pay for. I personally prefer to pay more.

***THIS IS JUST MY OPINION****

nono...im not saying intel isn't better....it is the better chip hands down. What im saying is in gaming they perform very similar...so for someone buying a new computer looking only to play games its only wise to choose the AMD especially if you dont have a lot of cash. Of course if you have the money to blow get the i7. Mot of this kinda stuff is a matter of personal preference and opinion as you said. Different people have different views.

Also in reference to this:

I like the fact that when I finish gaming I can load up a file in flash, edit it without lag, work in Hammer editor to make maps and not lag, listen to music while i'm surfing the net, downloading a movie and still not lag.

I can do all that as well. I used to map a ton.....hell I mapped back when I had a single core 2GHz processor and it took FOREVER to compile, sometimes an hour on big ass maps!!!!. Now I can do anything i want without lag. Like I said... a lot of this is a matter of personal preference. And hell if i did have the extra money to blow I woulda gone i7...I mean wouldnt anyone get the best of the best if they had the money for it?

Edited March 26, 2010 by Greco 1st MRB

[Gooderham 1st MRB]

This topic is relevant to my interests.

[Janke 1st MRB]

Traditionally AMD has not always been behind intel, only lately they have been. P4 was blown away by Athlon. And the only reason the core2 series picked up the pieces was because of the help intel was given from AMD. And the fact that AMD has better price/performance is that..its a fact so it will continue to be used comparatively as such. If you are doing extreme multitasking and/or video encoding, then of course the i7 will pull ahead. However in countless benchmarks, differences between the i7 and 955 in gaming are minimal. So for someone who is a gamer, I go with amd and save a few hundred dollars and laugh at everyone who think they get an i7 because "it makes my gaming faster and i gets me more fps". If you want more fps get a better graphics card. Iv had more than enough personal experiences to back this up. I do this for a living. Iv had 2 i7 920's as well as my 955 I have now and I have to say im glad I did comparisons of them cause I made a lot of money selling all the intel stuff i didnt need cause the 955 was more than good enough.

False, the P4 was at least 2 years ahead of the Athlon series. I know, I had an early P4 equivalent Athlon and a P4 era Celeron, and the Celeron was released a full 2 years before the Athlon was, and it still had a bigger cache and faster core clock, and it's a budget Intel. Every time I've checked the comparisons until recently AMD has been behind for the cost of the chip, only in about late 2008-early 2009 did they catch up, offering the same core clocks or faster for the same prices, but about half the processor cache. This would then make AMD have similar/the same benchmarks in games seeing as those computers just play that one game, however the greater cache on the Intel chip for an extra $40-$100, sometimes being more than double, allows it to multitask better than the AMD chip, as well as process/compile video faster than the AMD chip. As well, Intel had overheating prevention technologies built into their processor since the PIII, if it hit 115 Celsius it would shut down. AMD took until their Athlon64 series to implement a technology like this. As well, from most people I've talked to/reviews I've read Intel chips overclock more stably, to a faster core clock, with less heat, and tend to fry less than AMD chips.

[Warren 1st MRB]

Intel for the win. that's all i have to say.. I like the fact i can game and blast tunes while alt tabbing to facebook and shit.. my amd couldnt do that at all.. gaming was fine but multi tasking sucked