Recommended Posts

There has always been the constant debate about which is better but I am still at a lose after all these years. I use what I need not what other people tell me as I seem to come across mixed reviews. What is everyone here using and why? I go for price vs. what it will do for me, not just the branded name on the side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you came to the wrong forum, as this topic has nothing to do with storage and HDDs.

When it comes to heavy math stuff, Intel still outperforms AMD. For example, Maya is rendering faster by 10-15 percent. For gamers, AMD is still preferred as it supports massive overclocking thus gaining processor cicles. And is cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea I did, sorry about that. When I tried to post it was not showing the new thread/topic button so I did not have an option and tried here for a general area. Right now this machine was built for work first then gaming, but its still running AMD. I have been out of the loop a little and just wanted to double check, I have not caught up with the time I have been away just yet. And I am not a big overclocker either, I just get lucky with the prices I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as Intel decides not to license the later SSE4 iterations, they will always be superior to AMD since SSE4A is a joke compared to the later SSE4 of Intel.

As soon as people realize how much slower AMD chips are performing on video encoding apps and games compiled with sse4 optimized compilers, they will dump AMD and buy Intel.

AMD still uses SB600 based antiquated southbridges, and their AHCI support is terrible. Other than that, the only time I recommend AMD is for people who want to squeeze as much performance for their dollar in the meantime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am using dual Operton Shanghai processors in my homemade laptop.

I choose AMD for a few reasons.

1) at the time, the most efficient dual socket motherboards were for AMD chips

2) I needed a large amount of memory and graphics slots

3) I needed a layout for the processors, as such that I could isolate heating zones in my laptop

4) Tyan provided me with all of my needs on there N6650W/S2915 Motherboard

More

5) with AMD, I do not need pricey FB-DIMMS, Normal DDR2 ECC memory with parity, needs not to be actively coolers

6) AMD chips tend to run cooler, my idle temperatures are 77F, and peaks at 94F. So I am in check there.

That is dual 2376's clocked up at 3.01Ghz on my motherboard.

7) the processor upgradability. My motherboard supports low clocked 1.8Ghz dual cores, all of the way up to the 2.9Ghz 6 core Istanbul's

Negatives:

AMD's processors are not as powerful as Intel's offerings these days.

My 8 cores of processing power is maybe 30% faster than an overclocked i7 920 at 4Ghz

In a physical bought laptop, I will use Intel every step of the way. Intel mobile processors have always been ahead of AMD mobile processors. AMD was late to the laptop game, and by the time they entered. Dell only took them for a few low end models, and HP is still basically the only one who sells AMD mobile chips. They simply cant compete, and they suck down more current than the intel mobile chips do.

On the desktop platform, I have yet to find one good AMD motherboard. They are all terrible. I had a few of those very expensive DFi boards, and they are simply not worth it. After the fact, I should have just stuck with Abit/ASUS for a nice 775 board.

In the server environment, I am all about AMD and TYAN. They work well together as companies, and they work well as a platform. Cool, and efficient power generation, is all that I ask for, and tis why I choose them for this application.

Well that is my story.

K-TRON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the explanation is simple. AMD is good at performance while Intel has the quality on their processors. I'm a gamer and I have tried using AMD and Intel to test the performance and quality of each processor. AMD runs fast with the games but compromises the quality of it. Intel on the other hand have very good image quality but you need a lot of memory to run the game smoothly.

Right now, I'm using AMD but I will give this to my brother and I'm planning to buy a new box with Core i7. This will be my first time to run i7 so I'm really excited to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMD runs fast with the games but compromises the quality of it. Intel on the other hand have very good image quality but you need a lot of memory to run the game smoothly.

How much memory do you have right now and what games are you running? I would imagine depending on the resources needed for the game, it will matter but I am trying to get a middle ground. Mostly I am sticking with WOW, FPS's (even though I have moved some to the PS3) and thats about it, other than the occasional AION or Counter Strike (when I need to go smack a friend of mine around).

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 4GB of DDR2 Ram. (Do you think DDR3 is faster than DDR2? I'm still don't know which kind of memory I will get for my new computer). My video card is has a 512MB of memory. When I play Fallout 3 or Empire Total War, I still can see some squares on the screen. I like to have the fluid video in games that Intel can provide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For my next 2 or 3 builds I'll be going with AMD for value and upgradability. For low end to mid range systems AMD has an excellent bang for the buck. For bleeding edge Intel wins, but it's way beyond my budget. Much depends on what you plan to do with the computer, as well as the budget. Computer hardware is a moving target, and I prefer to plan for simple upgrades and additions 2 to 3 years after purchase which tends to favor AMD. Socket AM3r2 and DDR3 with series 800 (consumer) chipsets will be supported for several years on the desktop with a major boost in performance possible. Intel's chipsets and CPUs are splintered with feature and market differentiation. Intel systems are generally a bit better on the desktop for now, so long as you're willing to pay a bit more, but their features and future upgradability is often compromised. The mobile market is (justifiably) dominated by Intel, but AMD is starting to catch up. The major problem will be dragging OEMs away from Intel "deals" and paying proper attention to AMD implementations as they become available. YMMV ;)

Edited by Lamb0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intel... always has been and always will be (cough)

From our first computer (laptop) on a P3, over 2 Pentium Ms, to a Pentium Dual Core, to a Core2Duo we only ever used Intel.

(We = my mother and me)

My mobile uses Intel too...

And desktops don't exist at out home :D

(although if I go on the way I do with photography - I'll need one one day... yuck)

Edited by DetlevCM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Various really.... their both good at what they do.

AMD Side

My server is a 21TB storage machine running VMware ESX 4.0u1 Vsphere. This is a 790GX machine with a Phenom II x4 940 (3.0Ghz) in it with 8GB ram.

My HTPC is a simple triple core AMD machine, 2GB memory, 780G chipset with a added passive Nvidia 9400GT for VDPAU.

Intel Side

My desktop is a very small case (Silverstone SG-03) watercooled Intel Core i7-920 @ 4.2Ghz. Asus Rampage II Gene, Nvidia GTX260, 6GB memory

My laptop is a Compal IFL90 with a 2.2Ghz intel chip and 4GB memory. Not sure, T7500 I believe.

So I believe both AMD and Intel have a reason to exist. Both are good at what they do. Over the last years AMD is a cheaper and has good performance for the money. Intel on the other hand is a bit more expensive, but will win you every benchmark. But.... things aren't always about benchmarks. My HTPC is more then powerful enough. 1080p is still very modern and my HTPC does it well, either using software decoding or hardware. So why buy a more expensive intel solution for that?

My server is the same thing. Even when doing 200MB/sec over the network from within a VM the host only has around 30% cpu utilization. Running 5 or 6 VM's, you run out of memory or disk I/O way sooner then CPU. This also is using Windows 2008 R2, in the foreseeable future nothing will really change (say 2 years) and thus the server is scaled to that and does not need to cost more then it does. Very Very happy with it. Also at the time I built it (a year ago) it was the most power efficient option.

My desktop on the other hand I hopped on the Core i7-920 bandwagon. My desktop is also used for gaming and my plan is that it will have to survive one video card upgrade and preferably two. The poor 2.66Ghz is over-clocked in a case that is smaller then almost anything out there. Running very well and 24Hr linx or prime95 stable. This gives me an insane amount of processing power, so much that the next 2 years nothing will be brought onto the market which will surpass it. Sure, there will be processors with more cores, but no fundamental change in architecture that would boost performance way beyond what it is now. So, looking at that, it made sense to invest some more money, because it will also last longer. Also for gaming, I believe Intel does hold an edge. I believe intel does hold their edge on the desktop. When prices drop the 260GTX will be replaced with a 470GTX or 480GTX and a year after that it will be replaced with a newer version of that.

So both are very good at what they do in my opinion. :)

Edited by Quindor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm running AMD at present in both my PCs - one because it stomped all over Intel at the time I bought it (before Core 2 came out), the other because it worked out cheaper than Intel for HTPC, had lower power consumption and I could use a simple adapter to connect the integrated Radeon X1250 VGA directly to my CRT TV's RGB SCART input for the best possible signal. Couldn't do that with Intel or nVidia integrated graphics. Since then, I've upgraded to a Radeon 5570, and bought a flat screen TV that I connect to over HDMI, so the only advantage left is that it was cheap and the CPU only consumes 45W (X2 4850e).

If I was buying a new gaming PC today, I'd go Intel, for longevity of adequate performance (i.e. it'll perform adequately for longer than a comparably priced AMD system). If I was buying a new HTPC today, it'd be a tougher call, especially with the new CPUs with integrated graphics. At the low end, AMD wins. Low mid range to upper midrange, both are competitive, though AMD rarely beats Intel by huge amounts. High end, AMD still can't keep up with Intel - they may have more cores, but for most desktop users that's not as useful as fewer, faster cores. As for servers, I currently favour Intel for non-virtual systems, though the 12 core AMDs are pretty competitive as virtualisation hosts, especially with the extra RAM slots over the Xeon 5600 series.

It looks like Intel's next architecture, Sandy Bridge, will come out before AMD's Bulldozer architecture - even so, there's a possibility that Bulldozer will be faster than any Intel chip when it finally comes out. AMD have made some interesting architectural choices that may give them an advantage over Intel. But AMD are suffering from their relatively slow rate of architectural innovation - they didn't really improve their Opterons after stealing a march on Intel when they first came out, and Intel caught up, then surpassed them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto to what Quindor said -- it varies.

My current desktop is a dual cpu AMD opteron. Its 5 years old, but runs nicely. Its survived 3 video card upgrades, 2 CPU upgrades and a ram upgrade - overall its a very stable system. At the time I got it, AMD was the speed king. Now with intel being the speed king, im going to jump on the i7 980x bandwagon and hope this upgrade will also survive 2 CPU upgrades, 3 video card ugprades and a ram increase (only time will tell).

On the other side of things, im looking to upgrade a friends PC and I want something that will be stable, not break my bank - yet still run good, so im going for an AMD system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The next few boxes are likely to be AMD. The initial requirements for the first box (my Mother's) are minimal - a low co$t light usage PC initially, then upgrading to a HTPC with modest file server capability. AMD has a long term upgradability advantage with simpler compatible long term CPU choices. If the purchase is soon enough, even an ASUS M4A785TD-V EVO will be sufficient as both serial (NON-USB) and parallel ports are desired; and I prefer UnBuffered ECC RAM. OTOH, Intel has an overpriced confusing feature matrix and socket compatibility that's too messy for my purposes, IMHO. (YMMV):rolleyes:

For my own desktop I have yet to decide between the Llano using a variation of the C32 socket or the AM3r2 version of Zambezi. Time will tell; but my current graphic requirements by no means extreme, and I'm not a gamer. I guess you can tell I prefer building AMD boxes.:D

The third box is to be more of a compute/VM server with lots of RAM and disc...eventually. I still prefer the AMD route here as well. Though Sandy Bridge will be out first for consumers the server versions will follow later with Intel likely pricing them beyond my grasp. Again, AMD has a price/performance advantage even with Istanbul/Magny-Cours in the C32/G34 socket - upgradable to the Orochi/Zambezi Bulldozer type CPUs. Again, YMMV.;)

Perhaps I'll add a Bobcat based Ontario CPU/APU in a Brazos platform notebook for longer battery life in lieu of the more power hungry Llano as an upgrade from my tired old 2Ghz 1GB Sempron 200M laptop. Either is likely to have better native graphics than Sandy Bridge.:P

FWIW, NONE of my software requires Win7, nor is it likely to. Most of my Windows apps run with WINE, (I even use old DOS and WFW apps), and I boot XP only 3 or 4 times a year. A Windows VM will be sufficient for at least a couple years; and my Mother is a happy MEPIS linux user. I can probably get by waiting for Win8.B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you came to the wrong forum, as this topic has nothing to do with storage and HDDs.

When it comes to heavy math stuff, Intel still outperforms AMD. For example, Maya is rendering faster by 10-15 percent. For gamers, AMD is still preferred as it supports massive overclocking thus gaining processor cicles. And is cheaper.

I also think so.

__________________

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now