AMD general vs Intel general

[Singular9]

I know this is another freaking amd vs intel thing, just want to clear some stuff up. I prefer amd, probably because im on a very tight budget. No i will state some facts and i want to see who will agree.

AMD CPU's
1. Cheaper
2. Is NOT slower than intel
3. works well with other amd components (syncs well with graphics cards and other amd products)

Intel CPU's
1. Expensive/Impractical (price vs performance does not match amd)
2. Fast enough at 3.0 GHz
3. Likes to work alone (using loner companies such as nvidia or msi for graphics and so on)

Who agrees?

The thing is i have had both intel and amd and at such high speeds of 2.5ghz and up it is impossible to feel a big difference in daily use (ms word, videos, internet etc.) But i just think that intel is impractical for its price FOR everyday usage, it would never pay off, unless you are a very heavy gamer. AMD does not conserve power and wastes it like crazy but still manages to get the job done.

Who agrees?

Then one thing i noticed, on my intel, i end up having " not responding " items more often than amd and for longer periods of time. I mean for gaming no lag or anything but on internet browsers of ms outlook it freazes while acts a little bit slower but no lag and no "not responding". is that just me or what. Idk what my intel proccesor is cause im waiting for a new monitor right now and cant really check, i have an amd phonom II x4 840 at 3.2GHz.

 

[skitz9417]

i agree but are u starting a flame war

 

[Rammy]

They both have their niches. AMD can offer better value in some situations. Pretty much everything else you wrote is rubbish.

 

[socialfox]

i agree but are u starting a flame war

+1

 

[skitz9417]

hey socailfox

 

[socialfox]

hey socailfox

Hello

 

[itzdanielp]

Oh boy... I see this getting nasty 🙁

I agree with you, that for STANDARD USE (the example you gave, internets, office utility's, movies) an AMD system is a better, and more economical system, and the APU's that they are putting out are actually pretty good on energy consumption.

If you are running a system where performance is critical (gaming, datacenter workloads, graphics / video editing, 3d rendering) then the performance / dollar ratio is much better going with Intel.

One thing I do not agree on is AMD systems being more stable. I have both high end intel and amd systems, and I do not have a stability or "unresponsive" program issue with either one.

But you are absolutely correct *Based on the premise you stated in your opening statement*

 

[infinitynmc]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with AMD. If you're on a tight budget, they're the way to go. I just prefer Intel, and that's how it's always been.

 

[casper1973]

Prices tell you a lot in my view.

A quad-core AMD will be outmatched by a quad-core Intel but the Intel will cost at least 50% more - so this should be expected.

I personally like the FX-4300 for it's low price and good performance but as you go up the models they get less desirable to me. The 'flagship' 8350 model comes too close to the price of some i5 CPU's and doesn't match them on 'real' performance. Mainly because most applications don't support 8 threads yet.

 

[FinneousPJ]

I know this is another freaking amd vs intel thing, just want to clear some stuff up. I prefer amd, probably because im on a very tight budget. No i will state some facts and i want to see who will agree.

AMD CPU's
1. Cheaper
2. Is NOT slower than intel
3. works well with other amd components (syncs well with graphics cards and other amd products)

Intel CPU's
1. Expensive/Impractical (price vs performance does not match amd)
2. Fast enough at 3.0 GHz
3. Likes to work alone (using loner companies such as nvidia or msi for graphics and so on)

Who agrees?

I don't agree.

AMD CPU's
1. Nope
2. It is actually, especially in the high end
3. Untrue -- and if it were true AMD would be shooting themselves in the foot, which is why it shouldn't be true either.

Intel CPU's
1. Untrue on many occasions
2. True
3. Untrue

The thing is i have had both intel and amd and at such high speeds of 2.5ghz and up it is impossible to feel a big difference in daily use (ms word, videos, internet etc.) But i just think that intel is impractical for its price FOR everyday usage, it would never pay off, unless you are a very heavy gamer. AMD does not conserve power and wastes it like crazy but still manages to get the job done.

Who agrees?

I agree it's mostly a trivial choice for everyday computing in terms of performance.

Then one thing i noticed, on my intel, i end up having " not responding " items more often than amd and for longer periods of time. I mean for gaming no lag or anything but on internet browsers of ms outlook it freazes while acts a little bit slower but no lag and no "not responding". is that just me or what. Idk what my intel proccesor is cause im waiting for a new monitor right now and cant really check, i have an amd phonom II x4 840 at 3.2GHz.

It's not a matter of Intel or AMD, though.

 

[Lucam]

The I3 I have destroys some of AMD's higher range CPU's. The I5 3570k performs better than some of the highest range AMD products, practically all of them, but hey that's only my experience. The only thing impractical about intel is the price of the I7. The I5 and I3 perform extremely well for their price. But hey this is my experience, and I've use many cpu's from both companies.

But AMD is better for everyday use. But an I3 is only $115 and it performs extremely well for the price.

 

[Singular9]

wow what wonderfull feed back, like i said im not hating on intel or amd. i am actually thinking about putting together a pc just for general use right now, but i would like it to be fast because some times i play things like world of tanks and skyrim.

so what would be the perfect medium as far as price, worth, performance and the lot. like what would be good for both and be good on budget. my current pc is like not really mine its a family pc and it has a phenom 2 x4 840 at 3.2 ghz, i got the whole pc for around 550 bucks at one place and all the stuff is completely amd.

 

[13thmonkey]

I know this is another freaking amd vs intel thing, just want to clear some stuff up. I prefer amd, probably because im on a very tight budget. No i will state some facts and i want to see who will agree.

AMD CPU's
1. Cheaper
2. Is NOT slower than intel
3. works well with other amd components (syncs well with graphics cards and other amd products)

Intel CPU's
1. Expensive/Impractical (price vs performance does not match amd)
2. Fast enough at 3.0 GHz
3. Likes to work alone (using loner companies such as nvidia or msi for graphics and so on)

amd
1 - true
2 - false - but often not important in real life
3 - false - works with any other components

intel
1 - true - more expensive than amd, but impractical is wrong
2 - true
3 - utter rubbish

 

[tomokoja]

Ask someone that builds and sells hundreds of pc's. And ask them what type of customers are more often disappointed. The answer, I believe, is of three letters.

 

[darksparten]

AMD CPU's
1. Cheaper
2. Is NOT slower than intel
3. works well with other amd components (syncs well with graphics cards and other amd products)

Intel CPU's
1. Expensive/Impractical (price vs performance does not match amd)
2. Fast enough at 3.0 GHz
3. Likes to work alone (using loner companies such as nvidia or msi for graphics and so on)

ry
If all you do is non-intensive stuff like office work/videos/gaming then yes AMD is enough, but for intensive things like 3D Rendering, Server farming, and benchmark whoring, Intel beats AMD by a significant margin, for instance, try doing 3D with an FX-8350, dual Xeon on C606 Chipset will easily outperform it, try running a server with FX or Opteron, Xeon easily beats FX and beats Opteron for value.

1. True
2. No
3. they work as well with other components as Intel. In fact if anything I'd say Intel actually works better with others because Intel natively supports USB 3.0 and PCIe 3.0 whereas AMD cannot support PCIe 3.0 and requires external controllers for USB3.

1. No(depending)
2. No(depending)
3. wtf?

 

[jaguarskx]

Both AMD and Intel have their places and people will choose whichever one meet's their criterias.

I know what my criterias are. The only question is when to upgrade since my current PC still provides me with enough performance where I do not need to decide now what to upgrade to.

 

[Brett928S2]

Hi

Its horses for courses....

BOTH are for different things...

As an example..if a Pensioner comes into one of my shops for a decent modern Pc to replace his old XP machine at a REASONABLE price, we sell him an AMD quad etc, if a gamer comes in with money no Object, we sell him Intel...

Neither are BETTER than the other as both the Pensioner and the Gamer GO AWAY HAPPY...

All the best Brett

 

[darksparten]

Hi

Its horses for courses....

BOTH are for different things...

As an example..if a Pensioner comes into one of my shops for a decent modern Pc to replace his old XP machine at a REASONABLE price, we sell him an AMD quad etc, if a gamer comes in with money no Object, we sell him Intel...

Neither are BETTER than the other as both the Pensioner and the Gamer GO AWAY HAPPY...

All the best Brett

+1

 

[sarinaide]

Im gonna just piss over this flamewar and walk away laughing.

 

[amuffin]

I know this is another freaking amd vs intel thing, just want to clear some stuff up. I prefer amd, probably because im on a very tight budget. No i will state some facts and i want to see who will agree.

AMD CPU's
1. Cheaper
2. Is NOT slower than intel
3. works well with other amd components (syncs well with graphics cards and other amd products)

Intel CPU's
1. Expensive/Impractical (price vs performance does not match amd)
2. Fast enough at 3.0 GHz
3. Likes to work alone (using loner companies such as nvidia or msi for graphics and so on)

NOT TRYING TO START A FLAME WAR.

Me thinks you need some work. 😗

 

[haswell5271]

AMD can't perform as well as Intel when it comes to gaming, hands down. BUT when it comes to rendering AMD can wipe the floor with Intel's i5 chips. It's i7's may still under-perform against the AMD's 8-core's processors but they are comparable. If you want a gaoming rig even an i3 would be fantastic. I build i3 gaming rigs a lot and they still outperform AMD's "Quad cores".

 

[haswell5271]

AMD can't perform as well as Intel when it comes to gaming, hands down. BUT when it comes to rendering AMD can wipe the floor with Intel's i5 chips. It's i7's may still under-perform against the AMD's 8-core's processors but they are comparable. If you want a gaming rig even an i3 would be fantastic. I build i3 gaming rigs a lot and they still outperform AMD's "Quad cores".

 

[OnyxGunslinger]

Like many others have said, it comes down to cost and what you intend to do. If you don't have a ton of money to game on, AMD can still give you enough performance to please your need, but that depends on you. That being said, for gaming, intel wins in the benchmarks.

 

[xanderlane]

I'm a n00b to computer hardware, but from the research I've done I would prefer AMD, but the problem is AMD motherboards don't have PCIe 3.0 interfaces. A lot of great graphics cards have PCIe 3.0 interfaces so by force I choose Intel.

 

[sarinaide]

I'm a n00b to computer hardware, but from the research I've done I would prefer AMD, but the problem is AMD motherboards don't have PCIe 3.0 interfaces. A lot of great graphics cards have PCIe 3.0 interfaces so by force I choose Intel.

The cards are backwards compatible, you just use PCI e 2.0/.1 instead of 3.0. And it makes absolutely no difference