Amd or Intel? Which is next for you?

[TSIMonster]

My next will AMD as well. I mean heck, how can you beat an x2 3800 for $130.... I don't need anything more then that.

 

[TSIMonster]

And a bit more serious question: Is anyone having buyer's remorse? Did you get a system and then realize that you really needed/wanted a system that was powered by the competing company's processor?

The only complaint I have about my system is the LOUD ATi cooler on my x850, great card otherwise... but forget sleeping with the PC turned on (yes, it is that bad)

 

[CaptRobertApril]

I am not Jack

Er... hmm... ah... I call everyone Jack! Y'know, like "hit the road, Jack..."



Thanks for the info, QC!!!

 

[nibenentt]

I just go for which ever is best power for price at time. Just ordered the parts in my signature today to replace the old athlon Xp 2200+, MSI Ti-4200 computer that i currently have.

 

[sandmanwn]

Sorry, if sony is a big part of it, its going to fail. History has shown that with new technology. Hopefully IBM can find someone to sell the Cell to before it goes the way of the betamax and the minidisk, it sure is an astounding piece of hardware.

Oh and BTW, sony is the devil. They make microsoft look like a big cuddly teddy bear when it comes to business practices.

:lol: You didnt think I was serious, did you? :lol:

 

[CaptRobertApril]

Well I'm surprised the thread has stay relatively civil.

We are all reasonable people here.

Well, almost.

Some are raging crazed lunatics that howl at the full moon thirsting for the surging blood of fanboys.

I should know. I'm one of them.

:twisted:

As for me, I'm definitely going AMD. But I've already proven that I'm crazy. :lol:

 

[dasickninja]

 

[elpresidente2075]

Sorry, if sony is a big part of it, its going to fail. History has shown that with new technology. Hopefully IBM can find someone to sell the Cell to before it goes the way of the betamax and the minidisk, it sure is an astounding piece of hardware.

Oh and BTW, sony is the devil. They make microsoft look like a big cuddly teddy bear when it comes to business practices.

:lol: You didnt think I was serious, did you? :lol:

I was really hoping you weren't...

 

[Xajel]

I don't care. Most of the smarter posters don't care either. We go for the best product at the time of our purchase.

define smart poster.

for me I'm choosing X2, and to be exact AM2, if I can't go for AM2 then I'll go to Core 2 Duo...

I care about upgradibility too much, and for me, I'll never feel the deferences between both in my real usage. so I wong go for 10% performance that I won't be able to feel, I'll prefere for the most trusted and dynamic upgrade path. at this point, and with my older experince in my bad market, upgrade some times is better than 10% performance !!

as I said, I'm not a fan, and if I can't go for AM2, I'll go for Core 2. 939 wont give me the upgradability that AM2 offer

 

[elpresidente2075]

I think perhaps he means the smart enthusiast that posts here. Being an enthusiast's website, it can be safely assumed that many(most) people posting here are hardware enthusiasts, people to whom performance matters much more than value due to the enhanced upgrade cycle that they are on. To many people here, buying any component and then throwing/selling it away a few months later is common practice.

However, to many other posters here and in the "real" world, that just isn't an option. The values and merits of a certain technology must be analyzed on more than one level, and should be taken as a whole for a wise buying decision to be made.

There are some posters here (generally those with moderate to very high post counts) who often can't understand this. Best performance is best performance, regardless of any other circumstance. This is what makes the Tom's Hardware forumz so hard to deal with sometimes, as out of this thinking comes the thought of a fanboy and shortly thereafter comes a flame war, and it devolves from there.

I only wish we could all get along here, but due to the natural ego that comes from having your name "permanently" engraved somewhere, and that engraving counted, and the anonymity of the internet, it is impossible. I know many here are doing better, but those with low post counts are definitely either looked down upon or completely disregarded by those with high post counts, just because they haven't made as substantial of a "contribution" to these forums as others have in the form of post count.[/rant]

[hippy voice]Why can't we all just get along, man?[/hippy voice]

Just so that my point of view is clear, I bought my rig in my sig in January of this year and I have been very happy with it. Being a Comp Sci. major and a computer technician for the residents at my school of over 4000 students, I have yet to see a Core2 in action and be wowed by its amazing abilities. I have, however, seen many many many computers that are greatly inferior to mine and definitely cost much more than mine. I have no buyer's remorse, as I am sitting here with my 3200 overclocked to 2.46 on the stock cooler and blowing every one of my friend's computers away. I also have a great upgrade path with my 939 dual Sata II. I am mostly content with my computer, but that which I am not content with makes me love my work even more. How about everyone else?

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

I just purchased an Opteron 175. I went AMD because all I had to do was replace my processor to go from an Athlon 64 3200+ to a dual core Opty.

If I was to switch to AM2 or Intel I would have to buy a new motherboard and new RAM, an expense I was not willing to incur.

If I was building a system from scratch today I would go with an Intel dual-core (not the quad). K8L seems promising though, but that's a long way off.

 

[adonlude]

I just purchased C2D, but I will always purchase Intel even if there are times when AMD is outperforming them. This is not because I am a "fanboy", it is becuase I am a stock holder. It is becuase my father spent just about his entire career at Intel up until retirement and Intel has provided my family with a comfortable life.

One thing that bothers me though is when I see people claiming that Intel follows AMD or Intel got everything from AMD. The ignorance in those statements is just incredible. Anyone who thinks that needs to, at a minimum, read the AMD article at wikipedia. Intel invented the microprocessor, the instruction set, the chipsets, various forms of RAM... AMD was and Intel cloning company, a second source so that Intel could sell to IBM. When AMD started undercutting Intel's pricing, Intel dumped them and refused to give them 386 so AMD sued and won (partially) and forced Intel to give AMD its designs... blah... educate yourselves. The bottom line is that AMD, only for the last five years even, "saw far by standing on the back of a giant", the giant being Intel. AMD once had to buy NexGen to design the K6 for them to finally start competing with Intel. AMD can't even do their own onboard graphics, they had to buy ATI.

 

[elpresidente2075]

AMD can't even do their own onboard graphics, they had to buy ATI.

At least now they've got a kick butt graphics subsystem that they can integrate into their boards, unlike Intel's which is passable, but not worth much on its own. Also they have diversified their investments now by being in two major markets instead of one.

I do find it odd though, as soon as AMD stopped copying Intel's designs, they started kicking their butts. And don't bring Core2 into this, as its like comparing the XBox360 with the PS2. Next gen vs. last gen = no comparison. When AMD brings out their next architecture, it will be at least on par, if not marginally (greatly?) better than that of Core2. Only then will we be able to make proper comparisons between the "next-gen" processor uarchs.

Edit:
AMD is definitely the follower here. They see something that's better than theirs, then they put out something on par or better. That may not always be the case, but at least right now it is.

 

[adonlude]

You are correct, AMD will now have much better graphics then Intel, but at the same time they are delving into a much different market. Intel was never attempting to bundle a GPU that could play Oblivion on high. AMD is in uncharted terrority and it remains to be seen what will come out of it. My original point though was that AMD has added very little to the microprocessor market on its own. It expands on other people ideas and buys other peoples solutions.

AMD's success was on an updated architecture and an extension to the x86 instruction set, all built upon Intel's tech. Intel made a mistake and held on to the netburst architecture far to long, that was a really bad move on Intel's part becuase AMD developed the tech further during that time. In the end though AMD and Intel's architectures and instruction sets are all simply a progression of Intel tech. Other companies have invented their own tech, not AMD. SUN Microsystems has its own Instruction set and architecture, Apple did before it switched to Intel. AMD has never had its own. This is the point I am trying to make and I only want to make it to the people suggesting that AMD was the inventor and innovator and Intel is the copier.

AMD made some good additions and both companies have alwyas had their hands tied with backwards compatibility, but dont forget to give credit where it is due. Here is a good metaphor: Intel invented the internal combustion engine, AMD starts building it too. AMD may from time to time add some things first like say, DOHC, VTEC, or a turbocharger, but that doesn't mean they can take credit for the engine. Meanwhile other companies are inventing the rotary engine, and the jet engine, AMD never invents their own engine, they just keep trying to build upon the most successfull engine, Intels.

From the 1970's to 2006 AMD built it better for about 5 years. Not a very big chunk huh

 

[elpresidente2075]

Well, when you are a smaller company like Subaru (not so small anymore, huh?), there isn't much time for inventing. Only time for making/improving what the customer wants, and that is a piston engine. No need to look down on them for that.

Same thing with x86. x86-64 is a VERY highly modified (so modified, required a patent) form of the 64 RISC that was put on to the very old, and basically outdated x86. The only reason that any company still uses x86 is due to the fact that Microsoft doesn't want to change their source code for a new, better architecture. That has changed a bit with Vista, but not dramatically as though they were going with RISC or the Power architecture.

My point is that there's no reason to look down on AMD for doing what is right in the business sense. It would have been really dumb to put out a product that wasn't compatible with anything that 90 percent of the world uses. If they did have that freedom of being #1 and had the ability to actually change what everyone uses, I rest assured, they would. But as it is, their hands are tied by the 400 pound gorilla that is Intel.

And Apple used the Power architecture, made and developed by IBM. Small point though...

 

[adonlude]

All good points. By the same mantra there's no reason to look down on Intel for doing what is right for itself in the buisness sense either. People love to hate the big guys. People blame Intel for strong arm tactics, throwing its weight around, and other stuff like that but it is just bussiness and it is all legal and rest assured, if AMD was the big guy it would do the same things to maintain its profits. As previously stated AMD has used strong armed tactics as well. Intel's blood sweat and tears went into the invention of their product and come 386 AMD sued Intels product right out from under them, only years later did they try to add anything to Intels invention. Its all legal though and its all bussiness.

If AMD's hands are tied by the giant that is Intel, then I only want to remind you that it is Intel that gave AMD hands.

 

[elpresidente2075]

If AMD's hands are tied by the giant that is Intel, then I only want to remind you that it is Intel that gave AMD hands.

Quite good sir, well put. I would like to say though, that those days are in the past, and we are rapidly moving into the future. Hopefully such practices are not needed in the future. I would also like to add, when you make the point about AMD not inventing anything, they properly licensed *most* of their instruction sets after the 386. The others were gotten from Intel's older designs that they had proper access to anyway. Either that or reverse engineered to be better. 8)

 

[adonlude]

All very true indeed. My attempt at a history lesson is aimed mostly at the people who make blanket statements like "Intel sucks and they get everything they own from AMD". Chances are ill probably be lucky if even one of those guys is here reading this. Regardless, it was a good conversation and I will have to keep a link to this whenever I run into one of those people.

 

[sandmanwn]

and all this time i thought Intel and AMD were both children of that crazy Fairchild Semiconductor.

i guess when someone gives you a hand in this industry, its your patriotic duty to cut it off at the wrist.

 

[elpresidente2075]

Their executives definitely were, but I don't know about the businesses. Neither seems like a spin off or child of the once great company.

i guess when someone gives you a hand in this industry, its your patriotic duty to cut it off at the wrist.

And then grow a new one!! 8) :lol: