Intel? AMD? Why?

[bhc]

Just curious, are you pro Intel or pro AMD and why? Please explain beyond the technical aspect. I don't want it becomes another tread on CPU architecture debate. It is a chance to explain your personal preference/situation. No flame please. If you don't like to answer, just stay away.

I used to pro Intel, not strongly but more out of familiarity, but now I am personally rooting AMD to do well. One simple reason: when is the last time Intel sells its top-of-the-line CPU for mere $350?? If not for a viable AMD, I bet we would have to pay $850 or maybe $1000 for the 1.7 GHz P4 (or 1 GHz PIII if AMD totally screwed up) today.

**Spin all you want, but we the paying consumers will have the final word**

 

[Guest]

I used to get sucked in with INTEL INSIDE.
To be fair, not so long ago AMD, had some serious compatibility and performance issues to deal with, thats why INTEL was the only way to go.
But now..........only the fools go BLUE in the face, as they fork over their hard earned cash.

p.s. IBM used to be big blue - they got burnt, now its INTELs turn. hehehehehehehehe




however, we all start at the end and finish at the begining

 

[tartarhus]

Consider me a hardware slut; I have no loyalty. I'll go with which ever cpu fits my needs. Intel's chipsets are more stable/predictable, but amd systems deliver better performance for the dollar.

-- Chaos is the better order.

 

[Guest]

I think many AMD defenders want as much competition as possible, therefore defending the underdog. At least, I'm like that. Even when I used intel systems myself (and when it was worth the extra cash, like when the K6 competed against the P2), I always hoped new AMD cpu's would perform as good as possible, simply to push intel forward (which is exactly what they have done). It will not be before AMD has 40% market share, that I will stop hoping the best for AMD. (THats not to say I would necesarely recommend AMD systems to my friends, or buy one myself if there isnt a good reason)

What drives intel fans is not entirely clear to me.. That is to say.. I can understand someone recommends intel systems in some cases; I mean even now, there are some valid points to prefer a P4 over a Tbird.. and its entirely correct to emphasis certain strong points in intels architecture.. but what drives people like AmdMeltdown.. I dont know.. a kind of processor hooliganism ? Or they have stocks in intel.. or work for them (like raystonn). and therefore probably have stock options.

But I think the cpu hooliganism is the strongest driver.. just like with football teams (here in europe). You choose a side, and stick to it. You identify yourself with the team, and want them to win. Even if they play worse than the competitor, you'll still want them to win. And you'll feel you have won yourself, if your favourite football team wins a match. Dunno.. I think we need a shrink to look into this and give us some real explanation.


---- Owner of the only Dell computer with a AMD chip

 

[juin]

1 better for my due to the software i use
2 real R&D go check there little history Copyright from intel vs AMD
3 more stable and i am loyal to intel like i am to ATI
4 better future with P4
5 i studie to enter in R&D at Intel,IBM,ATI
The first to take my.
6 I still dont trust AMD and NVISIA

 

[BigRat]

Personally I go for cpus that give me the best bang for my buck. But I suppose that this is another one of those posts made with an intention to start another flame war

Press any key to continue...
I can't find the any key!!!

 

[jlbigguy]

Neither. I have both AMD and Intel machines.

Price/performance with TODAYS software makes my decision. I am not buying a machine that "promises" to run the next generation of software (which for the most part does not exist yet) faster. I need to run todays software faster. Right now, that translates to AMD. If Intel gets their act together (and at a reasonable price) then I will use Intel.



<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>

 

[RCPilot]

For me as a hobbiest builder, I research each time I build to avoid buying junk. I build for myself about every 18 months or so. It's my hobby & I use them for gaming only be it the web or off line.

The machine I replaced this year was Celeron 400. At that time P3's were to expensive for me. The Athlon k6 or 7 was a piece of junk. No AMD for me then. So I setteled on the Celeron for price/proformance & it was quite expensive then.

This time when I did the research & saw the bench marks it was AMD all the way. I built the 1 gig. T-bird @ 200 FSB. That was the biggest chip then that I could get. It didn't eat as much of a hole in my pocket as did the Celeron rig did when I built it.

Next time I build I will do the same thing, research it, learn about it & the put it together & rock. It could be Intel or AMD. I want proformance & a resonable price, whoever is sellin it that's who will get my business.

I'd also like to say I don't have a problem with my VIA bridge chips & this is the fastest, stablest computer I've owned so far.

I can't wait to see how things go. I'm awful interested in my next machine. Right now it is looking like a A4 with ASUS board with the Geforce Crush chip set, DDR & at least a Geforce 3.

Skinny

How do eat a elephant? One bite at a time!

 

[Kelledin]

I kind of fit what bbaeyens said--I want there to be some competition. Before the Athlon, I purely bought Intel systems, because the AMD platforms had some serious technical problems. When the Athlon came out, I decided that AMD had done a good enough job to earn my support--that, and the Athlon was performing better than the P3. AMD platforms still have some minor technical problems, but nothing an experienced builder can't deal with.

Kelledin

bash-2.04$ kill -9 1
init: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?

 

[mjdunn]

AMD and Intel...for right now...Intel for my server. AMD for my workstation.

Once AMD has duallies it will be time to upgrade the server. If Intel comes down in price I would consider them. As far as stability problems I have not found one...Even my sound blaster live works.

Fugger is still a useless dork!

96.3 % of Statistics are made up.

 

[Guest]

Blah...Blah... it depends. But when it comes down to it, for 90% of what I do the AMD solution makes more sense. Price Vs. Performance on the majority of applications.

 

[Oni]

I'd buy what ever is cheapest and gives me the better performance. When I got my Tbird 700 it was cheapest for the performance I got. When you go AMD you just have to make sure you buy brand name products for the most part, since I mostly buy the best products that wasn't a problem for me. Now maybe Intel doesn't need the best products to function but its still a preference thing, and I have to admire AMD some what for doing as well as they do without the crazy marketing shabang intel offers. Frankly those Dancing blue guys are crack heads, or legally retarded.

BTW I'm upgrading my Tbird 700 to 1333 MHz Palomino with 256 megs of PC2400 300 MHz DDR memory on Asus A7M266. I even got the Asus break out deal that is basically a hardware asus probe. Hopefully overclock to 1.5 GHz or beyond.

 

[Crashman]

I used to buy AMD because they were the underdog, and offered good value. But after several problems with motherboards that supported them, I now build new computers with Intel, but still upgrade older Socket 7 systems with AMD.

Cast not thine pearls before the swine

 

[74merc]

depending on the luck we have with our new AMD systems, I may stick with AMD 100%. the price is right, performance is good, single processor AMD seems to handle itself well against a dual PIII, at least in some server related benchmarks.
I dunno, I really like SMP in servers, almost a requirement, so I may stick with Intel for the time being.
reality of it is, both are damn near identical, although I'm not impressed with the P4 yet.
PIII, Duron and Athlon, and my actual choice depends on exactly what I need and who its for.

----------------------
Independant thought is good.
It won't hurt for long.

 

[CALV]

My last intel system was a 200mmx, at the time, this was the best performing chip available, I never upgraded to a 233mmx because of the price. Since then, I have had 2 k6-2's, a k6-3 450, and now I have an Athlon, The reason for this is obvious and I think 99% of people are of a similar opinion- VALUE. Why spend more money on something that doesnt give better performance? it just doesnt make sense. would you buy product [1] for $/£ 200 or product [2] for half the price, when product [2] was "better". Of course there is the issue of stability, I personally have no probs at all with mine, it is running 24/7 and hasn't crashed (yet!!), used mainly for 'net/gaming, bit of work, is also used as a proxy for my kids system.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, if "Joe Bloggs" prefers intel, then fine, if "John Smith" prefers AMD then fine, I personally think AMD are better value for money, when its upgrade time again, I'll see whats available and at what cost.


Next time you wave - use all your fingers