Cpus!!!!

well just wanting to know what people likes....
also people usually likes...

 

oh i forgot i vote for.....
AMD

 

You mean like IBM's PowerPC?

 

well i didn't know about that
but long as it goes into computer even office ones its okay
so i guess that is in other

 

I still voted for Intel though, for the time being anyway. AMD better have something good up its sleeves to regain ground lost in the X2 vs. Core Duo showdown.

 

Although I have an Intel right now, my next comp will probably be AMD.

 

Lets all just vote OTHER to kill this "flame war"-esque thread.

AMD and Intel always fluctuates in innovation and performance, never a clear victor, so drop it.

all vote OTHER

Game On People,
-Gophn

 

Erm, I'm not so close with my CPU, so I would not say that I like it nor any other part of my notebook...

 

I've always liked AMD, but Intel's Core 2 Duo is an amazing CPU, so I went with Intel now.

 

I take the same stance as I do with the GPU's, I like them both, and which one I prefer changes from generation to generation. I do however think that every pc enthusiast owes a little grattitude towards AMD, if it werent for them we'd probably all still be sluggishly netbursting our days away.

 

AMD has been much better to me over my years of computing

 

I would vote Other, except the OP requested that the processor has to be used in common home or workplace PC's, and the Motorola 68HC812 family of microprocessors don't qualify under that criteria.

So I voted Intel, because AMD does not have currently have an answer to Intel's Core 2 Duo processors. If in a few years AMD jumps ahead with oh say their "Infineon" processors (just made that up, lets see if AMD adopts the name), I'd switch without a second thought.

 

Just go with whatever is fastest for the price. Brands are always fighting, and AMD/Intel switch places for the number one position all the time. At the moment, I have an Intel CPU.

 

Come on, IBM's processors are really common - everybody with an X-Box 360 or PS3 has one, as well as all the pre-Intel Macs. I'd say they're even more common than AMDs then. And their server processors right now are truly awe-inspring beasts.

And what about VIA? Wal-Mart has a notebook with a VIA C7-M (and wonderful S3 Unichrome Graphics [/sarcasm]) for $500 that I'm sure many poor folks have been suckered into buying.

 

I like both, I have no particular brand allegience when it comes to cpus.

 

I like Core 2 Duos, Core Duos, AMD Turion X2... but i hate celerons, and semprons... haha

 

Never had an Intel at home as I alway use AMD for gaming. But now I'm using Intel and I love the silence..... Can't even hear the fan at all.. I have yet to find a silent fan for my amd that isn't expensive. I'm using zalman for my amd and it is still loud.

 

The fan doesn't depend in any way on the manufacturer of the CPU. It obviously does depend on how much heat is generated by the CPU, but it makes no sense to say that "Fans for Intel CPU's are quieter" in general.
Btw, I've got a completely silent Zalman CPU for my AMD. Only problem with it is that it usually runs at 950rpm, and some monitoring software flips out if it detects fan speeds below 1000rpm

 

I know, but I have yet to meet an AMD cpu that does not required a powerful fan. My last AMD 1.4 thunderbird uses a 6500rpm fan... and when I turn on my computer apparently the people downstairs can hear the floor rumbling lol. I have turned my Zalman to the lowest rpm and yet I still find it too loud.

 

Without AMD, Intel would still be selling those nasty P4 prescotts. Actually, I think you can still find them in about 60% of dell desktops!

Anyway, AMD's X2's were by no means meant to compete with the core 2. The AMD X2's are based on an architecture that is over three years old. I would like to see intel's processors from three years ago compete with AMD's next architecture.

 

Interestingly I have owned 7 intel cpus and only 4 amds, but total time of ownership goes to AMD which I have had from 1999 til 2006. I got my first intel cpu in 2005.

As for the Celeron/Sempron comment above i'll just say this: try to OC a Core Duo to 4500 MHz on air and you'll make it a habit from then on of knowing where the nearest fire extinguisher is!

 

Well put... I think I just figured out why it's been so warm this winter... everyone with their 4-5ghz core 2's have raised the outside temperature by about 30 degrees!

 

I think I can fairly say Celerons/Semprons generally have lower load temps than their more powerful counterparts? Personally my Celeron-M hasn't hit more than 67 degrees C.

 

hehe
then if you are living in one room
than you open the case of comp and let it
that is pretty cool to try it out

 

well. this threads confirms nbr's bias. question answered. lolololz

 

I just pick which ever company makes the better CPU. Right now Intel, but you never whats going to happen next!

 

amd next.....
because both companies are working on quad core that cost less

 

I'm going to go with Intel. AMD's marketing scheme seems a little odd to me.
Why buy a 5000+ @ $400 @ 2.6ghz when you can buy a 4800+ @ $300 @ 2.5ghz.

 

Historically I've owned Intel processors just about exclusively--but I'm not loyal to them in any way. When AMD has something that's a must-have and it's time to purchase--they'd get my dollar.

It just hasn't worked out that way in the past when I've needed a new CPU/system.

 

I like them both. As for now, I like Intel a little more. Especially for laptops.

 

Why buy a 4800 at $300 when you can buy a 3800x2 for under $150? Those will easily OC beyond 2.5ghz, and a lot of people have come close to(and even passed) 3ghz.

I'd say intel's marketing scheme is odd. They love to push their old stuff to try to get people to buy outdated intel hardware. On top of that, when they finally make a somewhat decent processor(conroe) they market it as the world's fastest processor. That is by no means true.

But I suppose that this is how marketing works... trying to convince the masses to buy worthless, outdated things that by no means uphold the advertisement's claims.

 

AMD gets my vote - if it weren't for them x64 woudn't be "backwards compatible" like intel said, and probably wouldn't exsist.
Great work, very little advertising (and still most people know of the company), best bang for buck company/CPU's, They do things right the first time around -

 

I have always been for AMD for desktop CPU's and Intel for notebook CPU's. Now I'm for Intel in both categories.