Intel vs. AMD

Let's stir things up. Granted, every month something new comes out, how many people like Intel better than AMD and visa versa, and why?

 

Intel right now...they have more powerful CPUs in both the mobile and desktop markets. When AMD gets its answer to Core 2 out the door then I'll reconsider.

I think they've owned the mid-to-high end mobile CPU market for a while now too.

 

I think I recently read something about AMD's answer to Intels Core 2, or maybe it was a dream?!

 

It should've been only a dream.

 

right now intel has the most powerful

i personally like amd name better because
the names on the cpu's just sound better than intel; core 2 duo vs Athlon 64 X2
just like amd business ethics better....

but i do admit intel does have the power advantage; for now....

 

Intel right now, but after this system I will most likely switch back to AMD.

 

We're waiting on AMD's 65nm chips now, I expect AMD will leapfrog Intel then. That'll be a few months, probably. I still say Intel's advantages are overhyped though. I'd rather buy from the company that didn't inflict Netburst and Itanium on the world.

 

2H of 07 will be when AMD unloads its next big wave. There will be smaller steps until then, most notably the change to 65nm and enhancements. AMD never unveils major changes to a core when they move to a new process. By the time they make the changes, they like to have their manufacturing process down well, and have had success with this formula so far.

 

I root for AMD, and with Athlon64 and 64 X2 they were ahead.

I still root for AMD, but right now, Intel has the better lineup.

I harbor resentment against companies that I feel leverage their position to stagnate progress.

Microsoft with Windows, esp Windows 98 and ME.

Intel with "speed wars" and the lame Pentium 4. Oh, now clock speed doesn't matter! Wow. Nice realization there Intel.

AOL, although they don't matter anymore

 

Wow, I was totally expecting a flood of Intel'ers. I just heard ATI's recent acquisition by AMD will now be trying to integrate graphics technology directly into AMD processors. How can this be?

 

Also, it looks like Intel is getting serious about offering mobile broadband to anyone who owns a notebook. I'm sure their 600 million dollar investment in WiMax has something to do with this.

 

How long till Intel is going to jam two duel core Core 2 cores into a single die, making it a quad-core processor?

 

A month or two, I believe. But don't expect to see that in notebooks. "Jamming two dualcore cpu's into a single die" is horribly inefficient power-wise. We almost talking about a return to Pentium 4 power levels.

Once they come out with native quad-core designs, things should get a lot more interesting

 

Am looking forward to it! So was that Intel or AMD Jalf?

 

I think Intel still has my vote at the moment. They're pretty much doing well with Core 2 Duo and with the upcoming Santa Rosa. Although in the long run I think AMD will beat Intel.

 

I think gamers have fled from Intel(about 2 years ago)because of the popularity of the Athlon 64 machines, better performance and SLI duel-videocard compatibility(initially only available on Athlon 64-based motherboards). Is this pretty accurate?

 

yup. I went with AMD 2 years ago when SLI first came out because they were the only one with a solid nforce 4 board. its still the same way. even though the core 2 duo rocks there are still IMO no solid intel SLI boards.

 

Hey have you guys seen the AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-60 proc. aperently its availiable at best buy in the HP Compaq nx6325. just out of curiosity is the turion a lower end AMD proc.

 

Go here, maybe this will help:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_laptops_have_arrived/page2.html

 

What are you using it for? I would probably go with a Core Duo 2 instead, although it also provides that “dual-core experience” with almost no delays when switching between concurrently running applications.

 

I have always been an AMD fan, despite the release of the conroe. My Sempron scores better on benchmarks than 2.8 GHz P4s when OCed (not to brag, but I'm impressed). Now I'm waiting to build my own system with an Athlon X2 4000+ (not the best, but It will work for what I use) or get a laptop with a Mobile Athlon 4000+ or a Turion X2 TL56 or TL60.

I strongly believe that AMD is going to come out with something to counter the Conroe, and they will definatley have the lead with the Quad-core chips because of their superior method of linking the cores together (using the crossbar switch instead of the FSB).

 

I had Intel from the 286 to the P3, then AMD for AthlonXP and 64 until just now; I ordered a Core2Duo laptop on Sunday so back to Intel for the time being. Though I personally like AMD more, I go where the price/performance is at, and with Core 2 Intel have taken that back. I think Intel have a pretty good lead right now in terms of manufacturing process; AMD needs to get 65nm chips out the door and release their next architecture (and more multicore) to get back in the game, at least in the desktop/notebook segments.

AMD have some good advantages with workstations and servers though, specially in terms of HyperTransport now that they've opened it up so people can make add-in cards that talk directly to the processor - I can see some very neat custom co-processors making use of that. Reportedly Intel's on the move with something similar, though we'll have to wait and see how that turns out.

 

It seems to me that acording to the benchmarks "CrackerJack" provided at tomshardware, it was kind of a give or take. The AMD's seemed a little faster than the intel chips but the intel chips would last longer on battery power.
don't know what i would go for. Maybe in a desktop the AMD and in a laptop the intel.

 

I prefer Intel for mobile. It is not only because of the power, it is also because they have LV and ULV processors which AMD doesn't have at all.

However, I still advice AMD to some of my friends who just need an economical desktop solution.

However, AMD is far behind Intel technologically (it is also mentioned above).
AMD is only good because it makes a competition to Intel and hopefully brings the Intel's prices down.

 

I am sorry, but it sounds similar to the macfans' preaching two-three years ago: they hoped and believed and they have been misleading people to "switch" ... untill Apple has switched itself.

 

AMD had the better product until just a couple of months ago.

Same with Apple, the G5 was an excellent chip. The main problem was that there was never going to be a great G5 laptop roadmap and laptop sales are very important these days.

Intel also had Conroe up its sleeve to power the workstations. Nobody was complaining about Quad G5 performance.

I'm an AMD "fanboy" because the P4 was a terrible chip, and Intel bullied the market with their whole "clock speed" marketing while AMD was making faster/better chips at lower clock speeds. Where would AMD be today if they were not locked out of Dell sales all these years?

Until the Pentium M came out... Intel was a fish out of water. They are back on track now, and it's AMDs turn in the leapfrog game.

Obviously, the competition is great for us, the consumers in this case.

 

I would go for Intel now, especially at the notebook department. Until then, u can totally forget bout AMD in the laptop department till AMD annouce some CPU+GPU bundle, which in term hav the same battery life with intel onboard gpu or even more. And to get more battery life, they hav to cut down the Thermowatt thingi, which i hope is even better than intels.

No offence to both, but now the game is efficiency, who can produce the cpu with more processing/multitasking power but consume less energy will be the winner.

 

Aside from one donor ThinkPad, all of my desktops and laptops have been AMD. This includes the systems that I have built for others. I went with them years ago simply because it was a better deal pricewise, and from then on I always stayed with AMD. Granted, I realize that Intel's offerings are (and have been) superior to AMD's in the notebook market, but I can't complain. Even my cheap Sempron units give pleasing performance. I've never regretted purchasing any of them.

 

The one thing I liked about the Pentium Ms was the barrery life. My laptop is so power hungry, but the Pentium Ms are good at haveing long battery life, and they don't heat up as much as AMDs. The unfortunate part is that they are not major performance chips. The Core Solo/Duo chips made a big improvement here, and along with the Conroe, I admire Intel for that.

 

Intel vs. AMD?? => never ending story

 

Which is a good thing. No slackin' off over at the chip makers...

Look at how solid the development has been after AMD started making good chips.

When Intel tried to bully and use brute force (ie, that dog Pentium 4) it almost cost them big time.

 

Being a laptop fanatic I prefer intel, they make a better range of cpus developed just for laptops. I think my lappy strikes a good balance of both having an AMD chipset and an Intel CPU.

I used to own an athlon 64 desktop and that really flew! Intel better for laptops tho!

 

Intel is supposedly coming out with the Quad-Core CPUs reported in Maxium PC (code name Kentsfield) sometime before Christmas with a FSB of 1,333Mhz, of course this is for a desktop, but how long will it be before this is availiable for notebooks. Intel all the way.

 

I Like AMD because it looks & sounds cool. Who cares how it performs! I like the way it rolls of my tongue. Try it.....AAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMDDDDDDDDD. See!

 

This below sounds better...

 

Niiiiiiiice

 

Nah, too many syllable"s!

 

Or does that mean there is an Intel inside the computer and an idiot on the outside of the computer?

 

All In Fun!!

 

hmm.. it seems you see the point

 

That's kind of like the shirt with the arrow that says "i'm with stupid"

 

stupid, idiot... no matter....... but better

but when you have an AMD inside the computer there could be nothing on the outside of the computer.

Of course, I'm joking... but there is not place for AMD in the notebooks for the time being...

 

hmmmmmmm.........

 

The Bottom Line Even though Intel regained performance crown with P4 2GHz, I would still choose AMD for lower cost, and more importantly, to punish Intel's bad behavior.

Who Am I (and why should you believe me)
I built my new computer in February 2001 with a AMD Athlon 900 MHz. From this experience, I have learned a lot about computer hardware. Before that, I baby-sit 10 PCs and 10 Macs in a research lab. I am biased against Intel. You can see why if you read on.

The Clock Speed Game
If you look at Pentium 4 (P4) specs, you will be impressed by the super-high clock speed they have, now up to 2 GHz. However, clock speed is not everything (see epinion by dkozin). It is quite disgusting to find that the P4 design is aimed at getting a high clock speed but not necessarily performance. In most benchmark tests, P4 is as fast as P3 (yes, Intel's own product) with 2/3 of the clock speed. That means 1.5 GHz P4 is as fast as 1.0 GHz P3. So Intel is cheating here by artificially boosting clock speed to create an illusion that the P4 is much faster.

That said, I have to admit that P4 2.0 GHz IS very fast. In fact, it beats the currently fastest Athlon (1.4 GHz), in a lot of the benchmarks.

Rambus vs. DDR
One reason the P4 is sometimes faster than Athlon is its high memory throughput, because P4 uses Rambus memory. However, you might already noticed that the Rambus memory (RDRAM) is much more expensive than traditional memory (SDRAM) and DDR RAM (DDR stands for double data rate). The current industry consensus is that DDR is a better compromise between cost and performance. However, because Intel backed Rambus from the early days, it is refusing to release DDR support for P4.

Legal Front
To make the situation even more disgusting, Intel not only delays its own DDR solution, but also works hard to block other people from doing so. They do so by two means. First, they are suing VIA, the maker of P4X266 chipset (DDR for P4). Secondly, they are intimidating motherboard manufacturers from using the P4X266. Noteworthy is that this intimidation game happened in 1999 also, when Intel were trying to prevent Athlon motherboards from being made.

Break Monopoly, Choose AMD
I think Intel is behaving like a bad monopoly, just like Microsoft. The good news is, unlike the operating system world, we do have a very strong competing product, the AMD Athlon. In the past year or so, Athlon holds the performance crown. Although they have lost it recently after the release of Intel P4 2 GHz, I believe they will come back. I chose AMD at the beginning of this year because of its performance (and low cost). If I were to make the choice again today, I will still choose AMD. This time, I might loose a little bit in terms of performance, however I will be sending a message to Intel: stop fooling consumers and stop all these bad behaviors.

Update: AMD come back to beat Intel
Here is an update. In the benchmarks released on TomsHardwareGuide today (10/31/01), AMD Athlon XP 1800+ (running at 1533MHz) was tested faster in most categories than Pentium 4 2000MHz.

 

Are we talking about desktop CPUs?

 

Yeah, probably beacuse I am currently getting ready to build one. I didn't post this as a pro AMD statement. More so to get feedback before I build. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of both. Both have their applications.

 

Spelling, "because"

 

OK ... but you had to mention that AMD cheats with the names of their CPUs as well as Intel with the clock speed.

 

i never did understand the AMD naming scheme, seemed like 4000+ would be 4ghz, and it never was haha