Which CPU Processor brand would you choose?

So which CPU brand?

 

Most are intel so i think intel is pretty good. there is also AMD but lately they been doing not so good.

 

I have the p8700 and my dream processor for this comp would be the p9700. Cant wait till they come out with some low voltage quad cores!

 

Realistically? Intel. Right now I do not view AMD as serious competition in any processor market right now, though I do continue to hope that they'll fight the good fight.

Intel = More battery life, less heat, faster processor.

 

Yeah, pretty much.

The only thing AMD wins at right now is the price. But I'd much rather pay a bit more than sacrifice the above three.

 

The new Intel Core 2 Duo's are much better at overclocking then AMD's X2. The Core 2 Duo runs faster and more powerful...

Intel is all that ive known so far so thats all i have gone for. but i would like to experiment with AMD sometime in the near future and thats all i know about that!

 

Right now I'm an Intel user, but an AMD fan. Intel is admittedly better for the mobile market. I wouldn't mind using an AMD but there's no AMD notebooks that meet my requirements (17" workstation). Desktop though, AMD just makes more sense. Cheaper, sufficient, if not equivalent, performance, and great OCers. Not to mention AMD first implemented many of the innovations used today (64 bit extensions to x86, HyperTransport interconnect, memory controller on CPU...). Intel just has so much money though, that I'm not sure if AMD can keep up.

 

I choose Transmeta over Intel and AMD.

 

Always been an Intel fan, and even more so now with the new i7 processors. Just amazing.

 

Intel for a laptop is pretty much the only option for higher performance. AMD neglected this market for long...

 

AMD Is still battling it out very well in the server market. Their Shanghai and Istanbul processors easily take on the quad and hexacore xeon's
Up until the release of the dual socket 5500 series Xeon processors, AMD has always scaled better on multiple processor motherboards. Now that Intel copied AMD's integrated memory controller, and now use near identical chipsets, the gap has closed, and Intel is starting to take over in the server world as well.
I still go AMD, not that they are cheap, cause Socket F is not, but because they run cool, and very fast. Plus there is a great selection of workstation boards out there.
Intel is better at advertising, which is one sure advantage they have.
Seriously outside of the computer folk, not many people have ever heard of an AMD. They hear Intel or Pentium and they know what you are talking about.

K-TRON

 

Intel. AMD mobile processors are a joke at the moment.

 

Intel all the way, especially in a Notebook/Netbook.

They have cornered the market with performance, TDP and battery life now IMHO.

Trading these off against the marginally cheaper AMD "equivalent" chip wouldn't make any sense at all.

 

Most of the time I would choose intel.

But sometimes AMD can be alright:
http://www.ocinside.de/go_e.html?http://www.ocinside.de/html/workshop/amd_phenom_ii_bsp.html

 

You can't beat a Core 2 Quad Extreme system with any AMD system even the new Phenom II, and seeing as how wolfdale Dual Core are more powerful than some of the Tri and Quad Core AMD processors for the money you pay, I'm going Intel...and of course I am on my fabulous Core 2 Duo right now which is good for...well anything and everything

 

I'd pick Intel for a mobile platform. Performance wise they are currently the leaders. Admittedly, I built a desktop with an AMD platform mostly because value wise, it saved me over 300$ over an equivalent Intel platform.

Anyhow, currently Intel is better and with good reason: they're the larger company i.e. they have more money. AMD lost lots and lots of money when they purchased ATI and they're still chugging the weight of that acquisition today. Sure, ATI is doing fine, but AMD's stock went down hell since then.

 

If they were equal in die-size/power consumption/heat I'd take AMD for the chipset/IGP working with an ATI discrete GPU (or two).

The way things are now though, if you're looking at anything more powerful than a CULV/Neo, you have to go Intel for the notebook market.

 

Seconded. I love my T9300 ... even if it is only the 31st fastest mobile CPU available

 

Intel is my bet in the mobile world.. if i was building a desktop i would go for AMD but considering core i7 has lower TDP and a slight overclock beats anything AMD has , i'll go for Intel all the way!

 

Intel FTW!!!

 

Who cares?? I don't even have to know who implemented all those stuff.

I am using a T9900 in my laptop. Is there any AMD equivalent? No...


--

 

For a notebook, I'd almost certainly choose Intel at this time, as AMD just isn't competitive in performance on mobile CPU's, and even on the inexpensive end they can't compete that well - Pentium Dual Core is pretty competitive against AMD, and not that expensive. The only exception is if there was a particularly good value on a laptop with very good ATI graphics, and only AMD CPU's were available (4850 or 4870 mobile GPU). Then I'd consider it - but as I'm as concerned with my CPU as GPU, it would be a tough choice.

For a netbook/ultraportable, I'd consider either Intel or VIA. Both offer reasonably good performance with low power use. AMD isn't really in that market.

For a desktop, Intel would be my default, but I'd consider AMD if the value of the system as a whole were greater. Their top-end dual core is about $100, and they have more inexpensive quad cores than Intel, and their CPU's aren't quite as thoroughly outclassed as in the mobile segment, so they aren't a terrible option. Choosing AMD also may make other components, such as the motherboard, less expensive. So while ideally I'd choose either an Intel E8600, or perhaps a newfangled Core i7 with Turbo Boost, depending on cost I may choose an AMD Phenom II x2 Black Edition.

 

On the notebook front, Intel has practically no competition. On desktops though, AMD Phenom II X4 FTW.

 

If AMD doesn't supply a platform like Intel does for years, I seriously doubt there will be a competition. A mobile CPU doesn't have to be fastest there may be another things AMD can compete.

 

T9800 ftw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I'll pick whichever offers me the most for my money. At the moment, it's Intel, but if it switches to AMD, I will have no qualms switching over to them.

Basically, I have no actual preference other than "at the moment" preferences.

 

Intel for the power efficiency and just how cool it runs compared to AMD.

 

Well the new Caspian processors from AMD are bascially as efficient and cool as C2D's.

Personally, I don't really care about brand. I just get the best product for the price.

 

I think the poll question is rather ambiguous however to put it in context . . .

Recently I was in the market for an ultraportable laptop under $1,000 with a decent amount of power (read: no netbooks) and a 12-13" screen. I ended up purchasing the HP ProBook 5310m yesterday, which is 13.3" and Intel powered. Looking for a dual-core processor with a decent amount of power, I went with Intel because:
1. AMD was not offered in models that met my requirements
2. AMD has very little presence in the ultraportable/low power market
3. The Intel Core 2 Duo processor has more power per watt than the AMD equivalents

Last year I was going to get an AMD processor in my HP Pavilion dv5, however NotebookReview already had a review on that and the sole reason I bought the Intel version was to be able to do a review. I was going to go with AMD at that time because it was cheaper and functionally the same as the Intel CPU for my needs.

My desktop is Intel powered because it offered the best performance at the time (Q6600 in 2007).

I buy whoever produces the most suitable product.

 

Definitively agree with you.
It is not that much about branding but needs and how each solution satisfies it.
For example the Neo x2 kills those C2S and some C2D with better performance and lower (much lower) price, paired with a better IGP (compared to Intel's) it is a good solution if it fits your needs.

 

I voted Intel cause they got the best mobile prosessors out atm, but im rooting for AMD to release some notebook cpus based on the Phenom II, just perfected for notebooks.
While a Phenom II prosessor doesent beat a Intel Nehalem based prosessor, it gets the job done and its super cheap and backwards compatible to AM2+ mainboards.

But i heard AMDs prepping new desktop Phenom II cpus that will run cooler than the current high end selection.

 

I always pull for the underdog because monopolies help nobody but I voted/prefer intel especially in laptops because they are more powerful clock for clock, they offer even higher clocks for even more of a performance advantage, and almost always get better battery life. Add to the fact that they have now brought quad cores to the mainstream with the i-7's and amd looks pretty bad unless one is getting a budget notebook.

 

I wouldnt call i7 as mainstream, but more of a high-end-ish niche.

But I completely understand your point. Some things are that AMD and Intel cannot be compared clock-to-clock, different architectures, and different way of working.
The main thing I would agree is that Intel has a slight edge in performance and a bigger one on battery life ATM.
Let us wait and see how Tigris performs before we can stain AMD with more "bad battery life/bad performance/budget only" and the such

 

Actually, some of them use more power... higher TDP than core i7..

 

But still a high end AMD system with a high end mainboard and a Phenom II x4 Black Edition is dirt cheap compared to i7 systems where i live.
And i can use the money i save to invest more on the gpu.

 

Is there any Caspian review where CPU's are shown to have that qualities?
I haven't seen any. I'll probably buy a notebook with a Caspian M520 and would like to know.

 

Probably the only circumstance I would recommend an AMD notebook?

Low budget computer that needs to support virtualization. A lot of Intel's low budget processors do not have VT capabilities. Or a low budget computer where the processor does not matter but other components do (think low cost gaming machine).

 

An NBR user kindly tested this new Turion II CPU with Intel Burn In.
Results seemed pretty cool to me.

 

At the moment Intel, but I'd love to see AMD catch up!

 

Intel wins the mobile market hands down, for performance AND performance-per-watt.

Intel wins in performance in the desktop market, but AMD has a huge budget-win in the form of a $99 quad-core Athlon II processor, and a couple of triple-cores even cheaper than that. These should be perfect for a ton of users, and should run Windows 7 great without breaking the bank.

 

Thanks weinter. I was more after speed tests not reliability ones.

 

Intel all the way!

 

As probably stated earlier in this thread...Intel is pretty much your only choice in laptops. Intel made the right bet by cornering the laptop CPU market. Seeing that most PC sells today are laptops, Intel won the gamble and is making lots of $$$ in the notebook segment.

For desktops though, Intel gives slightly better performance for a lot of price premium. AMD chips, on the other hand, perform just as well for usual tasks (even for gaming and OCing) and they are a lot cheaper.