Jump to content

Why Do You Choose to OC Intel's?


Recommended Posts

Not trying to be offensive or a smartass. I just don't understand why you guys chose the Intels over the AMD's?

 

The AMD's are cooler, and usually win in just about every benchmark... I don't hate Intel, I think Conroe is going to kick butt.

 

I just think that this generation AMD's are much better than Intels.

 

Why did you guys choose to buy Intel's?

 

PS: Seriously, I'm not trying to be a smartass... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Im no Intel hater, nor AMD fanboi - i choose whatever gives me the best performance for my money.

 

however at the moment a see intel as having a few advantages being:

-no coldbug

-nearly every cpu is a decent clocker (as opposed to AMDs where if you just by any old Venice most likely it will only do 2.5 on stock volts)

-cheap dual cores

 

and for P-M's

-low power consumption

-low heat

-usually faster then AMDs in 3dmark

-fast superpi times

-about a year ago it was a cheap upgrade path for people with Asus 478 mobos as they just got the 479 adapter and they can use a pentium-m in their existing setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Intel's were supposed to be high heats? I mean... people often call Prescotts the "Preshotts". I mean, the temps are no supposed to be great... sometimes pushing 50-60 load on nominal voltage pushes.

 

Do you guys mostly watercool then to offset the temperature gain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Intel's were supposed to be high heats? I mean... people often call Prescotts the "Preshotts". I mean, the temps are no supposed to be great... sometimes pushing 50-60 load on nominal voltage pushes.

 

Do you guys mostly watercool then to offset the temperature gain?

 

Well, I do run AMD64s, the last Intel I used was a Northwood, before Prescott. From Prescott on I ran AMD64s although the mainboards for socket 754 and 939 mostly suck. I took the sucky mainboard over a power hog processor.

 

If I knew what I know now I might not have done it. The integrety of both my data and my nerves was more than threatened more than once.

 

I might have built on Pentium-4s and moved on to Yonah and stayed with 32 bit OSes.

 

Socket 940 systems have been solid for me but there's some devil in the details, too.

 

In any case, I will gladly try out one of the current Intel boards with Intel chipset (no *&^*# NVidia chipset) when I build a Conroe system this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intel cpu's are fantastic overclockers usually...plus every piece of software is compiled using an Intel compiler which is optimized for Intel cpu's.

 

But the biggest thing is that the chipsets (the best Intel chipsets anyway) are made by Intel themselves...who knows better how to make a chipset for a cpu than the guys who make the cpu???

 

 

 

AMD systems have finally lost that nasty negative bit about being "faster but more unstable" or "faster but most software still runs best on Intel"

 

but

 

like MC said...their bits are still buggy no matter who makes it. I mean, Intel stuff is buggy as hell too, don't get me wrong. We see plenty of Intel users all over the world with all makes and models of Intel pc's that have problems...so it isn't just an AMD problem...but for the most part, it is the KIND of problems that tech guys like me differentiate between.

 

I love my AMD stuff

 

I love my Intel stuff

 

I always like to have one of each

 

my 3750Mhz dual-core Intel running Crossfire X1900XT's still gets spanked by my dual-core 2600Mhz AMD64 X2 running Crossfire X1900XT's.

 

That don't mean I don't like my Intel rig...and it don't mean that my Intel rig is weak by any means. I don't have nearly the nasty problems in games with my dual-core Intel cpu as software has been written for hyperthreaded Intel cpu's since they came out...this doesn't alleviate all problems or excuse any problems that do arise, but you won't see the nasty kinds of problems with dual core Intel rigs that you will with dual-core AMD rigs for the moment.

 

This of course will change as Vista comes...or it might not, who knows.

 

Intel still controls a huge chunk of the overall market (which is mostly OEM pre-built rigs from Dell etc and that is still a HUGE chunk of the market more than us enthusiasts and Intel practically owns that market since they command OEM's to build with their cpu's or they can use their size and mfg capability to offer OEM's prices that just can't be ignored etc etc).

 

 

anyway

 

 

I love my Intel

 

I love my AMD

 

I love having both to fool with

 

 

anyone that is a fanboy....well...more power to you I suppose. I'm too old to be a fanboy. I appreciate the differences, both apparent and subtle, between the two systems.

 

I want one of each, so I use one of each ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love my Intel

 

I love my AMD

 

I love having both to fool with

 

 

I totally agree... there are always ups and downs to both camps.

 

Yes, right now, AMD kicks total a$$ with their high-end dualcore offerings, but trust me, take a look at the conroe block diagram and what types of things were optimized in this pass for Intel (OUT OF ORDER READS SEVERAL Xs FASTER!!!) and I think it will still be a heck of a match, one I can see Intel taking back with the next generation (for now.)

 

When Intel and AMD duke it out, we get better, faster chips more frequently and so far, AMD being competitive has only produced more parity inside the product lines for both and offered all of us MORE overclocking options. I hope for that to continue...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Darien

Well... I've always favored AMD's....

 

but I hate to admit it.... the Conroe's is gonna eat our lunch...

 

AMD is in serious deep doo - doo... the conroe is 1/2 the price and twice the performance of the Opterons...

 

I kept hearing the conroe was gonna be better... twice the Cache etc.... but after reading the Review by CompGeek....

 

the AMD Opterons aren't even in the same class as the Conroe... it's like a kitten versus a pitbull.... doing SuperPi 1M in under 15sec.... literally twice as fast as the Opty... and they are less expensive than the Opterons...

 

AMD better step up and quit screwing around... build something that can compete... at least get close... and drop thier damn prices... where do they get off making us pay twice as much for inferior components!!

 

one of the original reasons I perfered AMD was that back in the day they were less expensive than Intel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think you need to rethink just how good Conroe is...

 

there's no doubt they can outperform an A64, but they aren't as good as you have magically made them out to be lol

 

They will be about 10%-20% better than a similar-speed Athlon64/Opteron in overall total performance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny hearing those that are fans of a company.

Somebody has to have the better product, it will continue to change hands and that is a very good thing for us the consumer. Imagine what would happen if these two companies did not battle for the top spot. Crap products at unreasonable prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...