Intel 1155 socket vs Bulldozer

[Tjj226_Angel]

My next question for comments like "LMAO agreed! AMD has basically used the same socket over the last 2-3 years, while Intel has had 4 different sockets in the same period I mean, if you want to upgrade from Intel to a newer Intel chip, you are not only buying a new mobo, but RAM now as well" and "I'm not entirely sure why people are so adamant in saying that AMD processors suck".

 

This will be a end of the year debate. Something to tally up which processor company beats out the other for the year.

 

 

Let me set some objectives and ground rules to this argument.

 

1: this is a debate about which company won for the year......not the past 5. If AMD people promise not to bring up anthlon processors, I promise to to bring up core 2 duos or pentium chips. We just don't have time in our lives to sit and count up all the tallies for the two companies over their life span.

 

2: This will probably anger some of you. Because this is a more public and open debate, we should try to keep it professional and NOT get upset. This is just a friendly debate, and we could be totally surprised at what we discover.

 

3: If we could keep this argument as closely related to the AMD Bull Dozer and nothing older than Sandy bridge, the easier the debate will be. The reason I say that is because of rule 1. It is just an attempt to narrow the argument to keep it shorter.

 

 

I will list some pros and cons of each, and of people can respond with pros and cons of the other (again within the past year) I will add them.

 

Intel Cons : Expensive, hot, customer support is useless, tech support is worse, motherboards are also expensive, generally the performance is a bit excessive for a average user.

 

AMD cons: Not a lot of innovation, generally slower, has a higher failure rate (DOAs), Older motherboards with the same socket have been known to cause slow downs.

 

Intel Pros: Fast, supports more features with a compatible motherboard, turbo is much more efficient, hyper threading, supports Gen 3 PCI ports, supports next line of processors.

 

AMD pros: price, more cores for less price for people running multi core programs, nice customer service, nice tech support, they keep cool (great for overclocking), motherboards are usually cheaper.

 

Again, if I missed anything, please let me know. I tried to keep these two even to be fair.

 

 

Here is my anylisis: Intel wins. I made this post because of one things in my quote says something about how intel is better about the transcending sockets is laughable. Well, the joke is on that statement. Lets pretend you bought a computer at the beginning of this year. With Intel, chances are that it would be a 1366 socket, and with AMD, I would guess it is a 1100T processor. At the time, the two processors similar in price with the 1100T and the intel i7 950. The 1100T has since been phased away by the BD processors and of course the Sandy bridge processors. However, lets say you wanted to upgrade. You would BOTH have to buy new boards and new chips. So now lets say that for AMD, you now have a BD setup and the Intel you have a Z68 board with the Pci 3 slots. You go onto your brand new computer and turn it on to see that Ivy bridge and Pile driver is coming out next year. Well with AMD you still have to buy a new motherboard AND processor. Intel on the other hand all you have to do is buy a new processor. In the course of a year to a year and a half, you would actually go through 3 motherboards and 3 processors with AMD. With Intel you would only have to get two motherboards and 3 processors. So in reality. Intel has not only gotten better about the socket transitions, but they are now the only company supporting it right now.

 

Remember, this isn't fan boy stuff, this is a legitimate search for the truth in this ever lasting computer debate.

[scr4wl]

If this debate is strictly sandybridge vs Bulldozer then yeah sandybridge wins. It's also, no offense, kind of a dumb debate.

 

I'm assuming you made this thread due to some of my posts responding to yours. If so, I was in no way defending Bulldozer.

[Tjj226_Angel]

If this debate is strictly sandybridge vs Bulldozer then yeah sandybridge wins. It's also, no offense, kind of a dumb debate.

 

I'm assuming you made this thread due to some of my posts responding to yours. If so, I was in no way defending Bulldozer.

 

No it isn't you, don't worry. There have been other debates where people still defend the phenom stuff as a good processor to buy, RIGHT NOW (as in today). To me it is just irritating to see people justify Intel over AMD or the other way around without knowing the pros and cons of BOTH the processors. For instance People have a really hard time accepting my comment that AMD sucks right now. ALL of their processors are now trumped by intel. Phenom, Bulldozer, and opteron (probably misspelled) are all useless when you compare them to the benefits AND cost of Intel. I have spent countless hours comparing price points and benchmarks to find that not only does Intel win, but that AMD has been a terrible company for the past year to even two years. However, despite the blatant truth, some people still choose to argue. Since I like to debate and support free thought, I made this thread so that those particular people along with others can have a chance to really decide which is better Intel, or AMD. You can sort of think of it as a debate war, to prevent other debate wars on threads having to do with video cards or other such inappropriate places. Make sense?

 

This thread is to dispel the myths the fanaticism has created about these two companies so that we can all form a solid understanding about the processor world.

 

I know that might seem stupid, but so was my first intel vs AMD debate. For those of you who did read that post and know what I am talking about, this is your time to make all of your arguments against what I said about AMD being crap.

 

 

If none of that made any sense to you or the people reading it I can sum it up with and example......AMD SUCKS. Now you can watch the fall out and see what I mean about preventing the debate in other threads.

[Nyt]

SB pwns Bulldozer and even AMD people know it was a fail ... Dont try make excuses fanboys , look at the facts - that Bulldozer does not beat a 2600k heck it doesnt even beat a 2500k in everything. The hype about Bulldozer fell well short of expectations.

You get what you pay for unfortunately and if you go cheap , you lose performance .

 

And for those who say "Oh well AMD is cheaper and you dont notice a difference in real life anyway !" ...

I notice the difference very well between a game at 40FPS on a 100HZ screen using an AMD processor and getting 60FPS on a 100Hz screen using an Intel processor - if you dont, perhaps you should spend the money on getting an eye test instead of upgrading

[VaporX]

Sandybridge vs Bulldozer is a no contest, SB wins and BD never showed to the race. Bulldozer is going to be remembers as AMDs Windows ME. Now that does not mean it could not end up being the precursor to some other chip that will do well but the current version of Bulldozer is a not go. I use a Bulldozer chip but if I had to go buy parts for a new system it would not even be on my shopping list. If I wanted to build an AMD system I would still go Phenom II and I would likely instead go Intel.

 

At the end of day it is not that Bulldozer is a bad chip, it is not. It does the job. However that is all that can said about it does the job. A Phenom II does the job as well or better at a lower price. An SB based chip can be had at under $200 that does the job as well or better and again at a lower price. (2500K @ Microcent for $175)

 

Now I am not saying if you have a Bulldozer you should trash it. The chip does it's job and will give you a solid computing experience. But if you are looking to build a new system it is not a choice i would reccomend.

[Waco]

And for those who say "Oh well AMD is cheaper and you dont notice a difference in real life anyway !" ...

I notice the difference very well between a game at 40FPS on a 100HZ screen using an AMD processor and getting 60FPS on a 100Hz screen using an Intel processor - if you dont, perhaps you should spend the money on getting an eye test instead of upgrading

Then you simply turn down a setting or two.

 

 

I mean, come on guys. Yes, Intel CPUs are faster these days. That doesn't mean that AMD CPUs suck, or aren't worth the money, etc. 90% of the planet would be just fine with a freakin' dual core Atom. We aren't the majority and what we care about really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things.

 

 

I don't understand how people can look at Intel versus AMD, with Intel's VASTLY superior budget, and bash AMD for not matching or beating Intel. To even get close to anything Intel has produced in the past 2 years is an accomplishment. Sure, Bulldozer was a flop with enthusiasts but we as enthusiasts do not rule the market. OEMs, server builders, and big HPC companies do. They're plenty happy with Bulldozer; especially for the price. I do wish BD had at least matched the first-gen Nehalems in IPC - but we all know that didn't happen.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Waco

[Nyt]

Then you simply turn down a setting or two.

 

Lol , then everyone shouldn't have to ever upgrade a CPU. Whenever games are too intense for you CPU you turn down settings ? So then Core 2 Quad people should never have to upgrade

 

Since the FX8150 is the same price as a 2500k , why choose a CPU that underperforms and you have to turn down settings when you can have one that is the same amount of money and pretty much beats Bulldozer in gaming ?

BD isn't even an upgrade from a 1090T so what was AMD aiming for ? BD should have just been server only - then AMD wouldn't have been laughed at by enthusiasts with their "Worlds 1st 8 core desktop processor" lol

[Nyt]

AMD pros: they keep cool (great for overclocking)

 

Incorrect , when overclocked the BDs drank tons of power and heated up tons ! The SB doesnt get close to BD overclocking temps on the same cooler. I actually remember some chips throttling down due to them getting too hot during overclocking ... The 5GHz SB's didnt .

[Waco]

Lol , then everyone shouldn't have to ever upgrade a CPU. Whenever games are too intense for you CPU you turn down settings ? So then Core 2 Quad people should never have to upgrade

People thinking rationally wouldn't upgrade from a Core 2 Quad.

 

Think about that for a moment.

[Nyt]

People thinking rationally wouldn't upgrade from a Core 2 Quad.

 

Think about that for a moment.

 

Then this whole forum should be booked into an institute for the irrational Along with any Bulldozer purchasers

[Waco]

Then this whole forum should be booked into an institute for the irrational Along with any Bulldozer purchasers

Being irrational is what we do best.

[IVIYTH0S]

People thinking rationally wouldn't upgrade from a Core 2 Quad.

 

Think about that for a moment.

Yep! My friend I still using a C2D mildly OC'd and just one 460 1GB at 1920x1200 and loves life just as well as I.

 

With nearly every game being a console port one way or another, CPU's aren't really all that important to anyone gaming. My cousin's "lowly" x4 620 BLEW MY MIND when a $60 quad such as itself, only maxing out at 3.4ghz, gamed like a demon!

Edited November 30, 2011 by IVIYTH0S