AMD vs. Intel

[Nerm]

Since the topics usually come up once a month (if not more often) we have decided to post a pinned thread to discuss "AMD vs. Intel".

 

This thread will be heavily watched, and the forums rules will be strictly enforced for this thread.

 

So, if you would like to discuss why you like AMD or Intel, feel free to talk about it here. Messages that contain flames, bashing, personal attacks, or anything else that violates the OCC Rules will be deleted.

 

Please see the Notice to Members and OverclockersClub Rules before posting to this thread.

Edited May 21, 2007 by Nerm

[LobbDogg]

I actually respect both kinds of chips alot. Both have really good processors, and it just depends on what models you are comparing. I mean both companies have a really good chip and it just depends on budget for me usually on what I go with. Sometimes I go with AMD alot because they are easier to afford but since I've owned a P4, the only thing I would go with would be an Athlon 64.

[Paranoid]

The AMD chips are a lot cheaper, so that is why I think more people here choose them. If the 3GHz P4 was the same price as the 3000+, I believe that there would be more Intel chips being used here.

[Eva_Unit_0]

Yeah, that's exactly it. Even though I'm an amd fanboy, I'll be the first to admit that a p4 3.2C beats an xp 3200+ no problem, and when overclocked the situation simply gets worse. But the difference in price is MUCH more than the difference in performance. With amd we can get nearly the same performance for half the cost.

[Neural Interface]

You say that the 3.2c easily beats the 3200+ but in sisoftsandra the 3200+ wins in Drystone and the 3.2c wins in whetstone, so you cant really say that the 3.2c easily beast the 3200+ can you?

 

but heres the catch when you use hyperthreading its a whole different story, then the 3.2c beats the 3200+ in drystone and thrashes it in whetstone.

 

And of course the cost, hence why AMD is CURRENTLY the way to go for most people

 

(imagine AMD where at the same speed in GHz as Intel, intel would go out of business )

[Ziggy54354]

amd's are made in 3rd world countries, so they are evil.

[TypicalSloan]

,Dec 31 2003, 02:16 AM] (imagine AMD where at the same speed in GHz as Intel, intel would go out of business )

Its true, Amd has the more efficient design, but because they cant squeeze enough mhz out of it Intel wins by brute force.

 

I own both and i like both.

Edited December 31, 2003 by TypicalSloan

[Iggy]

I'd go AMD anyday. If I want to acheive top of the line P4 performance with an Athlon XP, I'll just take a 1700+ tbred and slap a custom phase change setup on it. I'm bettin I could get past 3 ghz, if not higher. And it would probably be cheaper than getting a P4EE. And I haven't gone into the Athlon 64 yet. Until Intel makes a 64bit CPU, an Athlon 64 FX 51 will give you better all around performance than any P4, especially when o/c'ed. Plus, it's cheaper and has an unlocked multi. Now if Intel lowered their prices and produced a 64bit chip at 3+ ghz, I'd would have a different opinion. Right now, the Price/Peformance ratio for AMD beats Intel. If Intel wants to grab more hard core gamers and overclockers, they need to unlock their CPUs and lower their prices. That's my take on it.

[Xtreme21]

I'll admit i love Intel, but for the price i love AMD. My first sytem was Intle and ive loved them ever since, but simply the price cant beat beat with AMD thats why there a great company. When i have to sell of my pride and joy Intel LanParty system i admit i was mad.. But when i recenlty built another AMD system and i love that too

[TypicalSloan]

The p4 pretty much takes out every amd xp, but u cant compare a p4 to a 64fx cause the 64fx system cost more (excluding the EE).

The 64fx is definetly better than the p4 EE, but i dont really want to spend money on 64 tech when nothing uses it and there is no OS for it.

 

That doesnt mean if i was rich that i wouldnt blow mad amounts of cash on a 64fx rig though.

[bigred]

amd's are made in 3rd world countries, so they are evil.

and where are intel's made? costa rica, puerto rico and I forget where the 3rd fab is at

 

amd's fabs are in dresden (germany) and houston texas... far from 3rd world

[Iggy]

Aye, nothing uses 64 bit yet-but the Athlon 64 FX51 is still faster and cheaper than the best intel has to offer, and it's ready for the barrage of 64 bit OSes and programs.