AMD vs. Intel

[Silverfox]

Question: if intel dropped their prices dramatically, what would people be buying then? just a thought.

[Guest ThermalGuru]

Edited August 11, 2004 by ThermalGuru

[FaNta84]

man this thread never ends. there is no way we can ever resolve this issue, it all comes down to personal preference. We can see this in everyday occurences such as eating habits for example. Some people in here probably love McDonalds while hating Burger King, thats just how their taste buds were made. However, another person likes the exact opposite. Now we know McDonalds is usually cheaper and you get the same nutrition out of it, but some people simply pay the money for the different taste of burger king. In the end our bodies would recieve the same nutrition while paying different prices, however there is no way we can force one person to like Burger King or McDonalds better than they already do. This may sound retarded but I don't see why we need to convince each other why a processor is better than any other, it all comes down to that taste we get that keeps us coming back for more.

[Nerm]

that is a good analagy fanta.

[The_Goonie]

Intel

Avg. 61% more expensive then the equivilently rated AMD Chips

Runs at a constant "continuous speed" unless Hyperthreading = higher temperatures = shorter lifepsan of the cpu

Intel aims at the "right now" / AMD aims at the "future"

Intel brands the "its new its better" into your head

Intels marketing is geared towards "we are more advanced than AMD"

 

 

AMD/ATHLON

technology is geared towards "we give you better bang for your $" (and they do)

Runs with power saving features/cool n quiet = lower temperatures = longer lasting processor

Cheap entry level into the 64 bit market (non existant- but doesn't hurt to prepare)

 

 

Both equivilant chips bench SO CLOSE...that NO ONE on God's green Earth would ever notice under the naked eye, unless you had a program recording the nanoseconds in difference it took one processor to perform an operation over the other. The battle in performance over these two chips is over. Neither company wins because they price their processors so differently, and so questionably high, that it is pointless to even consider their high end chips for a normal gaming enviornment. You will never utilize the speed of these chips unless you are running a server platform..and I highly doubt most are. Stick with the lower Athlon 64's and overclock the pee out of'em! That's your best bang for your buck....for the long run!

 

Joe

Single Trader Inc.

Edited June 27, 2004 by The Goonie

[Guest ThermalGuru]

Intel

Avg. 61% more expensive then the equivilently rated AMD Chips

Runs at a constant "continuous speed" unless Hyperthreading = higher temperatures = shorter lifepsan of the cpu

Intel aims at the "right now"

Edited June 27, 2004 by ThermalGuru

[Silverfox]

Quit while you're all still ahead people.

 

Lets try for a real answer this time:

 

*What if Intel were as cheap as AMD?

 

*What if AMD were as expensive as Intel?

 

 

At the end of the day, people are trying to prove a point that can't be proved. Each have their respective advantages and disadvantages. We all know that. I used to have the arrogance that I can sense is starting to show with some opinions, but it gets you nowhere. Noone (least of all people here) are going to change their processor habits because of this thread. If you do, let me know

[Guest ThermalGuru]

Edited August 11, 2004 by ThermalGuru

[Split423]

like people have said before, comparing apples to oranges. both companies are aiming for completely different goals. AMD is going for lower cost and Intel is going for better more speed. AMD has switched over to 64-bit procs, which is the only thing that will be produced by their plants soon, if not already. Both companies are headed in different directions in my opinion. If i had the money for it i would actually have an intel right now, but since i dont, it's AMD for me. IMHO thats really what it comes down to.

[ClayMeow]

Answer:

A space shuttle.

 

And Claymeow.....a definition of how the phrase "more bang for your buck" works...coming from you is really making me laugh.....you should have kept quiet while you were ahead....now you've gone and done it. That has nothing to do with what I've said above and keep your emotions to yourself...I said nothing about being powerfull or having more money than you. That is a limitation you are putting on yourself and you obviously feel intimidated by me...for whatever reason. Now that is truely funny.

Think man, before you go and talk to me......better yet....don't even talk to me anymore unless you have something intelligent to say. Got it Webster?

you're a hypocritical tool....so what's this comment supposed to mean then:

 

Besides it's my money and I'll decide what "more bang for the buck" is.....not because somebody like you told me so.

 

You blatantly give some nonsense irrelevant definition of "more bang for buck" and then have the nerve to bash me for explaining it in real terms??? and the latter statement is not an attack on on wealth???

 

What is a few dollars to me may very well be a whole bunch of dollars to you.

So that's not saying anything about (thinking) you having more money than others?

 

Maybe instead of trying to attack others, you should reread your naive, idiotic posts first. Then you'll see why YOU are the one coming off like an insane, biased, over-emotional twit, rather than the amd-supporters. You're what gives intel a bad name.

[oralpain]

This whole thread is pointless and should be deleted.

[AYoKoNA]

This whole thread is pointless and should be deleted.

If it was deleted, then you would see 100's of AMD vs. Intel threads across the forums..

Trust me I have seen it along with others, which is why they created the thread.