Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Total Members Voted:]

AMD CPU

31 (8.9%)

Intel CPU

39 (11.1%)

Other

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 60

[Black Viper]

Discuss your CPU choice below, hitting on things like:
1) Cost
2) Power consumption
3) Performance
4)

No flaming others for their opinion, but constructive complements and criticism is welcome.

[tonster]

As you probably know Charles, AMD is WAY BEHIND right now.  I hated the k6-2, but when the K7 hit the market it was comparable.  I have had athlons in my last two gaming rigs, due to lower costs and higher performance, as well as overclocking ability.  Now, with Core 2 duos, quads, etc......AMD is left in the dust. 
Gaming benchmarks tell the story at stock speeds, and overclockers everywhere can tell you the era of the Celeron 300A overclocking days are back.  Nobody thought we'd ever see another 300A, but Core 2 Duos exemplify the error of our ways (in saying "never again"). 
Power consumption has never been an issue for me, nor has reducing noise for that matter.  I can accept some ambient noise, because I'm wearing headphones almost always while the puter is under load. 
My last system was a 3400+, because I didn't have the dough to buy the Core 2 Duos...they started at $225 at the time I bought my $70.00 3400+.  It was a no brainer for a poor guy like me. 

If you need an office machine for mundane tasks....either proc will do.  On the other hand, if you wanna clock the thing til the cows come home, ride it hard with high end gaming, and toss it like a salad when you've killed it from too many volts or too much heat....INTEL, BABY! 

Hope you enjoy my rant.  BTW, I have no affiliation with either company, I'm for whoever has the fastest solution in my price range with overclocking never far from my decision.
Tony

[golfhou]

I am currently running the Q6600 (2.4) from Intel on a EVGA 680i SE SLI board. It was a pretty simple overclock to 3.0Ghz with no significant heat issues.

From the things I have read, Intel will continue to be my choice for processors. AMD has not caught up with much less passed Intel on performance or pricing.

[Spawn]

Intel all the way!

[Warthog]

I've loved AMD's after they got their act straight and started competing. Now with the 64 bit AMD dual core's I just think they rock. Compatability issues arose early on, but since then it has been running very good.

I typically don't overclock them, but pound for pound the AMD seems to win. Of course I guess the major issue is how good is your video card nowadays anyhow. Crysis anyone? LOL

[Vulcan]

I have used both CPU but since Intel brought out the Core 2 Duo........it has been Intel only as they have a big performance edge right now.

[Larry]

Intel have only had one AMD really didn't have any problem with it...guess it all depends what you are doing with the PC.

[grandpa]

started using AMD on a 939 socket, today i'm using AMD 6000 on AM2 socket.

i'm a programmer not a hardcore gamer, but like to do moderate oc for fun,
and 3D and video game programming in my spare time.

as Larry wisely said: it all depends what you are doing with the PC.

an important point to be aware of when doing testing is which compiler
is used for the testprogram, because some of them are better in optimizing
for intel than AMD.

[boilerman]

I do not game.  I have no use for multi core processors for my online activities and my off line activities are minimal.  But my next build will have an AMD processor like the last three.  Intel might be better but AMD will do anything I need.  If people do not purchase the AMD in sufficient quantity to keep AMD in business we will end up with a choice between Intel and Intel.  And then Intel will have little reason to push innovation.  Or to keep prices down. 

Competition is the key to improvement and affordability.   

[tonster]

Competition rox, I totally agree with that.  Right now AMD is behind, but hopefully they will come up with a new innovation to get ahead of intel.  I have always liked the underdog, and AMD is definitely that.  Given a choice for my gaming rig, if AMD and Intel were equal, I'd go AMD.  That said, AMD probably works for most apps.  I'm just an extremist in the hardcore overclocking and super performance sort of way (on a budget)   . 

Great input from everyone though.  I am guessing we all use our puters for different things and therefore, there is no right answer to this poll.
Tony

[Tiga]

Another Poll ?!
Easy one too "Intel".
I buy hardware not because of specific manufactures but because what I buy is the best I can get for the money I have.
I did have a nice little opty 165 overclocked to 2.8 GHz and nothing at the time had a chance until Intel gave us the core duals.
So because of obvious reasons I have an e6750 overclocked to 3.8GHz and at the time of purchase was the best bang for buck.
I would also like to say that AMD had most of the time been my favorite but since they merged with ati all downhill.
That was in my opinion one big mistake that merger. Now we look at the AMD/ATI group and see them only managing to produce medium range cpu's, gpu's. (What a shame)

I would like to see amd rise again to make intel sweat a little, this should bring prices down a little and promote innovation.

Tiggs

[Clownhoes]

Mmm a tricky choice.  My 1st real PC was a P3 1 Ghz, 512Mb ram finally running with Nvidia FX5200 256Mb.  It's still running smooth as ever even though it can't play any of the latest games ( kids use it to play BHD, sims etc ).  I decided to go for an AMD 3000+ 64bit 2 years ago and was so impressed I upgraded to a 3400+.  I recntly build my new pc using the dual core 6400+ black edition.  This doesn't mean to say that I prefer AMD over Intel it's just a matter of choice and the fact that AMD doesn't use that annoying Intel tune in thier TV adverts.

[Volt]

 I usually rebuild my desktop about once a year. I'll go with whatever hardware is performing the best at the time. I'm not loyal to any particular brand. Right now, for CPU's, AMD doesn't even deserve consideration. I'm currently running a QX6850.

[AKHandyman]

I am a custom system builder and I always give my customers a choice of what processor they would like to use.  The get the same story from me as to the advantages and disadvantages of both brands ... however; most prefer AMD when is comes to value for performance and I can't argue with them on that point.  Nonetheless, most of these people DO NOT GAME, therefore they have absolutely no interest in Intel and how great they are in overclocking and what better performing processors they are.  To them, if it does what they want it to do (e-mail, surfing the Internets, and playing solitaire) then there is no reason to pay more ... I agree ...    On the other hand, if you are a gamer and want the maximum performance for a few dollars more, then it's INTEL all the way!

[FLATLINE]

All my comps have Intel processors. One Pentium 3 800MHz, Celeron 2.4GHz, and a Duo Core 1.6GHz. While I believe in competition and would like to actually see some other manufacturers compete in this arena I dont believe like a poster above said that we should buy AMD to help keep them a float. Only AMD can secure their future and viability. Id like to purchase one of the newer Dual Core AMD processors but for now there is no reason. Who knows what the future holds.