19 replies to this topic

[rouncer]

You get your 3 gig intel cpu, which is only 2.4gig amd, and your wondering
why you ever bought hard revvin overpriced stuff at all.

The guys down the shop always try to sell you intel saying its more reliable, but thats the biggest corporate lie.

Its only the quiet little shop where they back amd, and you ask him "why do people even buy intel?"
he goes "I dunno..."

My favorite algorythm of all time IZ -> boolean objects.

[anubis]

Quote

Its only the quiet little shop where they back amd, and you ask him "why do people even buy intel?"
he goes "I dunno..."

Because AMD cpus used to burn a hole in your motherboard because they were overheating so much ? Ok... they didn't do that but still my AMD machine used to crash a lot during the summer with temperatures over 80 degrees (Celsius). Never had these problems with INTEL.

[anubis]

Also with the core duo cpus INTEL finally stopped the clock speed frenzy. In fact they have been doing so for a long time with their notebook cpus.

[Frank Skilton]

I've had a similar experience. I've never had an Intel CPU fail on me, even when over clocked. I can't say the same about AMD. AMD are a smaller company and are forced to cut back on the quality of parts used (E.g. heat sinks/fans, alloys etc). Intel CPU's have always provided me with a better overall PC experience (video/audio encoding/decoding, burning, networking etc). AMD's always take longer to complete such tasks. An AMD CPU might give me a four frames per second boost when playing Half Life 2 but that's not enough for the few bucks that I'll save, in my opinion.

[laweya]

I've never owned an Intel processor and I very likely never will, I've used them at various workplaces and compared to my AMD's ll take and AMD any day. Right now I'm runing a pretty old AMD 64 3000+ 2.0Ghz but my friends who own Intel 3.0's always assume I'm running a dual core machine.

It takes me 8 minutes to burn an entire dvd at 8x, how long does it take on an Intel 3.0? While I'm burning I'm still running memory hungry applications ususally Photoshop CS2, Dreamweaver 8 and Fireworks 8 and Media Player in the background and none of them even flinches.

I have 1GB of DDR 400 Memory and I live in Africa where the average temparature everyday is 25 degrees Celsius so I've never experienced AMD's overheating. My cpu temprature is usually 47 deg when Idle and about 53 on load.

Based on this http://www.anandtech...cle.aspx?i=2463 and http://www.anandtech...aspx?i=2353&p=9 I would say they are about the same but I'll stick to AMD for now though I'm abandoning ATI for Nvidia

[anubis]

In the end there is no "better" cpu. With each new generation of cpus all you can do is make an educated guess on benchmarks before you order.

Simply buying out of fandom or personal opinion is not that smart to begin with.

[roel]

Quote

It takes me 8 minutes to burn an entire dvd at 8x, how long does it take on an Intel 3.0?

The influence of your cpu on dvd burning speed is negligible.

[Nodlehs]

AMD's have historically had more power consumption, higher running temperatures, and more picky power line noise values. I have had a mix of both AMD and Intel over the years, and as Anubis said, buying out of fandom is stupid. Buy based on reviews and your personal needs. I bought a celeron 300A when they were so easily overclocked and AMD couldn't touch them. Then I moved to a P3, eventually I went with an AMD when I got my first 64 bit proc, as it blew the Intel's out of the water. Now I am back with an intel core 2 duo, as for my needs, and the reviews, it beats out anything AMD puts out.

[Rofar]

It's true that AMD's generate more heat but that just means you have to prepare and have good ventilation and good cooling fans. I've never had an AMD overheat as long as I kept the dust cleared and the fans turning. If your AMD was/is overheating, then the fault lies somewhere besides the CPU itself.

[laweya]

Nodlehs said:

Buy based on reviews and your personal needs.

Like my girlfriend always says, no point defending and doing some free publicity for a company I don't own shares in.

I've been thinking of buying an Intel quad core but I decided to wait till AMD's quad core is out then depending on reviews Ill make my choice.

At the end of the day its a matter of preference as they are more or less the same - It makes no difference if one runs a game at 2 fps's better that the other, or renders 1 minute faster does it?

[rouncer]

I just think AMD is more value for money.

Im got an AMD now, I had my fan speed set wrong in the bios and I overheated.
So I guess your right about that, but make sure it comes with a warantee and you just paid less for a powerful computer.

Id feel a total fool for not backing AMD, with their really friendly prices.
INTEL just seems like a RIPOFF.

[Nodlehs]

Rofar said:

It's true that AMD's generate more heat but that just means you have to prepare and have good ventilation and good cooling fans. I've never had an AMD overheat as long as I kept the dust cleared and the fans turning. If your AMD was/is overheating, then the fault lies somewhere besides the CPU itself.

AMD's generate more heat than intels, period. There isn't 'fault' to be placed anywhere, it is a known fact you must deal with when buying AMD. You need less cooling to keep an Intel at proper temps compared to AMD, which in a lot of cases can mean a quieter computer.

[anubis]

Quote

I just think AMD is more value for money.

Im got an AMD now, I had my fan speed set wrong in the bios and I overheated.
So I guess your right about that, but make sure it comes with a warantee and you just paid less for a powerful computer.

Id feel a total fool for not backing AMD, with their really friendly prices.
INTEL just seems like a RIPOFF.

Don't mind reading any acutal benchmarks ...

Which reminds me. Athlons used to be without any warranty for physical damage to the cpu. Not even retailers would give you one for that, even though in germany they probably have to. You were forced to check the cpu when you bought it and sign a paper that you won't come after them.

The reason was that it was just way too easy to nick an edge of the die, while installing the fan.

But don't get me wrong. I had two AMD machines before my dual core and I was happy with them (except the overheating part). The point is : There are reason not to buy AMD. And with the dual core even a mediocre one keeps up with more expensive AMDs. So I don't see the price tag, which I admit is there, being as relevant right now since you'd have to buy a more expensive AMD cpu, to get the same performance.

And again... Both companies are fine. I'm not rooting for either one. And if anyone thinks he or she can buy hardware based on previous experience with a company I feel sorry for them. I haven't heard of any company that just made _the_ best hardware all the time. AMD and INTEL don't and ATI and NVIDIA don't.

[rouncer]

Why pay for 3dsmax or maya for thousands of dollars, when there
is blender, which is equally powerful (probably more) and completely free.

[Frank Skilton]

rouncer said:

Why pay for 3dsmax or maya for thousands of dollars, when there
is blender, which is equally powerful (probably more) and completely free.

Because Max & Maya are the industry standard, highly recognized and regarded within the industry and are used by a countless number of professionals for various productions. There's a reason why practically every game engine in existence supports theses two programs.

Don't get me wrong, Blender is a fine product and it's great that it's free but really, it doesn't compare to professional tools.

[Nick]

rouncer said:

Why pay for 3dsmax or maya for thousands of dollars, when there
is blender, which is equally powerful (probably more) and completely free.

What's your next subject, Windows versus Linux? :offtopic:

[Nodlehs]

Nick said:

What's your next subject, Windows versus Linux? :offtopic:

:offtopic: He does seem bent on creating controversy rather than discussing valid points of topics on all threads he joins/starts.

[TheNut]

There's no doubt AMD has the better price-per-performance market, but their marketing blows goats. I am happy that they finally convinced Dell to use their chips in laptops now, which really helped bring down their prices for students and what not. The only problem remains is getting Dell to put worthy video cards in those laptops.

I've been with AMD since way back in the K-6 days. They were very unstable, but the K6-2 was a nice stability fix. The Athlon series were great and to this date still perform well. Since the dawn of multicore however, I was sold on Intel. Usually I don't care for a slight boost in speed, but the core duo was double what AMD could produce. For an extra $40 some dollars, it was an easy purchase.

It's interesting to note that AMD and ATI are sleeping together now. Although I'm surprised there were no offspring as a result of that marriage. I wonder what they're waiting for.

[Nodlehs]

TheNut said:

It's interesting to note that AMD and ATI are sleeping together now. Although I'm surprised there were no offspring as a result of that marriage. I wonder what they're waiting for.

I dislike the fact that one of the top 2 gaming video card manufacturers is owned by a core processor company. I could see them trying to tie in features cross product. IE: You buy an AMD chip, and an ATI video card, and you get better performance than an Intel chip, with ATI video card. It is easy to see them doing this. I like choice, and this could potentially remove choice of processor if I want the best option when I build future gaming PC's.

It is potentially as irritating as it is when they code specific features of a game (graphics wise) for either ATI or NVidia. I don't mind being constrained by DirectX version across either GPU vendor, but making me buy a specific brand of card to view the game at its best shouldn't be a requirement.

[Goz]

TheNut said:

It's interesting to note that AMD and ATI are sleeping together now. Although I'm surprised there were no offspring as a result of that marriage. I wonder what they're waiting for.

So you've not heard about "Fusion" then? I think they're waiting for the fact it takes around 2 years (or more) to complete a full hardware product cycle. They could have ended the cycle straight away and moved over completely but then we'd STILL have to wait as long AND it would mean all ATI's future money making possibilities going out the window ... That would not be a sensible thing for a strugglnig company to do when buying out another company.