ok folks! Another info poll

11 replies [Last post]
coius's picture
Offline
Joined: Aug 25 2004
Posts: 1975

ok, up for discussion for the PC Users (I read more on how this works with mac users) Is what do you prefer? AMD or Intel. Please state below why you own/prefer a specific CPU machine.
and 2:
which CPU would you /did you like in the new Intel macs? Did you want an AMD? or is the intel fine?

I personally want AMD, as they have a more outlined approch and have achieved 64-bit CPU on user level, as well have been able to make their CPU's faster than the Intel's newest CPU's speed (AMD's can crunch more data than an intel faster, and intel is always a step away on their technology)
also, AMD's are cheaper for what they are produced. They also are overclockable in no other way that an intel can be (I have my Machine clocked from 2500+ to 2800+ and the FSB has been clocked from 333MHz to 450Mhz) and it beats the pants off my other friend's newer intel's that they got.

I have always rooted for the little man (being AMD) and intel seems to be taking advantage of their market share by telling companies like Dell, that if they go to AMD, Intel will pull ALL CPU's from Dell's Line. So, in a way, they are pulling a Microsoft.
I own my AMD machine as it seems to be faster for me than ANY intel that I use. I prefer that I can make the system as Fast(or slow) as I want so that I can controll the environment. This means if I need more horsepower, I just go into the BIOS and ramp it up a bit. And If I don't need the power, I will pretty much ramp it down to 2200+ with an FSB ofr 233 (thank got my Board allows me to do that). So I can save more power than an intel system. It makes me happy that I can control what I use and how I use it.

__________________

See my PB540c 33Mhz serve a website! http://yui-ikari.coius.info/

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Offline
Joined: Apr 16 2004
Posts: 142
A Poll! another Poll

Looks at Intel Celeron in 7 year old PC...
Looks at empty wallet
I would have to say intel Wink

D2X's picture
D2X
Offline
Joined: Aug 29 2005
Posts: 79
AMD

I go with AMD. Simply because the performance is slightly better on the apps I need it for. It is also highly upgradable (I went from 2800+ to 3200+, really easy), and gives better FPS on Flight sims (not really relevant to the topic Wink ) Obviously, if Apple decided Intel, it must be for a reason, maybe for the upcoming procs. In due time we shall see why. It seems AMD would be a better choice for macs, but Intel will have to do for me.(Still puzzles me why Apple downgraded procs. from the 64 bit G5 to the 32 bit Yonah on iMacs)

Daniel

__________________

"It's better to be a Pirate than to join the Navy"- Steve Jobs

Intel iMac (2GHz Core Duo)
Powerbook G4 (12" 1.5GHz SuperDrive)
300MHz Clamshell iBook (rebuilt) 544MB/40GB/10.3/AirPort

jman's picture
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2005
Posts: 147
intell

that is what i use Wink

__________________

5500,pmG3,pbG3,pbG4,G5, Mac pro, and MacBook Pro forever
Enjoy the Intel age, but remember the time of the Power PC.
Eight Year Member of Applefrtter

eeun's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 19 2003
Posts: 1891
Back in September I upgraded

Back in September I upgraded my PC system, and I chose AMD.

Along with some advice from Markatz, I compared processor performance vs. price, and concluded that my intended budget upgrade would be best done with an AMD cpu.

It was down to Sempron 3100+ vs. Celeron D, and the Sempron (the 3100+ being based on AMD's newer 64-bit core) the benchmarks for AMD's 1.8 GHz Sempron were much better than the Celeron D's 3+ GHz benchmarks in real-world gaming tests.

As far as the new Macs go, I haven't kept up with specs to judge Yonah vs. AMD's equivalent. I do know that the new Macs have more Intel in them than just the CPU, so there's that price point to consider, when you can buy several greeblies from the same manufacturer. Also it's nice knowing that your not going to be told whoops, we've got a bit of a shortage at the moment.

__________________

"Give a man a fire, he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."
(Terry Pratchett)

macg4's picture
Offline
Joined: Jan 18 2005
Posts: 311
amd all the way baby

amd all the way baby

__________________

"keeping the mac legacy alive one day at a time"
PowerMac G5 1.8/1gig/300gb/Ati 9600/Superdrive/Airport extreme
http://macg4.biz.ly

gobabushka's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 26 2004
Posts: 494
same here

amd is the best, they definitly outperform the intel chips

__________________

"I reject your reality and substute my own!!!" -Adam Savage, MythBusters

mmphosis's picture
Offline
Joined: Aug 18 2005
Posts: 316
AMD

The Dell I am using right now has a Mobile Intel(R) Pentium (R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz. Is that what I prefer? No way. The only choices are Intel or AMD? That sucks. I prefer choice.

I don't choose a computer based on which CPU is in it. What matters to me is screen real estate, extremely small footprint, long component life, low power consumption, no noise (read no fan), ethical manufacturing practices, the ability to plug in lots of standard devices: ethernet, WiFi, USB all versions, firewire, digital/rgb/composite video input/output, stereo audio input/output, 12VDC (compatible with the electrical system on most sailing vessels and cars), oh and extremely durable and submersible would be good too. I really don't care who makes the CPU, to me the CPUs (and I stress MANY CPUs) in my computer need to be like buying RAM: a cheap commodity. Dear _chipmaker_, I would like to order a couple of your dual inline massively parallel CPUs for my computer.

If I was forced to choose only between AMD and Intel, I would choose AMD only because they seem like the underdog. Dear Apple, I would like an AMD in my new Intel mac. Wink

Thanks for asking.

The Czar's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 287
I vote AMD

My vote's for AMD (although, unfortunately, all the PC's in my house ATM are Intel based Tongue). My first internet-capable computer (IBM Aptiva AMD K6-2 333Mhz) was an AMD and it absolutely screamed when put up against the best Pentium II's and early Pentium III's on the market. I had a buddy who bought a Pentium II 400 rig a few months after I got my Aptiva, and we put 'em side-by-side to see which rig was faster. In everything, absolutely everything, the K6-2 was substantially faster than the Pentium II, even despite the disadvantage in clock speeds. (Reminds me of when I put my PM 7100/80 with 8.1 and 48MB RAM up against a Pentium MMX 233 rig with Windows 98 and 64MB RAM - and beat the pants off of it.)

I ran XP on there with 256MB RAM without a hitch. She wasn't up to the latest & greatest games though, but that wasn't a huge concern to me. She soldiered on until I cracked the mobo during a transplant into a new case *sniff*.

I can't say I've had the same experience with Intel. Intel is like Walmart - mass-produced mediocre performance chips, except stuff at Walmart is as cheap as it comes.

Cheers,

The Czar

__________________

iBook 14" 1.33Ghz/768MB/60GB/10.4.8
Quicksilver 2x1.6Ghz/1536MB/600GB/10.4.8 Server

Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 211
As an individual purchaser, I

As an individual purchaser, I don't care who makes my i386 processor so long as it meets my performance criteria at the right price. But there are other consideations for large companies.

Intel have a vast range of processors that sell at a higher retail price than equivalent AMD cpus. If you are assembling a PC yourself, you'll get a better processor for the same price from AMD. Intel's favoured PC assemblers pay a lot less than retail for processors AND motherboards, plus they get kick back money back for advertising. This is how the major PC suppliers undercut smaller companies when selling Intel PCs (and explains why smaller companies are more competitive with AMD PCs). Intel also offer a guaranteed life for a PC motherboard family of at least 15 months. For organisations that deploy PCs using a disk image, this is a significant benefit because it reduces costs enormously.

AMD sell their processors to consumers at great prices. As a smaller company with less manufacturing capacity, they can't guarantee to meet demand in the same way as Intel. Similarly, AMD do not make their own motherboards, and thus can't guarantee continuity. Note, for example, that HP use AMD processors for their consumer models but Intel for their enterprise models.

Offline
Joined: Nov 9 2004
Posts: 23
Intel

Intel Vs AMD never ending battle and the fastest P4 will outmax the fastest AMD in benchmarks also Intel's can be overclocked so what was that argument?

Now Value wise AMD hands down no question

coius's picture
Offline
Joined: Aug 25 2004
Posts: 1975
Re: Intel

joe4pal wrote:

the fastest P4 will outmax the fastest AMD in benchmarks

Yeah, but benchmarks mean nothing in the real world. All it does is run the same data thru the CPU over and over. When you use it in the real world, the data changes. What matters is how the CPU will handle the ever changing data the fastest, moving from different types of data to another.

joe4pal wrote:

Intel's can be overclocked so what was that argument?

*BUZZ* Wrong! Intel has the multiplier set into the internal of the chip. There is not really a way to reclock it without opening the chip up, which will destroy the chip anyways. All you can do is clock up the north bridge on the Motherboard. So all you can do is just feed the data to the CPU Faster.

My board allows me to speed up the north bridge, *AND* the CPU. That means, i theorhetically can clock the board up to 450MHz and the CPU up to 2.0Ghz (which there is a BIG speed difference in the original specs and the 'clocked version)

So, i prefer AMD as you have the option to overclock the CPU, and if the board permits, the MLB too.

__________________

See my PB540c 33Mhz serve a website! http://yui-ikari.coius.info/