Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Do you like Intel CPUs more or AMD's?

  1. Jun 18, 2006 #1
    Do you like Intel CPUs more or AMD's?

    I like AMD's. It is because AMD's CPUs are not easy to hang the machine. The Intel's CPUs are very easy to hang machine...

    I think the main reason is because of AMD's hypertransport and built-in memory controller.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 18, 2006 #2
    I like AMD, I think you get more bang for the buck, they have lower Ghz ratings than Intel(generally) but they seem to work just as well, if not better. I have heard AMD is also better for gaming, but I don't do much gaming so I wouldn't know
  4. Jun 18, 2006 #3
    right now intel's processors compared with AMD's parallel (the one that costs about the same)
    would be better for video/audio encoding and decoding, and rar extracts faster on intel's processors.
    intel's mid-range desktop processors are better for multi-tasking.

    AMD is generally better for 3d games, i get 10% better general scores for 3dmark and aquamark and better frame rates with most games, though i get a better CPU score (in 3dmark and aquamark) with intel compared to AMD's parallel (P4 3.0Ghz vs. AMD64 3000+ with the same DDR and v. card)

    i own AMD64 3000+, intel presscot 3Ghz, intel pentium D 920 (dual core 2.8Ghz), intel celeron (pentium 3) 1000Mhz , intel pentium4 1.5Ghz and intel pentium4 1.6Ghz (well actually they aren't all mine, but im the one who built them and im the one maintaining and benchmarking them...).

    i haven't notices any "hangs" with my intel processors... could you explain what you mean by
    every time i need to buy a new computer (or advise someone what to buy) i check www.tomshardware.com[/url], [url]www.anandtech.com[/url], [url]www.zdnet.com[/url], and [url]www.extremetech.com[/URL]... its not all black and white, there are times when AMD is more bang for the buck and times intel is, and it really depends on what you want to do with your computer, because most of the time there's not one processor that will outshine the compatitor's processor with the same price tag in every aspect.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  5. Jun 19, 2006 #4
    As of recently, it was generally better to go with AMD. That all will change when Intel's "Conroe" hits the street in July, however.
  6. Jun 19, 2006 #5
    chack out these benchmarks:
    the relevant part is from that page onward.
    just pick an AMD processor and an intel one with the same price tag and compare +% and -% in performance.

    when you compare intel vs. AMD keep in mind that motherboard prices are also to be considered.
    sometimes mobo's with the same functionality (meaning what input\output it can handle -e.g. USB2, firewire, gigabit LAN, 7.1 sound with coaxial and optical in/outs... etc.) cost much more for intel then for AMD, or for AMD then for intel, it varies with time... so when you compare CPU, add the motherboard you would use with it to the price tag - it'll give you a better comparison.
  7. Jun 20, 2006 #6
    Currently (until Conroe) AMD is generally a better buy, except in the area of video/audio, which Intel, and higher clock speeds, have always been better. If I were to recommend a processor to someone at this time, it would probably be an AMD. Well, at least until Conroe.

    Oh, and just for your future referance, Tom's Hardware is mildly retarded. I'm not saying this to mean, of course, mearly pointing out the facts and trying to stare you away from bad data. Anandtech and Extreme Tech are both fine. However for even more coverage on other topics, I would recommend Ars Technica, Xtreme Systems, and VR-Zone.
  8. Jun 21, 2006 #7
    Intel Conroe is trying to catch up to AMD best. But they have done a quick fix and scramble job. The 4MB cache Conroe in those benchmarch site are engineering sample and will not be available for mass production. What will be available is 2MB cache version. The huge cache size is to compesate their lack of architecture improvement over the last many years. The huge cache size will perform well in single task, but during multitask switching or memory intensive application more then 4MB will give conroe a hard time, while AMD on chip memory controller shine. They also comparing intel future product to AMD old stable product. Which one will you choose, it's your money? I would wait to see what AMD new product is compare to conroe or if AMD current product price drop.
  9. Jun 21, 2006 #8


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Conroe looks impressive, but yes, we'll have to wait and see how this all shakes out in a month or two.
  10. Jun 21, 2006 #9
    Intel may not have moved to an IMC based architecture, or have an answer to HyperTransport, but Conroe is going to be the top dog for some time. AMD is supposed to move to 65nm early 2007, and have a few other hardware changes throughout that year. However, it won't really have its answer for Conroe till K8L, which is due out 2008.

    With rapid die shrinks, and small changes to the CPU architecture, Intel will most likely hold the performance (and probably price) crown. The only really big weak spot it has is the fact that Conroe still relies on the FSB, as opposed to AMD's reliance on HTT.

    Hopefully, however, they will both aim at each other’s weakness. This will only be good for the consumer. Lower prices, better technology. Intel has already begun to aim at AMD's lack of ability to get new technology out as quickly, primarily because Intel is so much bigger. AMD will, without a doubt, be aiming for Intel's weakness in interconnectivity. Which will show even more once quad-core (and beyond) processors reveal themselves.
  11. Jun 21, 2006 #10
    Its been INTEL all the way for me...After seeing to what happened to my sister's laptop....She has an AMD with a semptron processor i think..Her computer crashed a couple of times i dont know why....We tried reinstalling a windows again, deleting everything from memory twice i think. BTW she had hers for 6 months. i have had my intel for a year now and no prob whatsoever....:biggrin:

  12. Jun 22, 2006 #11
    computer crashes are rarely caused by bad processors... so what your sister was experiencing was probably due to bad RAM, hard-disk or motherboard - they usually are the cause of trouble. (though lately the reliability of these parts got much better)
  13. Jun 22, 2006 #12
    Jake, how new was it? I know a few people where a K7 or K6 AMD processor did something similar, but that is generally unheard of in AMD's K8 series/architecture.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook