I go with Intel processor cos i have so many problems with AMD.. plus im using Intel with laptop and it run perfect ;)

I've just today made order for a upgrade on my old computer.

The parts are as follow:

AMD Phenom X4 9750 (2.4Ghz)
Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H m-ATX
Corsair TWIN2X 6400C4DHX 4096MB CL4 2x2Gb 800Mhz
PIONEER DVD±R/RW DL 20X DVR-215 SATA

I fine uppgrade for 666$ (or 4000kr in swedish currency 6kr about = 1$)

I could not have gotten such a good deal whit Intel. Sure Intel performs alot better but they are also alot more expensive!

The Q6600 costs as much as the AMD 9850 (2.5Ghz) and they perform alot like each other, AMD wins some Intel wins some others. So If I would have wanted to go Intel and gotten a Quad-core I would have needed to dish out alot more money on the cpu and motherboard and then also not get as mych functionality on the Intel mobo that the cheaper AMD mobo gives. Whit AMD I can settle whit the integrated if I want or run that temporarly for some time whitout beeing to bitchy about it. But whit Intel integrated... well it's just not upp to par what AMD has to offer in any way.

Personally I'm a AMD fan but it's kinda hard to follow them since Intel is better (right now anyway).

I would like to go AMD for my next system but being the tech buff that I am there's no way I'm building a system without DDR3 and AMD MBs that support DDR3 are null right now.

Unfortunate really.

aside of that my major complaint is that DDR3 boards with SLI PCIe 2.0 16x are limited to a finger count right now.

I'm an AMD user, because AMD's are cheaper and they don't use as much energy as Intel's (I know that because before I had Intel and it used more energy as the AMD), and also, they don't get as much temperature as Intel's.

LunaticZorr

I'm an AMD user, because AMD's are cheaper and they don't use as much energy as Intel's (I know that because before I had Intel and it used more energy as the AMD), and also, they don't get as much temperature as Intel's.

Yes, of course, because if a certain line of processor historically uses more power or generates more heat than whatever else is on the market, its successor is obviously going to do the same.

Orchid

LunaticZorr

I'm an AMD user, because AMD's are cheaper and they don't use as much energy as Intel's (I know that because before I had Intel and it used more energy as the AMD), and also, they don't get as much temperature as Intel's.

Yes, of course, because if a certain line of processor historically uses more power or generates more heat than whatever else is on the market, its successor is obviously going to do the same.

Don't forget you also have to compare like with like, LunaticZorr didn't even mention which type of processors were being compared... desktop, portable, server, embedded...

Maybe LunaticZorr was comparing AMD's Geode processors to Intel's Xeon ones...

I think you have a bit too much faith in humanity. Anyway, saying all Intel processors run hotter and less efficiently than AMD processors (or vice versa) is completely ridiculous, and I think it was fair to treat the implication as misinformed.

Orchid

I think you have a bit too much faith in humanity. Anyway, saying all Intel processors run hotter and less efficiently than AMD processors (or vice versa) is completely ridiculous, and I think it was fair to treat the implication as misinformed.

Apologies, I was mostly being sarcastic in my last post but it didn't come across.

I completely agree with you as far as ridiculous comparisons go, I typed up a post almost identical to your one but you beat me to it.

Ah. I had a sneaking suspision about the sarcasm with the server-class vs. embedded processor comparison, but I couldn't be sure. :P

Currently Intels highend cpu's are alot more energy efficient than AMD's, they run cooler and require less energy. AS I mentioned Phenom 9850 (2.5Ghz) is about as good as Q6600 performance/price, but Q6600 is better though in general, but by not much. But then you can aswell take a look at other than performance and price. Lets look at power usage, and heat and overclockability... Well Q6600 you can run upp to 3.5Ghz easily normally. at stock it draws less power than the Phenom 9850 and also runs cooler... Then you gotta get in your mind that Q6600 is old allready and has gotten replaced by newer and ewen better Intel cpu's! But there comes the prices. Well AMD is cheaper and that's why I went whit them.

But all said doesn't apply everywhere, on every cpu. (just the one I took as example)

AMD has placed itself in low-budget and cool processors whit fair performance for cheap money whit Intel taking performance place but also in the more expensive category.

Intel are Crocks! My opinion but they take way to much money for their cpu's. Take a look at the increments in price of how measly extra Mhz... you get 100 more Mhz but you pay 50% more than the previous cpu >_>; AMD sticks whit quite fair ladder on price/performance so does Intel for most parts where AMD can still be there for the performance, but as soon as you go above what AMD can offer Intel goes and skyrockets in price/performance which I really don't like. Each damn cpu in a line costs as much as the other to produce! You get some better qwailty than some others but taking such huge margins for the little better ones... damn...

Go for intel... intel much cheaper and better than AMD unless you low in budget then AMD~

thehui

intel much cheaper

How is that, exactly? AMD procs usually have a much better price/performance ratio than equivalent Intel ones. The only thing is, Intel's high-end CPU's are just better in performance.

GoldenApe

thehui

intel much cheaper

How is that, exactly? AMD procs usually have a much better price/performance ratio than equivalent Intel ones. The only thing is, Intel's high-end CPU's are just better in performance.

I am sorry, but if by "high end" you mean pretty much any of their processors then you are right.

Any intel processor (assume we are comaping quad cores to quad cores and duo cores to duo cores) will run faster than an AMD, no questions asksed. Perphaps not stock, but with a little overclocking, the lowest intel processor can overtake the highest amd ones.

The only thing amd has going for them is price. Not even price/performace.

SkullOne

Neither vendor is "better" then the other. One of them is always ahead of the other and then it switches because one becomes lazy. Currently Intel is leading however there are a number of things that Intel needs to do in order to NOT allow AMD to surpass them again. Intel is STILL using a Northbridge. The memory controller needs to be moved on board chip. Thankfully they have this slotted for their next gen chips if I remember correctly. Intel also needs to bring out a true quad-core CPU. Their current "quad" cores are NOT true quads. They are two dual core CPUs slapped on the same chip. The only true quad-core right now is AMD's Phenom. AMD's B3 stepping on their Phenom Quads has corrected the TLB errata error, improved performance fairly well, and they've been able to boost the clock frequency as well. Phenom is performing quite well now against certain Intel chips and that will only continue as clock speeds increase. Plus the Shanghai core Phenom will be upon on soon enough and that should level the playing field. But only time will tell. One thing that people are forgetting is that we need AMD to keep Intel on their toes. If AMD were to die (it'll never happen) Intel would then have a monopoly. Prices would skyrocket and new technologies and higher speeds would not be happening as fast as they currently do. -S1

You make many points that might convince the un-educated, but I am sorry to point out many errors in your comments.
1. Their quad cores are true quad cores. They are two core 2 duo's put together, true, but if a core 2 duo is a true dual core, then a dore 2 duad is a true quad core. Lets say we accept for a moment that they "aren't true quad cores" they still beat the pants of anything AMD has to offer.

A quadcore processor is a processor with 4 cores, very simple. All Intels quad cores are four cores laided down in a single die. Now, if they happen to reuse the Core 2 Duo designs, good for them, saves then design costs and the savings are passed onto the consumer.

2. The new B3 stepping does let AMD clock higher, but it is still low comapred to Intel's offerings

3. We don't need AMD to keep intel on it's toes. If AMD died tomarrow it wouldn't change Intel much. Reasons:
a) there are PLENTLY microprocessor companies besides Intel and AMD, if AMD died and Intel was the only company that amde x86, someone else would step in
b) even if Intel ahd no competitors, prices would need to be reasonable regardless or another company WILL step in amd make x86 processors
c)There is a meeting every other year (International Tech Roadmap http://www.itrs.net/) where the entire semicondictor industry meets and makes a roadmap. How technologies will progress, how to resolve problems with research, make sure everyone adopts new fabrication technologies and such. The world of microprocessors is not just Intel and AMD. This roadmap will ensure that new chips will be released with new technologies and better preformace.

Again, I can only assume you posted your comments because you do not work in the semiconductor industry, then the comments would make sense, but in truth the semiconductor and microprocessor industry is very complex, don't make assumptions =)

You make many points that might convince the un-educated, but I am sorry to point out many errors in your comments.
1. Their quad cores are true quad cores. They are two core 2 duo's put together, true, but if a core 2 duo is a true dual core, then a dore 2 duad is a true quad core. Lets say we accept for a moment that they "aren't true quad cores" they still beat the pants of anything AMD has to offer.

A quadcore processor is a processor with 4 cores, very simple. All Intels quad cores are four cores laided down in a single die. Now, if they happen to reuse the Core 2 Duo designs, good for them, saves then design costs and the savings are passed onto the consumer.

2. The new B3 stepping does let AMD clock higher, but it is still low comapred to Intel's offerings

3. We don't need AMD to keep intel on it's toes. If AMD died tomarrow it wouldn't change Intel much. Reasons:
a) there are PLENTLY microprocessor companies besides Intel and AMD, if AMD died and Intel was the only company that amde x86, someone else would step in
b) even if Intel ahd no competitors, prices would need to be reasonable regardless or another company WILL step in amd make x86 processors
c)There is a meeting every other year (International Tech Roadmap http://www.itrs.net/) where the entire semicondictor industry meets and makes a roadmap. How technologies will progress, how to resolve problems with research, make sure everyone adopts new fabrication technologies and such. The world of microprocessors is not just Intel and AMD. This roadmap will ensure that new chips will be released with new technologies and better preformace.

Again, I can only assume you posted your comments because you do not work in the semiconductor industry, then the comments would make sense, but in truth the semiconductor and microprocessor industry is very complex, don't make assumptions =)

I made no assumptions.

1. All the hardware review sites even say the same thing. Yes it's a Quad core. I never denied that but it's not a true quad. True quad cores have 4 frequency independent cores (and will be voltage independent in the future as well) that are on the same die and all 4 cores can work together or independently. Current Intel implementation does not have that. Instead you get two dies on the same package. Each die contains 2 cores. These dies act independently of each other while the cores can work together or work independently. I also never said they weren't fast. Intel moves to 4+ cores on a single die with their upcoming Nehalem processor. Nehalem is also where they are getting rid of the Northbridge and putting the memory controller onboard the die like AMD did with the introduction of Athlon64.

2. I never said it beat them. I said "they are performing quite well now against certain Intel processors."

3. Who will step up against Intel? I'd love to know because I don't know anybody else out there right now capable of creating a x86 or x64 based CPU that could compete. IBM maybe but IBM gave up on x86 long ago so I don't see them stepping up. Via couldn't compete either. So who else is there?

-S1