Computer Science Canada

Intel vs AMD
Author:  Silent Avenger [ Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Intel vs AMD
I'm sure this has been talked about before but I just want to see what brand of CPU most of the people here on CompSci prefer. I personally prefer Intel CPUs just because they're more reliable and are more compatible than the AMD CPUs and that they run at a lower temperature then their AMD counterparts.
Author:  rdrake [ Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
You sir, are playing with fire.

That being said, Intel.
Author:  Ultrahex [ Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
personally i like things that heat up and explode so AMD is where i am at... actually i really have no preference a processor is a processor aint it? it works and it gets the job done at the end of the day.
Author:  RGB255 [ Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ultrahex wrote:
actually i really have no preference a processor is a processor aint it?

Well it depends on what you're doing for some things AMD is better and for others Intel is better but it all depends on what you do with your system. As for my choice I like Intel because my last computer had an AMD CPU in it and it fried on me. Also Silent Avenger, I agree with rdrake. You're playing with fire because I've seen one of these threads go horribly wrong.
Author:  Silent Avenger [ Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yes I know I'm playing with fire because I've seen one of these threads go bad also. I'm just hoping that the people here are nicer than in the other forum which I'm sure all of you are.
Author:  wtd [ Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
Asking the question means you've missed the point. The competition between the two means that supremacy (on any point, be it speed, power consumption, price) is in a constant state of flux.

This makes it possible for the savvy buyer to get the best deal at any given time, but that isn't possible if you're slavishly devoted to a particular supplier.
Author:  md [ Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think intel has the lead right now; but once AMD let's lose it's quad core chips I think it might change. 'Tis close though... very close
Author:  Andy [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:44 am ]
Post subject: 
intel will release quad core before AMD. Both architectures are drastically different, and its hard to tell who will come out on top just yet.

Realistically, no consumer will not be see a big enough performance leap to justify an upgrade.
Author:  bugzpodder [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:54 am ]
Post subject: 
Intel's first quadcore will probably arrive in november! the major improvement seem to be at the video/audio encoding area, having a 200% - 400% increase over the T6800. check out the review at tom's hardware
Author:  CyberGeek [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:14 am ]
Post subject: 
INTEL! Very Happy

.... and see below Wink

Posted Image, might have been reduced in size. Click Image to view fullscreen.

Wink Wink
Author:  md [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Intel vs AMD
I just read this entirely...

Silent Avenger wrote:
I personally prefer Intel CPUs just because they're more reliable and are more compatible than the AMD CPUs and that they run at a lower temperature then their AMD counterparts.


I have no idea where you got these mistaken ideas... Reliability is pretty equal between AMD and Intel. Both run the same instructions, so there are no compatibility issues. And last time I checked an AMD CPU generated less heat then an equivalent Intel CPU (excluding the new core * chips, which are mch better power-wise).
Author:  ZeroPaladn [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm not a serious enough computer user to have a preference, mainly because to me a computer is a computer, both makes of hardware do what they were intended to do. Some may be better for gaming, other for buisness or personal use, but im not concerned with that.

I'm neutral on the subject.
Author:  [Gandalf] [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
AMD seems to have created better CPUs in the past, and my Athlon 64 has served me better than any Intel CPU I've gotten, and got me more for my money.
Author:  Silent Avenger [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Intel vs AMD
Cornflake wrote:

I have no idea where you got these mistaken ideas... Reliability is pretty equal between AMD and Intel. Both run the same instructions, so there are no compatibility issues. And last time I checked an AMD CPU generated less heat then an equivalent Intel CPU (excluding the new core * chips, which are mch better power-wise).

Actually my idea of reliability is probably different than yours. Some of my friends run on AMD processors and most of them have had problems with them of either overheating or just quite working. No doubt my friends don't make up most of the people who own AMD processors so I'm sure that AMD and Intel are just about equal in reliability it's just from what I've seen the AMD processors don't look that reliable. As for the compatibility, I was talking about the compatibility of the hardware not the software. There are some cases that I kow of where some motherboards do not support the AMD because Intel can give a huge grant to the company to make the motherboard solely compatible with the Intel processors. Also as for heat it all does depend on how you cool your system. My grade 11 computer science teacher actually did a test because of this very question and because he had 2 identical computers but one ran a Pentium D and the other ran an Athalon x2 and he got the thermometer for your CPU from futureshop and installed them on both PCs and he ran the computers at idle for about 2 hours and checked the temp and the Athalon was 3 degrees hotter. It wasn't much of a difference but it does show that the Intels run at a cooler temp just slightly but I think if you overclock an Intel it will run hotter than and overclocked AMD but I'm not sure.
Author:  1of42 [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
While up until about a month ago I would answer AMD 100%, the release of Conroe means that (for now) I'm an Intel person.

So Intel. Razz

However, wtd has a valid point in that this question is only valid up until the next product launch. Wink
Author:  [Gandalf] [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
Why would this question only be valid until next product launch? The poll isn't asking "Which company currently has the better CPU?", it's asking which company's CPUs you generally prefer. Seems to me most of you haven't noticed that...
Author:  Blade [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
[Gandalf] wrote:
Why would this question only be valid until next product launch? The poll isn't asking "Which company currently has the better CPU?", it's asking which company's CPUs you generally prefer. Seems to me most of you haven't noticed that...


So it's not possible to change your preference because of a recent cpu launch?
Author:  [Gandalf] [ Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
It is, but that isn't the only factor, at least not for everyone.
Author:  War_Caymore [ Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:33 am ]
Post subject: 
I have truted intel ever sence my cousing bought an athlon32 and a pentium 3 beat it out of the water no problem. both systems has 64mg on-board video, same ram, and both ran XP. yet the pentium had better performance, and ran nearly all programs better.

i'd have to go with intel.
Author:  bugzpodder [ Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
intel easily dominates the high end PC market with its core 2 dual chips (just look at the benchmarks). But AMD remains competitive with its low end chips and the fact that they are much better than old intel chips (pentium D and all that crap)
Author:  Andy [ Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
War_Caymore wrote:
I have truted intel ever sence my cousing bought an athlon32 and a pentium 3 beat it out of the water no problem. both systems has 64mg on-board video, same ram, and both ran XP. yet the pentium had better performance, and ran nearly all programs better.

i'd have to go with intel.


considering there is no such thing as a athlon32, of course the p3 outperformed this non existant cpu
Author:  md [ Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
You know, I really dislike how my favourite CPU architecture (MIPS) was just left out. What if I hate AMD and Intel?

MIPS ftw!

(I just realized that ftw backwards is wtf!)
Author:  Silent Avenger [ Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
md wrote:
You know, I really dislike how my favourite CPU architecture (MIPS) was just left out. What if I hate AMD and Intel?

MIPS ftw!

(I just realized that ftw backwards is wtf!)

Yes I'm sure we're all aware that MIPS is not on the poll but the poll isn't about every processor company just the lagest ones battling it out on the PC market which is currently, as I know of, Intel and AMD. If you hate both Intel and AMD then vote for no preference or just don't vote for either Intel or AMD.
Author:  we64 [ Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
It really doesn't matter, we all benefit from the competition between the two. Keeps on supporting the best each time is a good idea.
Author:  apomb [ Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:37 am ]
Post subject: 
Silent Avenger wrote:
As for the compatibility, I was talking about the compatibility of the hardware not the software. There are some cases that I kow of where some motherboards do not support the AMD because Intel can give a huge grant to the company to make the motherboard solely compatible with the Intel processors.


do you realise that they HAVE to make different motherboards, simply due to the fact that AMD and Intel chips dont have the same type of sockets, and up untill AM2 socket, AMD didnt even use the same type of memory? so when you speak of compatability, youre not making much sense. Oh, and Dell has actually bought over a million desktop AMD chips and half a million laptop AMD chips, so there goes that argument as well Wink I am still a fan of AMD, so i voted AMD, but i know that Intel is kicking their ass in the high end dual core race right now, and it makes me sad. Sad actually, let me corerct myself, it doesnt make me sad, it makes me very excited, lets just hope AMD can step up their game.
Author:  Silent Avenger [ Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
CompWiz333 wrote:
do you realise that they HAVE to make different motherboards, simply due to the fact that AMD and Intel chips dont have the same type of sockets, and up untill AM2 socket, AMD didnt even use the same type of memory? so when you speak of compatability, youre not making much sense. Oh, and Dell has actually bought over a million desktop AMD chips and half a million laptop AMD chips, so there goes that argument as well Wink I am still a fan of AMD, so i voted AMD, but i know that Intel is kicking their ass in the high end dual core race right now, and it makes me sad. Sad actually, let me corerct myself, it doesnt make me sad, it makes me very excited, lets just hope AMD can step up their game.


Yes I do know that they have to make different motherboards for Intel and AMD but I have to ask you a question. If company A asked you to make something compatable with one of their products for 20 million dollars and company B also asked you to make something compatable with one of their products for 10 million dollars and the release dates are a few months apart, for which company would you spend more time on perfecting the product company B or company A which offered twice as much money? Now I think most people would answer A especially the greedy business people. So this is a similar case that happens with Intel and AMD sometimes. If a company got offered twice as much to make a motherboard for Intel than AMD they will most likely spend more time in making and perfecting the product for Intel because they pay more. So when time comes to making the product for AMD they have less time to work on it and therefor there may be major flaws in the product. It's not like these don't get fixed or that this happens all the time but sometimes when something launches for both AMD and Intel there may be higher quality in the Intel product. So right off the bat the product for Intel will be more able to utilize the processors' power and on the other hand the product for AMD may not be able to use all the power of the processor or the product may be delayed to fully complete it. I don't know why I called it compatability but I just seemed to notice that some products comeout late for AMD or don't work as well as they should and I'm not saying this happens all the time. Now I hope this sounds clear because the descrete mathematics and calculus test's I had today and the physics test I had yesterday have completely fried my brain.
Author:  RGB255 [ Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
Okay so let me get this right, you say that you notice that some products released for AMD might not have as much quality and might not use the full potential of the processor because they are less funded in somecases than Intel. Is that right? So if this is right this has nothing to do with Dell apperently buying all those AMD processors, right?
Author:  Silent Avenger [ Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yes exactly right! It's not like AMD doesn't have the money to fund the products that are being made compatable with processors it's just Intel has well mostlikely a lot mor money and Intel has most large businesses relying on this product to work properly so naturaly Itel will spend a lot more money on making sure the stuff made for them works the way it's supposed to if not better. Don't asked me why I didn't say this the first time as I said my brain is still fried from my tests this week.
Author:  RGB255 [ Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
Okay I think I get it now.
Author:  Blade [ Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
So, if VIA, Nvidia and ATI all had contracts with both AMD and Intel, but Intel pays more with their contract (which I doubt they pay anything) then those companies will put more effort into their developments? I doubt this. It doesn't make sense. If a consumer buys a product with a VIA chipset, and it doesn't work very well, who are they going to be disappoitned with? Obviously VIA. Then the consumer will turn around and start buying other products. This is obviously going to hurt VIA more than anythign else (especially if AMD is paying VIA to develop chipsets). The same goes with any other chipset developer. In the business world, everything is more of gamble than anything else.

Prior to the release of Intel Core DUO, AMD and Intel were neck in neck which was proven by benchmarks. If the chipsets were so inefficient, don't you think the performance difference would be that much greater?
Author:  Silent Avenger [ Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
Okay here read this article it'll probably make more sense than I ever could. So if there's something wrong with the article then complain to the author not me.
Link: http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1786/
Author:  Andy [ Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
umm motherboards can support anything.. its the chipset. If intel paid the company to not support AMD, they would get sued. Anyone remember the skype incident? Chipset companies design their products based on expected sales profits.

Regardless, Intel makes the best chipsets either way. AMD Chipset sucks because they dont make their own, why else do you think they bought ATI?

:


You can syndicate this boards posts using the file backend.php or view the topic map using sitemap.php.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy