Hot Debate: AMD or Intel?

[DLShAdOw]

When browsing processors, a customer really only has two choices: AMD or Intel(servers excluded). I have always been a fan of AMD, but recently Intel has been getting lots of positive press with it's core two duo's and such. So I am asking you guys: Which do you prefer, and why? Also, do certain companies who make good motherboards support one or another?

Alternatively, when taking straight performance out of the picture, what is best for overclocking?

N.B. Assume that all processors are dual core and make your goal for performance the system requirements for Crysis.

[mizukage]

I always use Intel, what is AMD??? Which one is better?? I actually don't know, but I do notice that the cost of Intel processors are usually more expensive than the AMD ones..

[VioletSkye]

The Core 2 Duo cpus out perform the AMD cpus atm, so that's what I use. However keep in mind that AMD is getting ready to release their new line of processors called Phenom X2/X4/FX and Intel will follow up with their new line the Penryn. Whereas Penryn is slated to have Dual and Quad core, AMD is slated to have Dual, Tri and Quad core.

[Sekani]

I'm sure some tech geeks could quote you a zillion specs to "prove" which one is better, but during actual use I've never noticed enough of a difference to pick one over the other.

I usually go with AMD because they're cheaper.

[Blitzkommando]

I go with whomever has the best performing chips at the time. That means this round I went with Intel. In computers I have no real brand loyalty, I go with whomever provides what I want the best (usually best price to performance ratio). I've used both AMD and Intel, ATI and nVidia (entered too late in gaming for Voodoo but I did have an ancient Matrox card). Currently I'm looking at getting rid of my Creative X-Fi (and the shitacular drivers that are currently less stable than most Eastern European nations) in favor of the Asus Xonar D2X (when it decides to come out).

Hands down the Core 2 Duos win with overclocking in mind, both for their overclockability and for the performance when overclocked. AMD chips have a very, very difficult time going above 3.0-3.3GHz stable and even then they match a 2.4-2.6GHz Core 2 Duo that isn't even overclocked. The only reason I would suggest an AMD system today is without overclocking and no interest in having the capability in the future. In that case the 6000+ from AMD is an excellent chip, matching the E6600 in most situations while costing a nice bit less.

Most motherboard manufacturers support both Intel and AMD. That simply allows them to have the potential to sell to everyone. The only manufacturer that doesn't swing both ways is, obviously, Intel. Still, ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte, DFI, Epox, Foxconn, among others all have boards on both sides. Nvidia also makes chipsets for both sides and their 680i chipset for Intel systems has proven to be an excellent platform for overclocking Core 2 Quad processors (and Core 2 Duo of course). I personally have an EVGA branded board (680i SLI) running an E6600 at a rather easy 3GHz. It is definitely one of the best experiences I've had with a board ever, far better than I had with my last system. What's nice is when he Penryn chips come out I can essentially drop it in (might be a BIOS update) and be running from there. Hopefully the trend will continue and I'll be able to do what some of the preliminary tests have shown and possibly hit 4GHz on air with it although I'd be perfectly happy with 3+.

The question then of course is how will the Phenom chips do? Personally, from the lack of any sort of bragging from AMD about them (not to mention their higher-ups dropping out since the ATI aquistion) that I'm skeptical about them. I have no doubt they'll perform as well as the current Core 2 Duos. What I have major doubts about is whether they could handle competing with Intel's new architecture late next year possibly early 2009. If they can't compete with that we might very well see the government step in to prevent AMD from going bankrupt like they did with GM in the 90s to prevent Intel and nVidia from being the only CPU and GPU manufacturers (well, not the only, but they already have the biggest market share).

I would rather have more confidence in AMD right now as they really need it. They can't do like Intel did and lose market share for four years and expect to still turn in a profit. Nor can they expect to survive by using their current strategy of "clock higher for less efficiency and lower prices through the floor". Intel struck AMD really hard with the Conroe when it was released. And why shouldn't it have? It was a brand new architecture competing against something that came out in 2003. Intel isn't in the old Netburst days anymore. I'm hoping they've learned their lesson about that (and I think they have). I'm just hoping AMD learns to be willing to cut more corners than they did in the past because that's one reason why Intel was still successful during the Pentium 4 era. Slapping two cores together on a single die and calling it dual-core was brilliant. It cut down production costs (not to mention number of bad chips) and gave the customers what they wanted, albeit slower and less efficient than AMD's parts.

People still don't know who AMD is. They've been around for a long time now but they still have relatively poor market recognition. That's another key to their problems. Intel built up the Pentium empire (and decided to keep it around as their chips right above the Celeron line) and it was a massive advantage. Everyone knew what a Pentium was. Everyone 'knew' the Pentium was good, even if it wasn't as good as the Athlon 64, it was still a Pentium. The market is finally getting some recognition to the Athlon name and they've scrapped it. Bad move I think, but hey, their choice.

In short, AMD needs Phenom to strike hard. They need it to outperform Penryn by at least a good 10%, preferably 25% for the models that are designed to go head to head. Whether it will or not I'm frankly not sure. But based on their new Opterons I'm not holding my breath. It looks more, again based on the Opteron results, to be a game of trying to just match Intel at the moment. With how easily the Penryns are overclocking even if AMD pulled ahead a bit Intel has the opportunity to pump out a 3.6, and possibly 3.9 or 4.0GHz chips with fair ease with a revision or two (B3 and G0 with the Q6600 showed this fairly well). I really do want competition, but frankly I'm not expecting to see all that much. Bottom line? AMD needs another Thunderbird or Clawhammer. And they needed it yesterday.

[mizukage]

On 2007-11-01 22:04, Sekani wrote:
I usually go with AMD because they're cheaper.

Cheap or Expensive?

[SabZero]

My newest PC is AMD/Asus (athlon 64X2,asus nvidia 799soemthing). My husband who is a die-hard Intel user, was very impressed with its silent running. And I'm happy about having supported hardware (he always gets into a tight spot with *nixes on that)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: VioletSkye on 2007-11-02 11:18 ]</font>

[VioletSkye]

On 2007-11-02 11:14, SabZero wrote:
My newest PC is AMD/Asus (athlon 64X2,asus nvidia 799soemthing). My husband who is a die-hard Intel user, was very impressed with its silent running. And I'm happy about having supported hardware (he always gets into a tight spot with *nixes on that)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: VioletSkye on 2007-11-02 11:18 ]</font>

Heh sorry Sabzero, I accidently hit the edit button instead of the quote button, don't worry I changed yours back

Anyway I was going to say that the cpu doesn't make any noise so the quietness wouldn't be attributed to the fact that it's AMD.

There are however several components that do make noise though and even within similar component types some are quiter than others. Another thing to consider is cooling and how many fans there are in the case along with the size of the fan/s. This includes case fans, cpu fan (coupled with a heatsink), the power supply fan, and fan on the videocard. Also differences in cases have a lot to do with the noise level. Optical drives and harddrives vary in the noise they make as does the fact of how they are mounted. If they are not secured tightly they can make quite a racket lol.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: VioletSkye on 2007-11-02 11:25 ]</font>

[SabZero]

Heh, no problem. Well, the fans coming with this AMD are more (much more) silent than the ones that (usually) come with Intel CPUs. In my experience.

But I would never want an Intel motherboard. Seems they aren't very flexible for future upgrades. Then again, they change the socket type everytime they make a new CPU (I wish they stopped that), along with different RAM stuff and oh lets make up a new card interface Edit: went a little off-topic there.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SabZero on 2007-11-02 13:41 ]</font>

[mizukage]

On 2007-11-02 11:14, SabZero wrote:
My husband who is a die-hard Intel user, was very impressed with its silent running. And I'm happy about having supported hardware (he always gets into a tight spot with *nixes on that)

You are married and you still play video games
I am just joking.