whats better Intel or AMD [Archive]

prostuff1

Apr 1, 2008, 07:42 PM

currently the lead belongs to intel, at least in the mid to high end range. In the low end range there is some debate about who is better but my personal opinion is that AMD has a little bit better processors at the low end then intel does.

I am glad that intel is doing so well, but AMD really needs to kick it into gear. Intel has been slow to release there 45nm desktop processors (e8200, e8400, and e8500) cause AMD cannot and does not have anything that can compete with the current offerings. Hopefully AMD can kick it into gear and we can see some competition.

Silencio

Apr 1, 2008, 07:51 PM

IBM G processors. Stupid Apple. :(

I don't care if your laptop is 3 inches thick and has a heat sink the size of a small vehicle, it'd be faster. :(

"Stupid IBM" is more like it. They're the ones whose dual-core CPUs needed massively over-engineered liquid cooling, couldn't get their chips to run at 3.0GHz despite their promises to Steve Jobs, and couldn't come close to making a fast CPU suitable for portable machines.

I really drank the IBM Kool-Aid back in 2003. They talked a mean game about beating Intel senseless back in those days. They failed, Intel came out with chips based around a much more sensible architecture, Apple switched, I moved on. (Well, I don't even own an Intel Mac yet, but still.)

killmoms

Apr 1, 2008, 07:54 PM

IBM G processors. Stupid Apple. :(

I don't care if your laptop is 3 inches thick and has a heat sink the size of a small vehicle, it'd be faster. :(

You do realize that all benchmarks show today's MacBook Pros are faster than G5 workstations from a couple years ago, right?

Face it, the POWER architecture was dead-end, at least on the desktop. It's brilliant in areas where the manufacturer has a reason to actually ramp it, but for Apple switching to Intel was a no-brainer.

Zwhaler

Apr 1, 2008, 07:58 PM

You do realize that all benchmarks show today's MacBook Pros are faster than G5 workstations from a couple years ago, right?

Face it, the POWER architecture was dead-end, at least on the desktop. It's brilliant in areas where the manufacturer has a reason to actually ramp it, but for Apple switching to Intel was a no-brainer.

Exactly, and that is what it is all about. Power-efficiency. Without it, our laptops would be slow as hell. I personally think that that is one of the main reasons why the portable market has picked up so quickly in the past few years, since their power is actually comparable to that of a desktop.

Cassie

Apr 1, 2008, 08:11 PM

Personally, I'm a fan of PPC, but between Intel and AMD, gotta say AMD> I have never had a single problem with an AMD computer, plus I think they run faster then the Intel equivlent.

creator2456

Apr 1, 2008, 09:17 PM

My household has 2 HP desktops, 1 Intel powered and 1 AMD powered. The Intel wins in the snappiness and 'ill show you what you are looking for now but freeze in 10 seconds' department. The AMD wins in overall speed and 'ill get what you want done the right way but a tad slower' department.

Mindflux

Apr 1, 2008, 09:19 PM

Personally, I'm a fan of PPC, but between Intel and AMD, gotta say AMD> I have never had a single problem with an AMD computer, plus I think they run faster then the Intel equivlent.

Not as of anything lately. Sadly enough. AMD's chips are lagging behind Intel in just about every possible scenario. I used to build AMD only systems for work. The last 5 have been Intel C2D 2.66GHz.

Mindflux

Apr 1, 2008, 09:20 PM

Q6600 for $189 can't be beat.

I'm seeing Q6600's (Kentsfield) for 250 on Newegg, which usually has the best or very close to the best price. I'd love to see a Q6600 for 189.

graphiteG4

Apr 1, 2008, 09:36 PM

thanks for your opinions

Eidorian

Apr 1, 2008, 09:39 PM

I'm seeing Q6600's (Kentsfield) for 250 on Newegg, which usually has the best or very close to the best price. I'd love to see a Q6600 for 189.http://www.netaffilia.com/ad/electronics/frys/i/2008/03/28/30984.html

Bought it before the sales tax hike. :D

NAG

Apr 1, 2008, 10:05 PM

It's just nice to be in a more competitive chip market after the switch to x86. PPC was pretty much limited to IBM, who didn't really give a damn about Apple.

PlaceofDis

Apr 1, 2008, 10:16 PM

It's just nice to be in a more competitive chip market after the switch to x86. PPC was pretty much limited to IBM, who didn't really give a damn about Apple.

the G4 was made by Motorola.

Rodimus Prime

Apr 1, 2008, 10:40 PM

Hawkeye411

Apr 1, 2008, 10:43 PM

AMD is pretty power hungry. The last time I upgraded a motherboard with an AMD chip, it kept crashing and it turned out that the power supply wasn't quite good enough for the AMD chip. I spent a lot of money on a new power supply. However, the system was smoking fast.

Cheers.

prostuff1

Apr 1, 2008, 11:10 PM

On these forms that is a stupid question. Way to many people drink the apple koolaid to really think amd is better.

Because apple is using Intel they will say it is better and for no other reason. Go back and dig up some post back before the announcement of the intel switch. There was a lot of bashing intel up until it was announced and then you see them singing intels praises and it was the same people who are bashing it.

The reason all the bashing was going on was cause AMD was still "leading" at that point in time. Most people wanted to see apple switch to AMD over intel, cause AMD's chips were bigger, better and faster. Obviously intel showed apple what was coming and made it happen. I don't really know what would have happened if apple had went with AMD instead of Intel but i would guess that Apple products would be lagging behind the market a tad.

Aea

Apr 1, 2008, 11:16 PM

Why does it matter, at all? I mean, unless you're a super enthusiast or building computers/servers, why does it matter at all? All I care about it performance vs price, and right now Intel is far in the lead in all categories, if AMD starts taking the lead I'd favor them. :rolleyes:

aethelbert

Apr 1, 2008, 11:16 PM

Bought it before the sales tax hike. :D
Damnit, don't remind me.

Anyway, Intel is currently the better choice. AMD is technologically inferior at the moment.

UberGeek9

Apr 1, 2008, 11:36 PM

At the moment Intel..

Mammoth

Apr 1, 2008, 11:43 PM

Personally, I'm a fan of PPC, but between Intel and AMD, gotta say AMD> I have never had a single problem with an AMD computer, plus I think they run faster then the Intel equivlent.

That was true in the days of the Athlon 64. (I was a measly 12 years old or so..) Now it's pretty much been flipped with the core wars. AMD's Phenom series have been a disappointment and Intel's new Kentsfield lineup seems to be a winner.

Rodimus Prime

Apr 2, 2008, 02:11 AM

The reason all the bashing was going on was cause AMD was still "leading" at that point in time. Most people wanted to see apple switch to AMD over intel, cause AMD's chips were bigger, better and faster. Obviously intel showed apple what was coming and made it happen. I don't really know what would have happened if apple had went with AMD instead of Intel but i would guess that Apple products would be lagging behind the market a tad.

I do not think that is the reason at all.

Look back. It was lot of bashing X86. 2nd it was annoucned intel was the best thing since sliced bread and IBM sucked.

I do not think it was the CPU why apple went with intel. It was the fact intel makes there own motherboards and designs them. That and intel had better mobile chips.

But I stand by my point. That is a stupid question to ask on these boards. Way WAY to many apple worshipers here to get a real answer. PC forms are by far a better place to go for that question but that is because well they have a choice on CPU.

takao

Apr 2, 2008, 08:01 AM

currently the lead belongs to intel, at least in the mid to high end range. In the low end range there is some debate about who is better but my personal opinion is that AMD has a little bit better processors at the low end then intel does.

having set up a intel box with a E2160 just recently i d'have to disagree... if you are into tweaking the E2140-E2200 totally blow the amd counterparts out of the water in price-performance

even with the stock cooler you can increase the clock ridiculously high without the fan speeding up or without increasing voltage

I am glad that intel is doing so well, but AMD really needs to kick it into gear. Intel has been slow to release there 45nm desktop processors (e8200, e8400, and e8500) cause AMD cannot and does not have anything that can compete with the current offerings. Hopefully AMD can kick it into gear and we can see some competition.

the problem currently also is that nearly all CPUs from intel have still a lot of air upwards available in term of clock rate (400mhz on pretty much all cpus) so even if amd came out with a good cpu intel simply had to release a new "version" running at higher clock

and if nehalem at end of year will be the big step forward everybody expects AMD might be in problems .. especially on the server cpu side which is still comparable to intel

edit: and that's coming from somebody who sweared by AMD a few years ago ...

Techguy172

Apr 2, 2008, 08:18 AM

Intel is far better especially for Laptops they smoke AMD. Without intel The MacBook Air would not exist. There's no way AMD could make a chip that small at this point. The Core 2 is killing AMD and so is the Xeon.

PowerFullMac

Apr 2, 2008, 08:51 AM

Intel is best. AMD processors die. Easily.

Hawkeye411

Apr 2, 2008, 08:53 AM

Intel is best. AMD processors die. Easily.

??? What?:confused:

PowerFullMac

Apr 2, 2008, 08:56 AM

??? What?:confused:

Someone who works at a computer repair and sales shop said that almost everyday at least one person who got a laptop with a AMD CPU in it came in because it had died.

GradientMac

Apr 5, 2008, 01:59 AM

To be honest I just liked Apple being more different. Now it's impossible for Apple to exceed the PC market in specs. I know, OS optimization, blah, blah, blah, blah... But it just give's PC users a reason to whine about how Macs aren't any faster then PCs and they're SO MUCH "MORE EXPENSIVE111?!/42"

s'ya.

Techguy172

Apr 5, 2008, 08:34 AM

Dagless

Apr 5, 2008, 09:01 AM

I've always preferred Intel, despite what Rodimus Prime thinks most of us used to think. I've only used AMD in lower end machines, Intel, whilst usually costing a bit more brings in longer systems life (AMD K6, "Thunderbird", Athlon MP something - all died after 3 years). I was using Intel way before I got my first Mac, way before they switched to Intel and I'll be using them for the foreseeable future.

My sister still uses our 500mhz Pentium 3 system. Still chugging along after a good 7-8 or so years, runs XP quite well too.

nikopolidis

Apr 7, 2008, 06:59 AM

I remember when I was going to buy my PC-Laptop about 1 year ago I was choosing between Intel and AMD Turion... AMD was a bit cheaper so I could get more packed model.. But I've chosen Intel one as it looks more powerful and reliable.. :)

Mord

Apr 7, 2008, 07:25 AM

Core>K8>Netburst

solvs

Apr 7, 2008, 08:29 AM

Look back. It was lot of bashing X86. 2nd it was annoucned intel was the best thing since sliced bread and IBM sucked.
I don't know what you're remembering. There was plenty of bashing of the PPC, and lots of people saying Intel/AMD were better before hand. After the announcement of the switch, lots of people were disappointed too. Of course, who could blame them because IBM was making a lot of promises, AMD was actually doing pretty well, and when people thought of Intel, they thought of the P4, which wasn't great. Once the CoreDuo was out, based on the Pentium-M, which was based on the P3, which was actually pretty nice, it was no contest. We were hesitant, but the proof changed most of our minds. We were right to be cautious, and others were right to criticize PPC, but it's not like we all loved PPC and hated Intel, then everyone switched after they announced it. Some liked it before and after. Some hated it before and after. Most of us who did change our minds did so because the facts changed. That happens.

Anyway, right now Intel is better. PPC was nice, but woefully underdeveloped. The G5 was awesome, but that didn't last. The G3 and G4 had their hey days at first too. AMD blew it out of the water, and for a time Intel even regained. As of the CD and especially the C2D, Intel is the fastest and actually cooler in most cases. AMD may regain eventually. PPC may even too. Who knows.

nick9191

Apr 7, 2008, 08:41 AM

For years AMD was on top, now its back to Intel. I'm an Intel/ATI (yes AMD own ATI) man myself, but I like AMD, and I kinda hope they get back with it, because Intel need competition. If Intel were the only CPU company, then we'd all be using 400mhz Pentium 2's right about now (although that wouldn't be too bad because it would force coders to code efficiently).

What would have been great was if Apple had used AMD instead of Intel (and at the time of the switch AMD were pwning Intel), AMD being the smaller company meant Apple could have worked with AMD.

mags631

Apr 7, 2008, 10:33 AM

I do not think that is the reason at all.

Look back. It was lot of bashing X86. 2nd it was annoucned intel was the best thing since sliced bread and IBM sucked.

I do not think it was the CPU why apple went with intel. It was the fact intel makes there own motherboards and designs them. That and intel had better mobile chips.

But I stand by my point. That is a stupid question to ask on these boards. Way WAY to many apple worshipers here to get a real answer. PC forms are by far a better place to go for that question but that is because well they have a choice on CPU.

Explain to me how your statements are fundamentally different from those of the "apple worshippers" who drink the "kool-aid," blindly supporting and defending all of Apple's actions regardless of the facts? You claim that such a question is not worthwhile on these forums because the responses are untrustworthy due to the pro-Apple bias of the people on these forums; and that, the question is better discussed on PC forums, presumably because the people on those forums are less biased and therefore trustworthy.

I will not argue that no one is unbiased, because psychologically that position is not defensible (hence, individuals on "PC forums" would also be biased to certain perceptions, like those here). But, what I will argue is this: you discredit the discussion in these forums by generalizing the people here as untrustworthy regardless of the facts that they discuss. I.e., you yourself are generalizing without providing facts, thereby committing the same sin which you accuse others of. So, if your hypothesis is that if people who give statements without facts (due to their biases, for example) are not trustworthy, then isn't your position logically discredited for the same reason?

In short, I find your argument, at best, intellectually uninteresting, but at worst, intellectually lazy.

Shadow

Apr 7, 2008, 10:34 AM

What would have been great was if Apple had used AMD instead of Intel (and at the time of the switch AMD were pwning Intel), AMD being the smaller company meant Apple could have worked with AMD.

I dont think so...AMD is far too small to fulfill the demands of Apple. Intel was the only x86/x64 chip manufacturer that could supply Apple.

Shadow

Apr 7, 2008, 10:36 AM

Explain to me how your statements are fundamentally different from those of the "apple worshippers" who drink the "kool-aid," blindly supporting and defending all of Apple's actions regardless of the facts? You claim that such a question is not worthwhile on these forums because the responses are untrustworthy due to the pro-Apple bias of the people on these forums; and that, the question is better discussed on PC forums, presumably because the people on those forums are less biased and therefore trustworthy.

I will not argue that no one is unbiased, because psychologically that position is not defensible (hence, individuals on "PC forums" would also be biased to certain perceptions, like those here). But, what I will argue is this: you discredit the discussion in these forums by generalizing the people here as untrustworthy regardless of the facts that they discuss. I.e., you yourself are generalizing without providing facts, thereby committing the same sin which you accuse others of. So, if your hypothesis is that if people who give statements without facts (due to their biases, for example) are not trustworthy, then isn't your position logically discredited for the same reason?

In short, I find your argument, at best, intellectually uninteresting, but at worst, intellectually lazy.

http://xkcd.com/406/ ;)

tersono

Apr 7, 2008, 10:43 AM

http://xkcd.com/406/ ;)

ROFL - I was thinking the exact same thing.... :D

mags631

Apr 7, 2008, 11:26 AM

http://xkcd.com/406/ ;)

Guilty!:D

Techguy172

Apr 7, 2008, 03:39 PM

Sometimes I wish PPC was better and apple had stuck with it that way it could have been the fastest. They are still fast but They need better power efficiency that's about the only thing it needs I think the architecture is better, Maybe I'm wrong.

Silencio

Apr 9, 2008, 12:51 AM

I don't know what you're remembering. There was plenty of bashing of the PPC, and lots of people saying Intel/AMD were better before hand. After the announcement of the switch, lots of people were disappointed too. Of course, who could blame them because IBM was making a lot of promises, AMD was actually doing pretty well, and when people thought of Intel, they thought of the P4, which wasn't great. Once the CoreDuo was out, based on the Pentium-M, which was based on the P3, which was actually pretty nice, it was no contest. We were hesitant, but the proof changed most of our minds. We were right to be cautious, and others were right to criticize PPC, but it's not like we all loved PPC and hated Intel, then everyone switched after they announced it. Some liked it before and after. Some hated it before and after. Most of us who did change our minds did so because the facts changed. That happens.

Nailed it.