AMD is sooo cheap compared to Intel

the reason they are more expensive is becuase ther different secifications to them

you could be seeing an amd sempron which is only one core and you see that intel has a quad core

there not cheaper becuase they bad but becuase there different processor on the other hand there are some expendive cpus from AMD called barcelona or opteron which are quad cores

people prefer intel over AMD becuase they are better and while that may be true i have always said that you can get a cheaper amd cpu which has ALMOST the same performance as the equivalent processor for intel

budget build=AMD

high end=Intel

but there are some high end cpu's for amd also like the x2 6000, x2 6400, and the 5000 black edition (once you OC it)

your choice if you have the money get intel or if you are low on cash get amd

AMD needs to keep its price's low in order to compete with Intel's performance advantage.Indestructible2

price to performance ratio- AMD

best performance- Intel

AMD is having to lower prices on its CPUs because the Core 2 CPU's from intel are able to perform so well. It seems more of an "about time!" thing considering that intel has long been trying to peddle us on the Netburst/Prescott architecture. AMD's K8 (Athlon64/X2/FX) is basically what gave them the kick in the pants needed to release something that was worth buying.codezer0

[QUOTE="codezer0"]AMD is having to lower prices on its CPUs because the Core 2 CPU's from intel are able to perform so well. It seems more of an "about time!" thing considering that intel has long been trying to peddle us on the Netburst/Prescott architecture. AMD's K8 (Athlon64/X2/FX) is basically what gave them the kick in the pants needed to release something that was worth buying.WuTangG

They should've seen it coming with the debut of the Pentium M processor on the notebook platform. The Pentium M was able to outperform K8 processors, despite running at a lower clock speed (and hence lower power consumption).

It was only a matter of time Intel would upgrade the Pentium M to a desktop/server based processor (Pentium M -> Core Duo -> Core 2 Duo/Quad).

I was shopping around for processors and have found the average price for the top of the line AMD CPUs to be around $250, yet when I look at the Intel Extremes I find that they cost over $1000. I have heard better things about AMD CPUs, especially when it comes to gaming. So why is there and $800 difference in cost? Is there some kind of twist? Do you need to buy 4 processors to match that of the Intel quad CPUs, or do the $250 AMDs actually perform just as well as the $1050 Intels?E3BigC

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3038&p=2

EDIT: BTW The FX-74 is a dual socket CPU setup in AMD's QuadFX platform (two FX-74's in the one motherboard).

In my experience, yes AMD's do run games better, if you were to compare two equal systems. BUT, that said, Intel is always one step ahead. When I built my computer, 2.4ghz processor speed was their fastest precessor, and at that same time, Intel was making 3.2ghz processor speed. It's things like that that make intel better in a sense. But as for "smooth'ness" and a less glitchy, problem free processor, I prefer AMD. I actually prefer it, you just have to live with the fact that it isn't top of the line in terms of performance.........

[QUOTE="codezer0"]AMD is having to lower prices on its CPUs because the Core 2 CPU's from intel are able to perform so well. It seems more of an "about time!" thing considering that intel has long been trying to peddle us on the Netburst/Prescott architecture. AMD's K8 (Athlon64/X2/FX) is basically what gave them the kick in the pants needed to release something that was worth buying.WuTangG

Nearly as good of performance for a fifth of the cost...the choice is pretty obvious to me.E3BigC

What?

Care to find me this fifth of a cost and nearly as good performance?

In my experience, yes AMD's do run games better, if you were to compare two equal systems. BUT, that said, Intel is always one step ahead. When I built my computer, 2.4ghz processor speed was their fastest precessor, and at that same time, Intel was making 3.2ghz processor speed. It's things like that that make intel better in a sense. But as for "smooth'ness" and a less glitchy, problem free processor, I prefer AMD. I actually prefer it, you just have to live with the fact that it isn't top of the line in terms of performance.........

lokiisback

What?

The amount of misinformed or incorrect posts on this forum is startling.

Both AMD and Intel processors don't exhibit any kind of "glitchiness", unless you get a processor with a manafacturing defect (in which case your whole PC would be experiencing major problems).

Second, "smoothness" is determined by the processor's ability to execute said amount of instructions per clock, and the clock speed of the processor. The only reasons why you would experience "unsmooth" framerates would be because either your graphics card isn't fast enough or CPU isn't fast enough.

Where do people get this kind of dodgy info?

[QUOTE="lokiisback"]

In my experience, yes AMD's do run games better, if you were to compare two equal systems. BUT, that said, Intel is always one step ahead. When I built my computer, 2.4ghz processor speed was their fastest precessor, and at that same time, Intel was making 3.2ghz processor speed. It's things like that that make intel better in a sense. But as for "smooth'ness" and a less glitchy, problem free processor, I prefer AMD. I actually prefer it, you just have to live with the fact that it isn't top of the line in terms of performance.........

Wesker776

What?

The amount of misinformed or incorrect posts on this forum is startling.

Both AMD and Intel processors don't exhibit any kind of "glitchiness", unless you get a processor with a manafacturing defect (in which case your whole PC would be experiencing major problems).

Second, "smoothness" is determined by the processor's ability to execute said amount of instructions per clock, and the clock speed of the processor. The only reasons why you would experience "unsmooth" framerates would be because either your graphics card isn't fast enough or CPU isn't fast enough.

Where do people get this kind of dodgy info?

[QUOTE="Wesker776"][QUOTE="lokiisback"]

In my experience, yes AMD's do run games better, if you were to compare two equal systems. BUT, that said, Intel is always one step ahead. When I built my computer, 2.4ghz processor speed was their fastest precessor, and at that same time, Intel was making 3.2ghz processor speed. It's things like that that make intel better in a sense. But as for "smooth'ness" and a less glitchy, problem free processor, I prefer AMD. I actually prefer it, you just have to live with the fact that it isn't top of the line in terms of performance.........

LouieV13

What?

The amount of misinformed or incorrect posts on this forum is startling.

Both AMD and Intel processors don't exhibit any kind of "glitchiness", unless you get a processor with a manafacturing defect (in which case your whole PC would be experiencing major problems).

Second, "smoothness" is determined by the processor's ability to execute said amount of instructions per clock, and the clock speed of the processor. The only reasons why you would experience "unsmooth" framerates would be because either your graphics card isn't fast enough or CPU isn't fast enough.

Where do people get this kind of dodgy info?

What I'm saying here is... If some how you could find two processors with everything absolutly equal about them, every statistic, every measurement, every mhz mb gb EVERYTHING the same, and one had an Intel sticker on it, and the other an AMD sticker on it, if they were both running with the same ram, on the same OS with the same graphics card, on the same game, the AMD would run a little bit better, and that is why I like AMD... Plus, and this is purely based on experience, not absolute facts, but in my experience, AMD's run into less problems... Less crashes that all computers eventually have years down the line.........

[QUOTE="LouieV13"][QUOTE="Wesker776"][QUOTE="lokiisback"]

In my experience, yes AMD's do run games better, if you were to compare two equal systems. BUT, that said, Intel is always one step ahead. When I built my computer, 2.4ghz processor speed was their fastest precessor, and at that same time, Intel was making 3.2ghz processor speed. It's things like that that make intel better in a sense. But as for "smooth'ness" and a less glitchy, problem free processor, I prefer AMD. I actually prefer it, you just have to live with the fact that it isn't top of the line in terms of performance.........

lokiisback

What?

The amount of misinformed or incorrect posts on this forum is startling.

Both AMD and Intel processors don't exhibit any kind of "glitchiness", unless you get a processor with a manafacturing defect (in which case your whole PC would be experiencing major problems).

Second, "smoothness" is determined by the processor's ability to execute said amount of instructions per clock, and the clock speed of the processor. The only reasons why you would experience "unsmooth" framerates would be because either your graphics card isn't fast enough or CPU isn't fast enough.

Where do people get this kind of dodgy info?

What I'm saying here is... If some how you could find two processors with everything absolutly equal about them, every statistic, every measurement, every mhz mb gb EVERYTHING the same, and one had an Intel sticker on it, and the other an AMD sticker on it, if they were both running with the same ram, on the same OS with the same graphics card, on the same game, the AMD would run a little bit better, and that is why I like AMD... Plus, and this is purely based on experience, not absolute facts, but in my experience, AMD's run into less problems... Less crashes that all computers eventually have years down the line.........

Proof? The top Intel chip smokes the top AMD FX chip in the benchmarks Wesker posted. It costs a lot more but you get what you pay for. On those same benchmarks the Intel E6850, which goes for $20 less at newegg.com, beat the top AMD chip in game performance. You can even go with then Q6600 @ 2.4GHz and it beats the top AMD in all three areasof the benchmark and still costs $20 less. Imagine how much better that Q6600 is going to perform with a little OC to 3.0GHz. Plus the Quad Core will be set up for the future when programs eventually are made to utilize them. So, how does AMD beat Intel....would just like to know.

[QUOTE="lokiisback"][QUOTE="LouieV13"][QUOTE="Wesker776"][QUOTE="lokiisback"]

In my experience, yes AMD's do run games better, if you were to compare two equal systems. BUT, that said, Intel is always one step ahead. When I built my computer, 2.4ghz processor speed was their fastest precessor, and at that same time, Intel was making 3.2ghz processor speed. It's things like that that make intel better in a sense. But as for "smooth'ness" and a less glitchy, problem free processor, I prefer AMD. I actually prefer it, you just have to live with the fact that it isn't top of the line in terms of performance.........

jmaster299

What?

The amount of misinformed or incorrect posts on this forum is startling.

Both AMD and Intel processors don't exhibit any kind of "glitchiness", unless you get a processor with a manafacturing defect (in which case your whole PC would be experiencing major problems).

Second, "smoothness" is determined by the processor's ability to execute said amount of instructions per clock, and the clock speed of the processor. The only reasons why you would experience "unsmooth" framerates would be because either your graphics card isn't fast enough or CPU isn't fast enough.

Where do people get this kind of dodgy info?

What I'm saying here is... If some how you could find two processors with everything absolutly equal about them, every statistic, every measurement, every mhz mb gb EVERYTHING the same, and one had an Intel sticker on it, and the other an AMD sticker on it, if they were both running with the same ram, on the same OS with the same graphics card, on the same game, the AMD would run a little bit better, and that is why I like AMD... Plus, and this is purely based on experience, not absolute facts, but in my experience, AMD's run into less problems... Less crashes that all computers eventually have years down the line.........

Proof? The top Intel chip smokes the top AMD FX chip in the benchmarks Wesker posted. It costs a lot more but you get what you pay for. On those same benchmarks the Intel E6850, which goes for $20 less at newegg.com, beat the top AMD chip in game performance. You can even go with then Q6600 @ 2.4GHz and it beats the top AMD in all three areasof the benchmark and still costs $20 less. Imagine how much better that Q6600 is going to perform with a little OC to 3.0GHz. Plus the Quad Core will be set up for the future when programs eventually are made to utilize them. So, how does AMD beat Intel....would just like to know.

Your not listening to me, read my whole post you retard I said between two EXACT SAME PROCESSORS, one AMD made the other Intel, IN MY OPINION, that's the key word here, OPINION, AMD is better, and I have first hand experience to back it up.........

[QUOTE="jmaster299"][QUOTE="lokiisback"][QUOTE="LouieV13"][QUOTE="Wesker776"][QUOTE="lokiisback"]

In my experience, yes AMD's do run games better, if you were to compare two equal systems. BUT, that said, Intel is always one step ahead. When I built my computer, 2.4ghz processor speed was their fastest precessor, and at that same time, Intel was making 3.2ghz processor speed. It's things like that that make intel better in a sense. But as for "smooth'ness" and a less glitchy, problem free processor, I prefer AMD. I actually prefer it, you just have to live with the fact that it isn't top of the line in terms of performance.........

lokiisback

What?

The amount of misinformed or incorrect posts on this forum is startling.

Both AMD and Intel processors don't exhibit any kind of "glitchiness", unless you get a processor with a manafacturing defect (in which case your whole PC would be experiencing major problems).

Second, "smoothness" is determined by the processor's ability to execute said amount of instructions per clock, and the clock speed of the processor. The only reasons why you would experience "unsmooth" framerates would be because either your graphics card isn't fast enough or CPU isn't fast enough.

Where do people get this kind of dodgy info?

What I'm saying here is... If some how you could find two processors with everything absolutly equal about them, every statistic, every measurement, every mhz mb gb EVERYTHING the same, and one had an Intel sticker on it, and the other an AMD sticker on it, if they were both running with the same ram, on the same OS with the same graphics card, on the same game, the AMD would run a little bit better, and that is why I like AMD... Plus, and this is purely based on experience, not absolute facts, but in my experience, AMD's run into less problems... Less crashes that all computers eventually have years down the line.........

Proof? The top Intel chip smokes the top AMD FX chip in the benchmarks Wesker posted. It costs a lot more but you get what you pay for. On those same benchmarks the Intel E6850, which goes for $20 less at newegg.com, beat the top AMD chip in game performance. You can even go with then Q6600 @ 2.4GHz and it beats the top AMD in all three areasof the benchmark and still costs $20 less. Imagine how much better that Q6600 is going to perform with a little OC to 3.0GHz. Plus the Quad Core will be set up for the future when programs eventually are made to utilize them. So, how does AMD beat Intel....would just like to know.

Your not listening to me, read my whole post you retard I said between two EXACT SAME PROCESSORS, one AMD made the other Intel, IN MY OPINION, that's the key word here, OPINION, AMD is better, and I have first hand experience to back it up.........

Complete bull****.

IF two processors were the same (which is impossible because AMD and Intel cease to use the same architecture), you would experience the exact same frickin performance on both rigs. Computers are a science, one won't run faster than the other simply because it has green/blue sticker on the side of the box.

Whether or not your brain deludes itself to make one run faster than the other is a seperate issue...

To close this stupid topic: Intel has the superior architecture at the moment that is simply able to execute more instructions per clock (IPC) cycle than the AMD K8 architecture. Thus; this allows Intel to run at a much lower clock speed to match AMD's fastest binned part. Alternatively, Intel can match AMD in clock speed and outperform the AMD top speed part, due to a higher IPC count.

[QUOTE="lokiisback"][QUOTE="jmaster299"][QUOTE="lokiisback"][QUOTE="LouieV13"][QUOTE="Wesker776"][QUOTE="lokiisback"]

In my experience, yes AMD's do run games better, if you were to compare two equal systems. BUT, that said, Intel is always one step ahead. When I built my computer, 2.4ghz processor speed was their fastest precessor, and at that same time, Intel was making 3.2ghz processor speed. It's things like that that make intel better in a sense. But as for "smooth'ness" and a less glitchy, problem free processor, I prefer AMD. I actually prefer it, you just have to live with the fact that it isn't top of the line in terms of performance.........

Wesker776

What?

The amount of misinformed or incorrect posts on this forum is startling.

Both AMD and Intel processors don't exhibit any kind of "glitchiness", unless you get a processor with a manafacturing defect (in which case your whole PC would be experiencing major problems).

Second, "smoothness" is determined by the processor's ability to execute said amount of instructions per clock, and the clock speed of the processor. The only reasons why you would experience "unsmooth" framerates would be because either your graphics card isn't fast enough or CPU isn't fast enough.

Where do people get this kind of dodgy info?

What I'm saying here is... If some how you could find two processors with everything absolutly equal about them, every statistic, every measurement, every mhz mb gb EVERYTHING the same, and one had an Intel sticker on it, and the other an AMD sticker on it, if they were both running with the same ram, on the same OS with the same graphics card, on the same game, the AMD would run a little bit better, and that is why I like AMD... Plus, and this is purely based on experience, not absolute facts, but in my experience, AMD's run into less problems... Less crashes that all computers eventually have years down the line.........

Proof? The top Intel chip smokes the top AMD FX chip in the benchmarks Wesker posted. It costs a lot more but you get what you pay for. On those same benchmarks the Intel E6850, which goes for $20 less at newegg.com, beat the top AMD chip in game performance. You can even go with then Q6600 @ 2.4GHz and it beats the top AMD in all three areasof the benchmark and still costs $20 less. Imagine how much better that Q6600 is going to perform with a little OC to 3.0GHz. Plus the Quad Core will be set up for the future when programs eventually are made to utilize them. So, how does AMD beat Intel....would just like to know.

Your not listening to me, read my whole post you retard I said between two EXACT SAME PROCESSORS, one AMD made the other Intel, IN MY OPINION, that's the key word here, OPINION, AMD is better, and I have first hand experience to back it up.........

Complete bull****.

IF two processors were the same (which is impossible because AMD and Intel cease to use the same architecture), you would experience the exact same frickin performance on both rigs. Computers are a science, one won't run faster than the other simply because it has green/blue sticker on the side of the box.

Whether or not your brain deludes itself to make one run faster than the other is a seperate issue...

To close this stupid topic: Intel has the superior architecture at the moment that is simply able to execute more instructions per clock (IPC) cycle than the AMD K8 architecture. Thus; this allows Intel to run at a much lower clock speed to match AMD's fastest binned part. Alternatively, Intel can match AMD in clock speed and outperform the AMD top speed part, due to a higher IPC count.

I'm not talking about archetecture here, I'm talking about specifications, that would have to be the same, example: the IPC like you mentioned, AMD can have the same amount of IPC gettting it a different way. And mainly what I'm talking about here is relieability... What ever it is AMD does, thicker wires, better silicon, what ever, it seems to work better... IN MY OPINION, so don't take it so seriously.........

[QUOTE="Wesker776"][QUOTE="lokiisback"][QUOTE="jmaster299"][QUOTE="lokiisback"][QUOTE="LouieV13"][QUOTE="Wesker776"][QUOTE="lokiisback"]

In my experience, yes AMD's do run games better, if you were to compare two equal systems. BUT, that said, Intel is always one step ahead. When I built my computer, 2.4ghz processor speed was their fastest precessor, and at that same time, Intel was making 3.2ghz processor speed. It's things like that that make intel better in a sense. But as for "smooth'ness" and a less glitchy, problem free processor, I prefer AMD. I actually prefer it, you just have to live with the fact that it isn't top of the line in terms of performance.........

lokiisback

What?

The amount of misinformed or incorrect posts on this forum is startling.

Both AMD and Intel processors don't exhibit any kind of "glitchiness", unless you get a processor with a manafacturing defect (in which case your whole PC would be experiencing major problems).

Second, "smoothness" is determined by the processor's ability to execute said amount of instructions per clock, and the clock speed of the processor. The only reasons why you would experience "unsmooth" framerates would be because either your graphics card isn't fast enough or CPU isn't fast enough.

Where do people get this kind of dodgy info?

What I'm saying here is... If some how you could find two processors with everything absolutly equal about them, every statistic, every measurement, every mhz mb gb EVERYTHING the same, and one had an Intel sticker on it, and the other an AMD sticker on it, if they were both running with the same ram, on the same OS with the same graphics card, on the same game, the AMD would run a little bit better, and that is why I like AMD... Plus, and this is purely based on experience, not absolute facts, but in my experience, AMD's run into less problems... Less crashes that all computers eventually have years down the line.........

Proof? The top Intel chip smokes the top AMD FX chip in the benchmarks Wesker posted. It costs a lot more but you get what you pay for. On those same benchmarks the Intel E6850, which goes for $20 less at newegg.com, beat the top AMD chip in game performance. You can even go with then Q6600 @ 2.4GHz and it beats the top AMD in all three areasof the benchmark and still costs $20 less. Imagine how much better that Q6600 is going to perform with a little OC to 3.0GHz. Plus the Quad Core will be set up for the future when programs eventually are made to utilize them. So, how does AMD beat Intel....would just like to know.

Your not listening to me, read my whole post you retard I said between two EXACT SAME PROCESSORS, one AMD made the other Intel, IN MY OPINION, that's the key word here, OPINION, AMD is better, and I have first hand experience to back it up.........

Complete bull****.

IF two processors were the same (which is impossible because AMD and Intel cease to use the same architecture), you would experience the exact same frickin performance on both rigs. Computers are a science, one won't run faster than the other simply because it has green/blue sticker on the side of the box.

Whether or not your brain deludes itself to make one run faster than the other is a seperate issue...

To close this stupid topic: Intel has the superior architecture at the moment that is simply able to execute more instructions per clock (IPC) cycle than the AMD K8 architecture. Thus; this allows Intel to run at a much lower clock speed to match AMD's fastest binned part. Alternatively, Intel can match AMD in clock speed and outperform the AMD top speed part, due to a higher IPC count.

I'm not talking about archetecture here, I'm talking about specifications, that would have to be the same, example: the IPC like you mentioned, AMD can have the same amount of IPC gettting it a different way. And mainly what I'm talking about here is relieability... What ever it is AMD does, thicker wires, better silicon, what ever, it seems to work better... IN MY OPINION, so don't take it so seriously.........

Look, were all gamers here, and so basically were talking about processors for gaming... You want some proof that many IMPORTANT people prefer AMD and find it better... Alienware Computers... They build computers SPECIFICALLY for gaming, and they are know for having the best computers out there... SOOO... Why is it, you think, that they almost EXCLUSIVLY use AMD processors, instead of Intel? Answer me that one man.........