AMD or Intel- which do you like better?

I am personally a big fan of AMD CPUs. I've never had any luck with Intels, and though they seem to be ahead in the CPU market right now, they always seem underpowered and overpriced to me. So that's where you come in! Which one would you rather use?

I don't have a preference. When I'm looking to purchase a new processor, I just do my research and find what the best buys are at that particular point in time.

Same goes for my video card purchases (I do have a few manufacturer preferences, though. I usually go eVGA with my nVidia GPU purchases, for example.)

I go where the performance is. Anyone who buys something just to buy it from a specific maker regardless of the performance is fine by me, but that isnt me.

Intel has the performance crown and sadly enough the budget crown right now with the cuts coming in april. Once amd gets things together I will head back to their side of the fence.

All things even, I still prefer AMD. I just wont buy something just to buy it.

My decission to buy AMD was an economic influence. AMD needs to stay to keep competition alive. If Intel doesn't have any competition, they can have a monopoly over the CPU market, and that means some pretty high prices.

Voted AMD, I feel they keep the consumer's best interests at heart; saving money.

It depends. If I want more bang for the buck and I am on a budget, I will go with AMD. If I want a top of the line CPU, I'll go with Intel. I currently have a Athlon X2 6000+ and I'm fine with it.Evz0rz

My decission to buy AMD was an economic influence. AMD needs to stay to keep competition alive. If Intel doesn't have any competition, they can have a monopoly over the CPU market, and that means some pretty high prices.

Voted AMD, I feel they keep the consumer's best interests at heart; saving money.

HavocEbonlore

We're not going to save AMD by having enthusiasts making pity purchases for their sake. They need to become competitive in the server, laptop, and pre-built desktop markets to really take back a bigger bite of the sales pie. On both the price-performance and price-per-watt fronts AMD is getting thrased. The former keeps enthusiasts away from them, but has little effect on sales overall since the vast majority of computers bought aren't bought with getting the best value for your money in mind, just John Q. Taxpayer trying to spend less than $500 on whatever has the few specs he knows/cares about. The second is killing AMD in the mobile and server markets, since power savings equate to longer battery life in laptops, and thousands of dollars a year in electricity fees for large server farms.

As a company, I do like AMD better. They seem to have a better company philosophy and have really been trying hard to innovate processor technology (not always succeeding, but at least they're trying). However, that's not going to stop me from buying an Intel chip if they offer me better performance for what I'm willing to spend. I was on the fence between the two companies back when I built my current machine - first I was about to get an X2 3800+ 939, then AM2 came out and I got wind of price cuts and decided I wanted an X2 4000+ AM2 chip (the old 2x1MB L2 cache version with the same clock speeds as the X2 3800+ that was only out for a few months, not the new Brisbane version). Nobody believed that "Conroe" would ever dethrone AMD in those days - which seems pretty stupid looking back since the Core Duo chips really put the hurt on the Turion X2 chips. Then the Core 2 Duo processors actually came out, but they were rather expensive and the new AMD prices were very tempting still. After a few more months, I decided to stick with my original budget instead of saving a bit more money, and picked up my current E6600. I'm very happy with the purchase.

I didn't know it was such an even vote :o

Anyway, let me remind you that AMD's top-top-top of the line AMD Phenom 9600 Quad core CPU is ~$220, and Intel's top-top-top of the line Quad Core CPU is ~$1000. In. Sane.

I like AMD. :D

I like both.

Intel for performance and AMD for innovation.

Both traits create healthy competition.

[QUOTE="HavocEbonlore"]

My decission to buy AMD was an economic influence. AMD needs to stay to keep competition alive. If Intel doesn't have any competition, they can have a monopoly over the CPU market, and that means some pretty high prices.

Voted AMD, I feel they keep the consumer's best interests at heart; saving money.

RayvinAzn

We're not going to save AMD by having enthusiasts making pity purchases for their sake. They need to become competitive in the server, laptop, and pre-built desktop markets to really take back a bigger bite of the sales pie. On both the price-performance and price-per-watt fronts AMD is getting thrased. The former keeps enthusiasts away from them, but has little effect on sales overall since the vast majority of computers bought aren't bought with getting the best value for your money in mind, just John Q. Taxpayer trying to spend less than $500 on whatever has the few specs he knows/cares about. The second is killing AMD in the mobile and server markets, since power savings equate to longer battery life in laptops, and thousands of dollars a year in electricity fees for large server farms.

As a company, I do like AMD better. They seem to have a better company philosophy and have really been trying hard to innovate processor technology (not always succeeding, but at least they're trying). However, that's not going to stop me from buying an Intel chip if they offer me better performance for what I'm willing to spend. I was on the fence between the two companies back when I built my current machine - first I was about to get an X2 3800+ 939, then AM2 came out and I got wind of price cuts and decided I wanted an X2 4000+ AM2 chip (the old 2x1MB L2 cache version with the same clock speeds as the X2 3800+ that was only out for a few months, not the new Brisbane version). Nobody believed that "Conroe" would ever dethrone AMD in those days - which seems pretty stupid looking back since the Core Duo chips really put the hurt on the Turion X2 chips. Then the Core 2 Duo processors actually came out, but they were rather expensive and the new AMD prices were very tempting still. After a few more months, I decided to stick with my original budget instead of saving a bit more money, and picked up my current E6600. I'm very happy with the purchase.

Why would I like a huge, faceless corporation? :|

They don't give a rat's about me, so why should I like them?

My decission to buy AMD was an economic influence. AMD needs to stay to keep competition alive. If Intel doesn't have any competition, they can have a monopoly over the CPU market, and that means some pretty high prices.

Voted AMD, I feel they keep the consumer's best interests at heart; saving money.

HavocEbonlore

wow, thats weird!

i take whatever is the best to get for money you have. I take preformance, price, heating and noise in and see what is the best solution.

The time i got E6600 i thought of getting amd 6000+. But intel was a bit cheaper (though mobo was a bit more expensive) and faster. Slightly at least.

My decission to buy AMD was an economic influence. AMD needs to stay to keep competition alive. If Intel doesn't have any competition, they can have a monopoly over the CPU market, and that means some pretty high prices.

Voted AMD, I feel they keep the consumer's best interests at heart; saving money.

HavocEbonlore

Funny thing is that this goes against every economic theory about market competition.

Consumers should award firms who have the superior product at a reasonable price (a price that they're both willing and able to pay) => Intel (in this case).

Awarding the firm with obsolete products not only sends the wrong signal to that firm, but it also causes the superior firm to slow down. What you're saying to AMD when you buy their CPU, is that it's OK to not be #1 in performance or pricing.
"I want to keep you alive, because you're the little guy getting beat. ;) "

Now when you do that you're also sending a message to Intel:
"I don't care how good your product is, I'm going for AMD--they're in bad shape and we need them around. Besides, you're doing alright."
Intel has spent billions and billions of dollars (more so than AMD) in creating a superior product, only to have the consumer purchase AMD's CPU. So, what do you think Intel will do (theoretically) in the future? Yes, they'll cut back on R&D, as no matter how much time and money they spend in improving products, AMD will continue to get their business due to equity issues amongst consumers. Thus, not only has AMD's innovation slowed, but so has Intel's--a very bad situation.

This doesn't only apply to the CPU industry. You can apply this very basic principle to most industries.

(That's about as simple in layman terms I can get)

[QUOTE="HavocEbonlore"]

My decission to buy AMD was an economic influence. AMD needs to stay to keep competition alive. If Intel doesn't have any competition, they can have a monopoly over the CPU market, and that means some pretty high prices.

Voted AMD, I feel they keep the consumer's best interests at heart; saving money.

Wesker776

Funny thing is that this goes against every economic theory about market competition.

Consumers should award firms who have the superior product at a reasonable price (a price that they're both willing and able to pay) => Intel (in this case).

Awarding the firm with obsolete products not only sends the wrong signal to that firm, but it also causes the superior firm to slow down. What you're saying to AMD when you buy their CPU, is that it's OK to not be #1 in performance or pricing.
"I want to keep you alive, because you're the little guy getting beat. ;) "

Now when you do that you're also sending a message to Intel:
"I don't care how good your product is, I'm going for AMD--they're in bad shape and we need them around. Besides, you're doing alright."
Intel has spent billions and billions of dollars (more so than AMD) in creating a superior product, only to have the consumer purchase AMD's CPU. So, what do you think Intel will do (theoretically) in the future? Yes, they'll cut back on R&D, as no matter how much time and money they spend in improving products, AMD will continue to get their business due to equity issues amongst consumers. Thus, not only has AMD's innovation slowed, but so has Intel's--a very bad situation.

This doesn't only apply to the CPU industry. You can apply this very basic principle to most industries.

(That's about as simple in layman terms I can get)

[QUOTE="Wesker776"][QUOTE="HavocEbonlore"]

My decission to buy AMD was an economic influence. AMD needs to stay to keep competition alive. If Intel doesn't have any competition, they can have a monopoly over the CPU market, and that means some pretty high prices.

Voted AMD, I feel they keep the consumer's best interests at heart; saving money.

yoyo462001

Funny thing is that this goes against every economic theory about market competition.

Consumers should award firms who have the superior product at a reasonable price (a price that they're both willing and able to pay) => Intel (in this case).

Awarding the firm with obsolete products not only sends the wrong signal to that firm, but it also causes the superior firm to slow down. What you're saying to AMD when you buy their CPU, is that it's OK to not be #1 in performance or pricing.
"I want to keep you alive, because you're the little guy getting beat. ;) "

Now when you do that you're also sending a message to Intel:
"I don't care how good your product is, I'm going for AMD--they're in bad shape and we need them around. Besides, you're doing alright."
Intel has spent billions and billions of dollars (more so than AMD) in creating a superior product, only to have the consumer purchase AMD's CPU. So, what do you think Intel will do (theoretically) in the future? Yes, they'll cut back on R&D, as no matter how much time and money they spend in improving products, AMD will continue to get their business due to equity issues amongst consumers. Thus, not only has AMD's innovation slowed, but so has Intel's--a very bad situation.

This doesn't only apply to the CPU industry. You can apply this very basic principle to most industries.

(That's about as simple in layman terms I can get)

Of course.

But I'm only addressing the notion of buying one firm's product because of sympathy.

I prefer intel because you can actually over more .2ghz and they are WAAAAAAAY better.

I didn't know it was such an even vote :o

Anyway, let me remind you that AMD's top-top-top of the line AMD Phenom 9600 Quad core CPU is ~$220, and Intel's top-top-top of the line Quad Core CPU is ~$1000. In. Sane.

I like AMD. :D

DarCowAlways

I prefer intel because you can actually over more .2ghz and they are WAAAAAAAY better.

unrealplaya55

:lol: intel fanboy i presume?

I prefer intel because you can actually over more .2ghz and they are WAAAAAAAY better.

Yes but heres the diff. The top of the line amd quad (not even close to botton line of intel quad) is an old junker truck with 975,000 miles. The intel top quad is a lamborghini brand spankin new.
unrealplaya55

.2GHz? Intel fanboy much? Maybe the X2 6000+, but any decent Athlon X2 chip will go up at least 2.6-3.0GHz with decent air cooling.

The top-of-the-line AMD chips are more akin to a Ferrari F355, while the newer Intel chips are a Koenigsegg CCX. Either way you've got a badass car, but one is certainly better than the other.