AMD vs intel

[QUOTE="Jesus_on_fire"]

[QUOTE="juno84"]

Is the LGA1366 your only ticket to 3 channel DDR?

Espada12

For Intel cpus's - yes it is.

This is incorrect

1156 socket uses DDR3 as well. 1366 is for tri-channel memory, which AMD doesn't even support yet.

He asked if 1366 was his only ticket to 3 Channel Memory, and i was right. If he asked if it was his only ticket to DDR3, then i would be wrong.

I paid 199.99 for my I7920 and have it OC'd to 4.02ghz and it absolutley dominates. I could get a 930 for the same price, but the point is that the current price for the 930 is fantastic for a processor that has such OC'n potential. I had it running at 4.2ghz, but there was no point.

Intel, there are the ones really going forward, AMD just tries to follow but fails.

They both have good and bad releases. I would say Intel is the better bet right now though in terms of price for performance. Unless you are going for a very strict budget gaming rig.

the best cpu right now is the Intel quad core i7-875k

its a $300 dollar unlocked i7 quad core cpu that can easily be overclocked to 5ghz+ with water cooling and at that speed it destroys the six core amd by 75%+ in most benchmarks.

ZoomZoom2490

Intel, there are the ones really going forward, AMD just tries to follow but fails.

general_KDI

They both have good and bad releases. I would say Intel is the better bet right now though in terms of price for performance. Unless you are going for a very strict budget gaming rig.

tempest91

1000 dollars is the price of a 980x. Yep real good price for performance ratio. I respect your opinion of course :D

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

They both have good and bad releases. I would say Intel is the better bet right now though in terms of price for performance. Unless you are going for a very strict budget gaming rig.

theuncharted34

1000 dollars is the price of a 980x. Yep real good price for performance ratio. I respect your opinion of course :D

Picking the most expensive chip you can find proves nothing, there are Intel chips at the high-end level at the same or lower pricepoint as AMD X6 CPU'S that easily handle them in terms of power. I've never built a system without an AMD chip, but I can admit when they are getting beat because I am not blind.

The reality of the situation is that any Quad core and above from either manufacturer arnt really going to seem any different in the real world, your graphics card is where you will see a difference with either manufacturer in games, your Ram/ssd/Hard drives are where you will see the major difference in video editing/rendering/3d modeling, but if you were hard core in to either of them youd be getting custom workstations with 50 processors and 10 ssds in raid.It just isnt the same as 10 years ago where cpu made a huge difference, hardware has accelerated way past software in 99% of the cases.Put out all the varieties of quads and 6 cores in different workstations and nobody would be able to tell the difference in gaming if they had the same gpu and ram, same with browsing and day to day stuff, and the rendering wouldnt be noticeable unless you are sitting there with a stopwatch.

Currently Intel + ATI.

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

intel wants to charge you to unlock stuff thats already on your cpu

Espada12

CPU manufacturers already do that. They charge you more money for the same processor at a slightly higher clock speed that you could easily get it at.

You do realize that the reason high stock clock speed chips are more expensive is because thier natural clock frequency is higher.

After fabrication, chips are TESTED to see what clock speed they can run at, that is, each chip is not manufactured with an exact set frequency in mind. The speeds can fall between any of the stated frequencies the company has predicted/set according to their design. Those which do not meet the requirements are throw away. All contributing to the Manufacturing yield.

The more rare ones have the ability to operate stable at higher frequencies. These are more expensive because they can be overclocked higher than any of the other ones.

Anyways, im with Intel always, their always at the cutting edge.

For GPU's on the other hand, im with AMD-ATI this gen.

Honestly, I don't have a real preference for either one although it has been AMD for my gaming PCs during this decade. I also have assembled other (non-gaming) PCs with Intel processors.

For pure processing power, I'd go with Intel. But with new tech becoming available such as Stream and CUDA which outperform the latest mainsteam processors, it makes more sense to get an intermediate CPU and save some moolah. Or use that moolah on a beefier GPU.

jun_aka_pekto

I wouldn't commit to GPGPU just yet. So far it seems it's only specific computing jobs have been able to benefit from GPU acceleration. Apparently it's not as simple as the marketing hype would have you believe, it's not like they can just make any conversation work on it and even then it seems to only do part of the process while the cpu still has to do part.

Although it's not easy to get straight answers about what it can do exactly.

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

Honestly, I don't have a real preference for either one although it has been AMD for my gaming PCs during this decade. I also have assembled other (non-gaming) PCs with Intel processors.

For pure processing power, I'd go with Intel. But with new tech becoming available such as Stream and CUDA which outperform the latest mainsteam processors, it makes more sense to get an intermediate CPU and save some moolah. Or use that moolah on a beefier GPU.

Darth_DuMas

I wouldn't commit to GPGPU just yet. So far it seems it's only specific computing jobs have been able to benefit from GPU acceleration. Apparently it's not as simple as the marketing hype would have you believe, it's not like they can just make any conversation work on it and even then it seems to only do part of the process while the cpu still has to do part.

Although it's not easy to get straight answers about what it can do exactly.

As a home user, the most intensive tasks I do on the PC besides gaming is video editing. I've already used AVIVO (Stream) on video transcoding. Nothing big. Just straight and up video conversion to YouTube. A short clip took 45 seconds to convert versus 5 minutes on my CPU (est 3 min with an i7). So far, I know of two video editing apps that supports CUDA and Stream: Adobe Premiere Pro CS4 and Power Director 8 (the latest Roxio too I believe). Beyond video-editing, I have no real reason to have a top end CPU except for some games that are CPU-heavy. Of course, others will have different needs.

I looking at a £580 system that has the 1055t, but i can get an i7 for £19 but the graphics will take a major downfall. So AMD offer the best compromise :) Always liked AMD more. I build a system a few years back before the multi-core craze with a Pentium 4HT and still use it, its dated but At 4Ghz for an old processor i won't complain.

Intel make better CPU's thats for sure, what about thet DLC intel were planning that i heard about?

Intel, though I must admit AMD is price-friendly and better for gaming purposes.

I love my li'l Core i7 860. The performance is amazing, it responds really well to better cooling, and with nothing but a feeble Corsair H50 cooling system I can get it to 3.3 GHz at stock voltage and have temps that never, ever hit more than 65 at load. I'm pretty sure if I OV'd I could hit 3.7-3.8 GHz easily: after all, I can take it up to 95 centigrade before it starts throttling itself. I built my family a computer with a phenom 2 940 @ 3.0 GHz. It's horrible! I've got a very nice air cooling system on it, with 80mm yate-loon fans sucking air away from the heatsink (which has a 120mm coolermaster on it at the moment) and a 120mm Scythe on the front drawing in quite a bit of air. I can't get the load temps to stay under 55 at stock everything, which is infuriating. "But wait!" you say, "isn't that lower than the intel?" Well, the AMD chip starts throttling back at 62 degrees Centigrade. I'm literally 7 centigrade away from damage on that thing and I'm not even running a stock heatsink! Not even a better thermal compound helped! While intel seem to have gone a little socket-happy, necessitating a new motherboard for even a minor CPU upgrade, the problems I've had with AMD temps lead to me feel that I'll be an intel man for the forseeable future. AMD's next architecture does look very, very cool, though.mutenpika

Also, this is why I always have bought AMD stuff to make sure AMD survives and can compete so Intel can't just pull **** like this without any repercussions.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/18/intel-wants-to-charge-50-to-unlock-stuff-your-cpu-can-already-d/

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

intel wants to charge you to unlock stuff thats already on your cpu

PSGamerforlife

CPU manufacturers already do that. They charge you more money for the same processor at a slightly higher clock speed that you could easily get it at.

You do realize that the reason high stock clock speed chips are more expensive is because thier natural clock frequency is higher.

After fabrication, chips are TESTED to see what clock speed they can run at, that is, each chip is not manufactured with an exact set frequency in mind. The speeds can fall between any of the stated frequencies the company has predicted/set according to their design. Those which do not meet the requirements are throw away. All contributing to the Manufacturing yield.

The more rare ones have the ability to operate stable at higher frequencies. These are more expensive because they can be overclocked higher than any of the other ones.

Anyways, im with Intel always, their always at the cutting edge.

For GPU's on the other hand, im with AMD-ATI this gen.

I know that doesn't change the fact it's the same chip at different frequencies.

For me AMD all the way. Nothing beats their price/performance.

IMO AMD is more for gamers than anything else when it comes to mainstream processors, intel is more for the enthusiast/People who do other things like editing.

I'm with AMD all the way, cheaper and performs really well. Though a friend recently bought an i7 and I was blown away. i'd say Intel cpu's are more powerful but yeah, cost too much, if I had the money I'd go intel cpu, Amd gpc

AMD for desktops and intel for laptops.

AMD offers great price for equally great performance and all of their CPU's comes with HD4200 which is an integrated graphic card accelerator that kicks the ass of those crappy intel GMA and it can even run some games and play 1080p video beautifully without ever needing any help from the CPU. And while intel is mostly better by just a little bitthey tend to overprice their products. Overall any sane PC gamer with experience will always choose AMD over intel...

For laptops AMD would be a great choice because of the integrated HD4200 you could easily find a very capable laptop at a very decent price but they have a fatal flaw. AMD CPU's generate much more heat than intel CPU's and heat for a laptop = early death. Intel always has smaller components in their hardware compared to AMD.

Another thing is Radeon > Nvidia

Just look at the X360 Radeon vs PS3 Nvidia, it is like AMD can see the future and Nvidia only follows (like Nintendo and Sony) and then they try to pull off an intel and make their GPU's only marginally better while racking up the price greatly using what they just copied from AMD.

ARM jk

I prefer amd if im on a budget but if i want a beast of a pc i will go with intel. i prefer ATI (amd) to Nvidia though. But since i like macs i really dont build my own pc's anymore i have one for games as a backup.

PowerPC & PowerVR ftw :P

Intel has great price/performance at a high price range, but AMD certainly make their chips unbelievable cheap. It's tough to say who's better.

I got a althon 2 quad for 70euros, decent mobo and 5750 and damn it was great for the money.

My main rig was pretty damn expensive, but also pretty damn good.

Still i see no real reason to take a i7 over a phenom 2 the diffrence in performance is almost none but the price is.

[QUOTE="Darth_DuMas"]

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

Honestly, I don't have a real preference for either one although it has been AMD for my gaming PCs during this decade. I also have assembled other (non-gaming) PCs with Intel processors.

For pure processing power, I'd go with Intel. But with new tech becoming available such as Stream and CUDA which outperform the latest mainsteam processors, it makes more sense to get an intermediate CPU and save some moolah. Or use that moolah on a beefier GPU.

jun_aka_pekto

I wouldn't commit to GPGPU just yet. So far it seems it's only specific computing jobs have been able to benefit from GPU acceleration. Apparently it's not as simple as the marketing hype would have you believe, it's not like they can just make any conversation work on it and even then it seems to only do part of the process while the cpu still has to do part.

Although it's not easy to get straight answers about what it can do exactly.

As a home user, the most intensive tasks I do on the PC besides gaming is video editing. I've already used AVIVO (Stream) on video transcoding. Nothing big. Just straight and up video conversion to YouTube. A short clip took 45 seconds to convert versus 5 minutes on my CPU (est 3 min with an i7). So far, I know of two video editing apps that supports CUDA and Stream: Adobe Premiere Pro CS4 and Power Director 8 (the latest Roxio too I believe). Beyond video-editing, I have no real reason to have a top end CPU except for some games that are CPU-heavy. Of course, others will have different needs.

I used it in Roxio, it only worked for AVCHD. I am a little disappointed, because I was excited about the idea of switching video conversion to my GPU in general, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I think it's also used for post effects as well with those pro applications.

AMD for desktops and intel for laptops.

AMD offers great price for equally great performance and all of their CPU's comes with HD4200 which is an integrated graphic card accelerator that kicks the ass of those crappy intel GMA and it can even run some games and play 1080p video beautifully without ever needing any help from the CPU. And while intel is mostly better by just a little bitthey tend to overprice their products. Overall any sane PC gamer with experience will always choose AMD over intel...

For laptops AMD would be a great choice because of the integrated HD4200 you could easily find a very capable laptop at a very decent price but they have a fatal flaw. AMD CPU's generate much more heat than intel CPU's and heat for a laptop = early death. Intel always has smaller components in their hardware compared to AMD.

Another thing is Radeon > Nvidia

Just look at the X360 Radeon vs PS3 Nvidia, it is like AMD can see the future and Nvidia only follows (like Nintendo and Sony) and then they try to pull off an intel and make their GPU's only marginally better while racking up the price greatly using what they just copied from AMD.

Gue1

what do you mean nintendo and sony follow? O_O that statement is full of fail sir.

Cant go wrong with intel got my i7 for $200 and overclocks easily to 4ghz

As far as gaming goes it doesnt really matter at all. But my rig is a work station, not a gaming toy. For that reason I stick with Intel. Intel processors + Nvidia Quadro FX cards = heaven.

I've got an AMD Athlon II X4 635 in my rig. It runs pretty well.

AMD is also better because they tend to use the same socket a lot longer than Intel. Every time you upgrade with Intel you need a new mobo as well. EmperorSupreme

AMD if you want a hexacore, thats for sure. plus they tend to be cheaper, and usualy have more life to them rather than changing sockets all the time (intel) though it sorta sucks that I have to get a AM3+ board to use bulldozer, but ATLEAST I CAN USE MY CURRENT CPU ON A AM3+ MOBO (are you listening INTEL??)

Both. I like AMD for their price/performance ratio and the graphics cards (though I'm a whole hearted lover of Nvidia too). I like Intel because they seem to be more ground breaking lately and have the upper hand in terms of power, power/watt, and overall capability. Admittedly I'm an AMD man, both my desktops, and every desktop I've built have been AMD. However, for laptops, I more or less go for Intel, simply because AMD is so behind them in terms of performance/watt, battery life, etc. AMD is certainly getting better, and I wouldn't mind having an AMD laptop again, as they typically are good values (I had two of them in the past), butright now I'd stick with Intel there. I've been interested in the idea of an i5-750 based desktop, but I don't need another computer lol. Right now I have two AMD based custom desktops and an Intel laptop already, and that's enough for a while.

AMD for most users and gamers, but Core i7 for those that want to spend $300 or so on a CPU and especially if they want tri-channel memory.

Ironically, most people who aren't enthusiasts just buy Intel probably due to stronger (and undoubtably higher budget) advertisement.

Price/Performance ratio: AMD

Overall Performance and Quality: Intel

ATi is now also called AMD. That mean not only AMD has great CPUs, but also wipes the floor with Intel on the graphics area :P

i prefer intel over amd because they are more advanced, but i think the amd socket is the most reliable and easiest to use. One time my paste was so strong mounted with the cooler that the cpu stuck at the cooler itself without unlocking the socket, cause what my athlon still worked.

IBMs P.O.W.E.R.P.C. FTW !!!

i prefer intel over amd because they are more advanced, but i think the amd socket is the most reliable and easiest to use. One time my paste was so strong mounted with the cooler that the cpu stuck at the cooler itself without unlocking the socket, cause what my athlon still worked.

HFkami