Intel vs. AMD processors

[Jmac 10+ year member]

INTEL, .... AMD has been behind the curve for awhile now.

You would take a Celeron Dual Core + Intel G33 over an AMD X2 4600+ + 780G ? You crazy ...

 

[Jmac 10+ year member]

tri-core chips are a ****ing joke:fyi:

They offer good performance for the price if you're using a lot of multi-threaded applications (say video editing).
However, outside of that (which is the other 90% of software), the Intel Core 2 Duos own the shit out of AMD's Tri-cores of similar price.

 

[phatcat600 10+ year member]

Q6600 @ 3.6ghz w/ Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme, 4 gigs ddr2, 8800GTS 512mb 16,432 3dmark06 //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

If you arent gaming, video editing, encoding, rendering, or anything CPU intensive any cheap dual core is good enough.

For anybody that actually uses their computer you have to go intel.

Oh and the 790G with a X2 is the best bang for the buck media center

 

[Jmac 10+ year member]

This is what someone had explained to me before. AMD is made for gaming and intel is made for multitasking. And here is the reason. Look at AMD this way, a fat guy but rather in good health. He does a lot of work but just not so fast. Intel is a built guy that is fast but can't move a lot of information as amd but moves really fast. HOpe that made sense.

Not even remotely close to being accurate ... Unless you're talking about pre-K8 CPUs ... which came out 5 years ago ...

 

[kidwolf909 10+ year member]

both bout the same, Intels are nice, I'd say AMD is more gaming since you can tweak them and OC them.

You can overclock Intel's too... you've been able to since the days of 486's //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

Intel is ahead of AMD right now as far as performance goes, so those who said that are correct. The Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad lines are the highest performing and have fantastic overclocking ability. The next generation of Intel processors codenamed Nehalem will also trump AMD's latest offerings and Intel's own Core 2 processors.

However, as far as price/performance goes, AMD has the low-end to mid-range markets on lockdown. Intel has plenty of offerrings at decent prices, but in order to remain competitive, AMD's price cuts have made their lower end processors VERY attractive for budget builders. Only issue with AMD is that they're one manufacturing step behind Intel. Whereas Intel is building processors on the 45nm processing node, AMD is still stuck on the 65nm node. This equates to higher power consumption and higher temperatures for AMD processors.

Pretty much, the market has been lead by Intel for the past two years with the introduction of the Core 2 architecture. Prior to that, Intel's Pentium line was STOMPED by AMD's offerings. These days, the scheme works like this:

High-End/Mid-Range: Intel owns the sector

Low-End/Mid-Range: AMD remains competitive due to pricing

 

[Jmac 10+ year member]

You can overclock Intel's too... you've been able to since the days of 486's //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif
Intel is ahead of AMD right now as far as performance goes, so those who said that are correct. The Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad lines are the highest performing and have fantastic overclocking ability. The next generation of Intel processors codenamed Nehalem will also trump AMD's latest offerings and Intel's own Core 2 processors.

However, as far as price/performance goes, AMD has the low-end to mid-range markets on lockdown. Intel has plenty of offerrings at decent prices, but in order to remain competitive, AMD's price cuts have made their lower end processors VERY attractive for budget builders. Only issue with AMD is that they're one manufacturing step behind Intel. Whereas Intel is building processors on the 45nm processing node, AMD is still stuck on the 65nm node. This equates to higher power consumption and higher temperatures for AMD processors.

Pretty much, the market has been lead by Intel for the past two years with the introduction of the Core 2 architecture. Prior to that, Intel's Pentium line was STOMPED by AMD's offerings. These days, the scheme works like this:

High-End/Mid-Range: Intel owns the sector

Low-End/Mid-Range: AMD remains competitive due to pricing

AMD is still the only one to offer 45W TDP desktop CPUs (Athlon64 X2 4x50e line, BE-2000 line) and their latest motherboards (AMD 780G and Nvidia 8200) are more power efficient than the G31/G33/G35 and they offer much better graphics capability, HD playback capability, and features.
So, no, Intel doesn't have lower temperatures and lower power consumption in the budget sector.

 

[Scoobydoo 5,000+ posts]

intel atom

that is all

 

[kidwolf909 10+ year member]

AMD is still the only one to offer 45W TDP desktop CPUs (Athlon64 X2 4x50e line, BE-2000 line) and their latest motherboards (AMD 780G and Nvidia 8200) are more power efficient than the G31/G33/G35 and they offer much better graphics capability, HD playback capability, and features.
So, no, Intel doesn't have lower temperatures and lower power consumption in the budget sector.

In the budget sector, sure, AMD has low wattage CPU's. However, as the kind gentleman beneath us pointed out, Intel's Atom revolutionizes low power processors. Sure it isn't really intended for desktop use, but it does make Intel the king of low power. Only VIA can come close to the Atom. As far as AMD's motherboards, I've always been partial to them over many of the Intel motherboards for integrated GPU's and budget builds. However, the 965P, P35, and P45 have all been incredible chipsets for Intel enthusiasts!

I don't fanboy for either company, one is just as necessary in the market as the other.

 

[Jmac 10+ year member]

In the budget sector, sure, AMD has low wattage CPU's. However, as the kind gentleman beneath us pointed out, Intel's Atom revolutionizes low power processors. Sure it isn't really intended for desktop use, but it does make Intel the king of low power. Only VIA can come close to the Atom. As far as AMD's motherboards, I've always been partial to them over many of the Intel motherboards for integrated GPU's and budget builds. However, the 965P, P35, and P45 have all been incredible chipsets for Intel enthusiasts!
I don't fanboy for either company, one is just as necessary in the market as the other.

A 1.6 GHz Intel Atom is comparable to a 900 MHz Celeron M ... which means it's slow as shit ... and horribly inadequate for anything outside of basic tasks using a low-resource OS like Linux, BSD, etc.
I'd venture to say it's even inadequate for Windows XP as most users will require an anti-virus to stay secure.

Intel's P-series motherboards have been the shit for quite some time, you're right. I'm not a fanboy of either company either; I run a P35 board w/ a Xeon E3110 myself; not because I like Intel better than AMD, but because Intel offered a better solution for my usage.

 

[Frijoles24 10+ year member]

amd makes them more solid but runsreall really hot. haha melted my friendslaptop.. but those were recalled or something.

im running intel now.. .eh not too happy with it

 

[dragnix 5,000+ posts]

amd makes them more solid but runsreall really hot. haha melted my friendslaptop.. but those were recalled or something.
im running intel now.. .eh not too happy with it

I don't trust anything you say after the last thread that i have seen you post.

 

[bose301s 5,000+ posts]

If I were to build a computer right now I would go with Intel. Used to be AMD when the Athlon and Athlon64 were beating up on the P4. I am neither an AMD nor an Intel fanboy however and will go with whoever is better at the time. That means that if in a year AMD is better and I build a new PC it will be an AMD processor.

I did just buy a new laptop Sunday and got a Turion64 TL-60 I believe, dual core 2.0ghz, seems good to me. Main reason for AMD was it was cheap and decent, for a low end laptop AMD and Intel are about the same.