Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Intel or AMD? You be the judge

RecoreRecore Posts: 5,094Member Uncommon

Comments

  • Dantae87Dantae87 Camloops, ABPosts: 166Member

    ok now i ask you this....can you overclock it to 5.2hrtz like my i5 is?

    Nope! intel wins

    BUT if i seen this 4 months ago when building my PC i would probly take the AMD cuz it would have saved me 50 bucks...

    image

  • BitterClingerBitterClinger Newark, DEPosts: 224Member Uncommon

    I never overclock, anything, but I always buy Intel CPUs.  It has nothing to do with Youtube videos or recommendations on hardware sites. It used to be that AMD made really cheap processors that sucked, so AMD trained me to buy Intel CPUs. I realize that may not be the case anymore, but I got in the habit of buying Intel, just like I got in the habit of buying Nvidia.

    In order to get me to switch, both the performance and the price difference would have to SO radical as to leave me no other choice but to buy AMD. I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

    Top Games Played in 2015: World of Tanks, Tera, World of Warships

  • cronius77cronius77 Fairfax, VAPosts: 1,347Member Uncommon

    i owned a amd fx 6100 i kept overclocked to 4.5 speeds with a radeon 6950 also OC.

    I recently purchased a laptop with a I7 3630 stock speeds with a nvidia 670m inside and I get the exact same frame rates as my desktop computer was overclocked with a lot lower clock speeds. I would of swore by AMD about a year ago but after seeing what intel can do with much less heat and speeds Im sticking to Intel from now on for sure.

  • oubersoubers bazelPosts: 876Member Common

    My last two rigs where Intel and they are way more stable then my ADM's in the past.

    So yeah, intel ftw.

    image

    image
  • CleffyCleffy San Diego, CAPosts: 4,623Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by BitterClinger

    I never overclock, anything, but I always buy Intel CPUs.  It has nothing to do with Youtube videos or recommendations on hardware sites. It used to be that AMD made really cheap processors that sucked, so AMD trained me to buy Intel CPUs. I realize that may not be the case anymore, but I got in the habit of buying Intel, just like I got in the habit of buying Nvidia.

    In order to get me to switch, both the performance and the price difference would have to SO radical as to leave me no other choice but to buy AMD. I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

    2002-2006  AMD had a radically better processor for a radically cheaper price.

    Still AMD really needs a homerun now.  They are making process and with Intel's current direction it will be possible for them to catchup.  At this point there are good reasons to get AMD verse Intel and vice versa.  Now if you are playing games and can get the Intel for the same price as the AMD, then get the Intel.  They will perform the same but the Intel will cost less in electricity.  However this power difference only saves tens of dollars.  If its too much get AMD as its all a price thing at this point.  The minimum to play games CPU wise is so ridiculously low that it doesn't make sense to look at over $200 for the CPU unless you are doing more then playing games and that task requires a processor.  Right now you are also looking both Microsoft and Sony using AMD processors in their next consoles.

    Outside of gaming, there is only 1 reason to get an AMD processor and thats 3D Rendering which I do.  Its the only task AMD beats Intel at.

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    The bulldozers sucked, but the pile drivers are decent mid range chips, there's nothing wrong with using them if your on a budget.

    For gaming you really dont need anything more powerful than a Fx6300, which if Intel made such a thing would be equivelent to an i5-2400k.

    Now at work where I do massive compiles and installations and stuff, no i wouldn't use AMD chip, I use an 8 core i7, but that's so I'm sat idle for 30 minutes instead of 40 when we do a big build, so its worth it economically.

    Video cards I'm the other way, prefer AMD to nvidia, as I've had 2 nvidias burn out on me and over here nvidia are massively over priced, e.g.660ti is more expensive than a 7950.
  • BetaguyBetaguy Halifax, NSPosts: 2,590Member

    AMD for gaming

    Intel for work

    Its the way it is.

    image

  • DaggerjaydoDaggerjaydo Puyallup, WAPosts: 121Member
    Originally posted by Betaguy

    AMD for gaming

    Intel for work

    Its the way it is.

    Other way around.

  • RidelynnRidelynn Fresno, CAPosts: 4,173Member Uncommon

    I don't think AMD needs a home run.

    You don't have to be the fastest kid on the block to be competitive. AMD has realized this, and priced their products accordingly.

    They are very compelling in the budget range for a desktop, where saving $75-100 means a lot. If you are looking at a laptop, the AMD APU's win hands down to all but the very high end.

    Haswell may change that equation some for power consumption (Intel is already very competitive on power draw as it is, but something that is 10x better is very significant), but I still don't think they will be competitive on the IGP, and if you are looking at a total package, the AMD APU's are still very compelling.

    For servers where lots of cores win, AMD has been pushing hard - lots of less expensive (and even slower) cores wins, and at a fraction of the price Intel charges for a similar number of cores.

    No, I don't think AMD needs a home run. I think they have identified their niches - graphics integration (with their ATI purchase), and lower cost cores. They just need to continue to lean on these strengths and they will do just fine to all but the fanboys who refuse to look past the brand name on the "Inside" sticker.

    Their current products aren't the fastest, but they are "fast enough" for nearly every purpose, and at half the price - that makes them a viable alternative, and competition is good for the market.

  • BetaguyBetaguy Halifax, NSPosts: 2,590Member
    Originally posted by Daggerjaydo
    Originally posted by Betaguy

    AMD for gaming

    Intel for work

    Its the way it is.

    Other way around.

     Agree to disagree

    image

  • DrakynnDrakynn The Pas, MBPosts: 2,030Member
    I don't give  a crap about branding in processors or gpus etc.I buy what gives me the most bang for my buck at the time of pruichase and in my price range when it coems to processors though I always include the prices of motherboards needed to seat said processors in  into the equation not just the cost of the processor.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Posts: 14,778Member Uncommon
    It depends on what you want to do with it.  If you need top end single-threaded CPU performance, then Intel.  If you want a highly portable laptop, then AMD.  For anything else, what's your budget?
  • syntax42syntax42 Columbus, OHPosts: 1,305Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Betaguy
    Originally posted by Daggerjaydo
    Originally posted by Betaguy

    AMD for gaming

    Intel for work

    Its the way it is.

    Other way around.

     Agree to disagree

    Neither is correct.  As Quizzical pointed out, Intel is better for both games and many productivity applications.

     

    AMD is now focusing on mobile processors as well as other markets.  There won't be any more AMD vs Intel for desktop gaming; the FX series (Bulldozer) is the last of AMD's desktop processors.  This is old news, by the way.

  • BrooksTechBrooksTech Canton, ILPosts: 163Member
    I have been using AMD since the K6... AMD for life.
  • CleffyCleffy San Diego, CAPosts: 4,623Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ridelynn

    I don't think AMD needs a home run.

    You don't have to be the fastest kid on the block to be competitive. AMD has realized this, and priced their products accordingly.

    They are very compelling in the budget range for a desktop, where saving $75-100 means a lot. If you are looking at a laptop, the AMD APU's win hands down to all but the very high end.

    Haswell may change that equation some for power consumption (Intel is already very competitive on power draw as it is, but something that is 10x better is very significant), but I still don't think they will be competitive on the IGP, and if you are looking at a total package, the AMD APU's are still very compelling.

    For servers where lots of cores win, AMD has been pushing hard - lots of less expensive (and even slower) cores wins, and at a fraction of the price Intel charges for a similar number of cores.

    No, I don't think AMD needs a home run. I think they have identified their niches - graphics integration (with their ATI purchase), and lower cost cores. They just need to continue to lean on these strengths and they will do just fine to all but the fanboys who refuse to look past the brand name on the "Inside" sticker.

    Their current products aren't the fastest, but they are "fast enough" for nearly every purpose, and at half the price - that makes them a viable alternative, and competition is good for the market.

    For a number of years AMD had the fastest and cheaper processor.  They still did not gain marketshare.  It takes alot for people to think AMD is something more.  I think alot of people treat AMD as some cheap knock-off alternative compared to a namebrand product because of Intel's marketing budget.

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Syntax
    Bulldozer is the 2nd to last

    Been replaced by piledriver
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Posts: 14,778Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by syntax42
    Originally posted by Betaguy
    Originally posted by Daggerjaydo
    Originally posted by Betaguy

    AMD for gaming

    Intel for work

    Its the way it is.

    Other way around.

     Agree to disagree

    Neither is correct.  As Quizzical pointed out, Intel is better for both games and many productivity applications.

     

    AMD is now focusing on mobile processors as well as other markets.  There won't be any more AMD vs Intel for desktop gaming; the FX series (Bulldozer) is the last of AMD's desktop processors.  This is old news, by the way.

    Games?  Since when did I say anything about games?  Games don't need top end single-threaded performance unless they're badly-coded.

    While AMD doesn't make processors specifically targeted at desktops anymore, neither does Intel.  Intel doesn't put integrated graphics into their $200 and $300 desktop chips because they think desktop users will actually use them.  They're designed more with laptops than desktops in mind, as are AMD's A-series APUs, though you can put both in desktops and they'll work.  AMD's FX chips are designed primarily with servers in mind, as are Intel's top end "desktop" chips such as Bloomfield, Gulftown, and Sandy Bridge-E.

    As I see it, the most recent CPU chip designed primarily with desktops in mind is AMD's Thuban (Phenom II X6), which came way back in 2010.  You could make a case for the FX-41*0 and FX-4300 as being primarily desktop chips, too (as I think those are different dies from the 6- and 8-core variants, which are mainly server chips), but the most recent Intel chip that you could plausibly say was mainly a desktop chip was Lynnfield, way back in 2009.

    But just because AMD doesn't release any more chips intended mainly for desktops doesn't mean that there won't be any more AMD processors used in desktops.  Indeed, AMD's Richland APU could launch any day now; my best guess is March.  Kaveri is coming around the end of this year.

    While AMD hasn't announced it yet, I expect that they'll make a chip with 10-12 Steamroller cores and DDR4 memory and release it next year, both for desktops and servers.  If AMD manages to deliver the 15% IPC boost that they're promising and Intel remains unwilling to go over 4 cores in in the sub-$500 market (both plausible but far from certain), appropriate bins of that chip could easily end up as the best $200 and $300 gaming processors on the market.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Posts: 14,778Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Cleffy
    Originally posted by Ridelynn

    I don't think AMD needs a home run.

    You don't have to be the fastest kid on the block to be competitive. AMD has realized this, and priced their products accordingly.

    They are very compelling in the budget range for a desktop, where saving $75-100 means a lot. If you are looking at a laptop, the AMD APU's win hands down to all but the very high end.

    Haswell may change that equation some for power consumption (Intel is already very competitive on power draw as it is, but something that is 10x better is very significant), but I still don't think they will be competitive on the IGP, and if you are looking at a total package, the AMD APU's are still very compelling.

    For servers where lots of cores win, AMD has been pushing hard - lots of less expensive (and even slower) cores wins, and at a fraction of the price Intel charges for a similar number of cores.

    No, I don't think AMD needs a home run. I think they have identified their niches - graphics integration (with their ATI purchase), and lower cost cores. They just need to continue to lean on these strengths and they will do just fine to all but the fanboys who refuse to look past the brand name on the "Inside" sticker.

    Their current products aren't the fastest, but they are "fast enough" for nearly every purpose, and at half the price - that makes them a viable alternative, and competition is good for the market.

    For a number of years AMD had the fastest and cheaper processor.  They still did not gain marketshare.  It takes alot for people to think AMD is something more.  I think alot of people treat AMD as some cheap knock-off alternative compared to a namebrand product because of Intel's marketing budget.

    They sold Athlon 64 chips as fast as they could produce them, and at prices that didn't exactly scream "budget alternative".  But if your fabs can only crank out 10 million chips in a given unit of time, you can't sell 20 million chips very well.  Decisions on fab capacity have to be made long before you know exactly how good your product and your competitor's product will be.  If AMD had a successor to Vishera available today that doubled performance in all cases with no drawbacks, they wouldn't suddenly be able to claim 50% marketshare because they simply don't have the fab capacity available.

    Bobcat and Jaguar cores (and presumably their unannounced successors), on the other hand, are made on off-the-shelf process nodes.  If shortly after launch, AMD discovers that they can sell twice as many Kabini and Temash chips as they thought, they can ask the fab (likely TSMC, but I'm not sure) to double production and the fab can deliver it.  Or they could ask Global Foundries or Samsung or whoever to produce additional chips for them.  If a process node is shared by 30 different customers, and one wants more chips than they expected while another wants fewer, the fab can adjust quickly.  When you're the only customer on a process node (as AMD is for the process nodes needed for Bulldozer and Piledriver cores), that's not possible.

Sign In or Register to comment.