Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Intel vs. AMD


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

Poll: AMD vs. Intel 2009 (25 member(s) have cast votes)

Which processor do you prefer as of 2009?

  1. AMD (10 votes [40.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 40.00%

  2. Intel (13 votes [52.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 52.00%

  3. Neither (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. They are about equal (value) (2 votes [8.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Techiant

Techiant

  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:11 AM

Posted 20 June 2009 - 10:34 PM

What does everyone think where the competition stands as of 2009? AMD processors have generally been cheaper, though I have always been hesitant to buy a system with AMD processor. The Intel ones have always seemed a better value (in the mid-range).

Anyone would like to share an opinion? Also, any predictions for 2010?

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 the_patriot11

the_patriot11

    High Tech Redneck


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,755 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wyoming USA
  • Local time:03:11 AM

Posted 20 June 2009 - 11:33 PM

in the past I was an intel Die hard, till my best friend showed me the error of my ways. Dont get me wrong, I still like intel CPUs, but, Im now running 100% AMD and have no regrets. Their cheaper, and typically, have more bang for the buck, especially considering what I do. Intel does very good at multi tasking, and doing large programs like video editing, but, from my experience, AMD seems to handle gaming a lot better. the faster bus speed and more efficient use of cache seems to help a lot with that. and since I dont do a lot of video editing, in fact 90% of what I do is gaming, intel isnt worth the extra few hundred bucks. it really sealed the deal when I went through and did some benchmarks like Super Pi, and others, and it seemed to match my AMD athlon x2 6000+ windsor up pretty well with the intel Q6600 pretty well in most areas. the q6600 can definetly multi task better, but other then that for my dual core to match up to an intel quad, even if it is an low end one, to me shows pretty good. (granted ive done some tweaking with it and its in a custom system but you know) Intel makes good CPUs, but AMD in my mind, makes just as good CPUs, and their far cheaper, which is why I voted AMD in the pole here. not anti-intel, Im just pro AMD. :thumbsup:

As far as 2010 is concerned, it will prolly follow this one, Intel will continue to lead the market releasing the newest CPU, then AMD will follow it with a newer, cheaper one, and I will continue to purchase AMD. I mean seriouse, were talking 4-500 dollars for AMDs latest compared to 1000-1500 for intels.

Edited by the_patriot09, 20 June 2009 - 11:34 PM.

picard5.jpg

 

Primary system: Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3, Processor: AMD Phenom II x4 945, Memory: 16 gigs of Patriot G2 DDR3 1600, Video: AMD Sapphire Nitro R9 380, Storage: 1 WD 500 gig HD, 1 Hitachi 500 gig HD, and Power supply: Coolermaster 750 watt, OS: Windows 10 64 bit. 

Media Center: Motherboard: Gigabyte mp61p-S3, Processor: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+, Memory: 6 gigs Patriot DDR2 800, Video: Gigabyte GeForce GT730, Storage: 500 gig Hitachi, PSU: Seasonic M1211 620W full modular, OS: Windows 10.

If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.


#3 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 55,229 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:05:11 AM

Posted 21 June 2009 - 12:38 PM

Depends on what the purchaser wants.

Intel clearly has the "faster"processor (whatever meaning that may have for users), but IMO the AMD processors are better values for ordinary, non-gamer, non-enthusiast types who treat their computers with the regard some of us may have formerly treated our autos in our teen years.

Much has been made (IMO) of the Intel's speed advantages when it comes to rendering...but I guess that I fail to find that significant for users who are not doing rendering for cash. If a user looks at the quoted differentials...I think we are talking about a few minutes being saved. A few minutes in the life of a person with an average lifespan...well, less time is wasted at the grocery store or any other process we all pursue daily.

I started out on P166 system...it's hard for me to look with disdain on all the "obsolete/not-the-latest-greatest"" systems that are so much faster/better/cheaper.

I don't look to overspend on what I need, so I tend to buy AMD processors. If Intel processors were within a few bucks of AMD units...I might buy Intel processors, after carefully ignoring the hype.

Generally, I wait a year or two...and then buy what used to be the pushed product. I currently have two systems with X2 processors and I suspect that I will have them until I get a "let's buy this because it's so cheap" jag :thumbsup:.

I suppose that I should add that...if monetary differences were not a consideration, I'd probably get at least one hyped Intel CPU, just to satisfy myself that the measured operational differences are not terribly significant in my computing life :flowers:.

Louis

#4 Techiant

Techiant
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:11 AM

Posted 22 June 2009 - 11:06 AM

...but I guess that I fail to find that significant for users who are not doing rendering for cash.


Louis, very well put. I agree that if a pc is to be used for business, AND the time saved is significant (e.g. saves real time in real-life applications), then faster CPU should be considered but withing the ROI. Still, a human nature is such that we tend to spend an extra few bucks without considering an ROI. It somehow "feels good to know" that the pc you are using daily has a fast processor.

#5 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 55,229 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:05:11 AM

Posted 22 June 2009 - 11:24 AM

I have a hard time...deciding how "fast" is "fast", when I recall the systems I've owned in the past and were satisfied with (at that time).

I'm an old guy and I tend to remember many things which others easily forget...that's part of how I gauge how much better or worse "today" is when compared to "yesterday."

My PCs are not my autos or whatever it is that people use for ego satisfaction...they're machines that I appreciate and have great respect for...as long as they afford me opportunities that I didn't have earlier in my life.

Louis

#6 Techiant

Techiant
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:11 AM

Posted 26 June 2009 - 02:17 PM

There is also an "underdog" effect, where people tend to be partial to a product or service that is trying to compete with big company. Just my opinion, but I guess this is good for the competition and ultimately the consumer.

#7 Ingle

Ingle

  • Members
  • 67 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:MN
  • Local time:04:11 AM

Posted 26 June 2009 - 03:10 PM

A lot of it too is that AMD is over-all more cost effective, and handles over-clocking/"tweaking" better (more stable/faster speeds) so it can push out more than any Intel you'd buy for the same price. Intel is more expensive (not always by much), handles multi-tasking better, and has a faster out-of-the-box speed. If you don't intend to over-clock and speed is of great importance, Intel is good.

Louis put it nicely with "how 'fast' is 'fast'?" It really is based on what you're doing, and what you feel/know from experience you need. Top of the line is almost never actually needed.

I personally have Intel because I don't care to worry about over-clocking, and I do multi-tasking a LOT. I also base off what I'm willing to spend, and an approximation to the speed that I need/want. So this last time I went with a quad core for E. $180 and it's served me well for what gaming I do, as well as doing all my tasks at the same time. I don't even need to "choose" between the applications I'm using for school and gaming, I can do both and alternate.

They both serve their purpose and are both good. It's the extremists on both sides that tend to intimidate people toward or away from the brand.

#8 fairjoeblue

fairjoeblue

  • Members
  • 1,594 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Local time:05:11 AM

Posted 26 June 2009 - 06:10 PM

"AMD processors have generally been cheaper"

As usual , you get what you pay for.

Do a little research & see how many peole have problems with the new AMD vs how many have problems with Intel.

The only thing AMD has going for it is the "on die" memory controller that is only available from Intel on the expensive i7 CPU's.
From what I have read I don't think the technology is perfected yet.

AMD hasn't come up with anything to persuade me to buy a AMD since the K6-2 550MHz Socket 7 CPU.

I've tried various AMD CPU's over the years & just as a matter of personal opinion they are a distant second to Intel.
OCZ StealthXstream 700W,Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R , E8500, Arctic Freezer Pro 7, 3GB G.Skill PC8500,Gigabyte Radeon HD 4850 OC [1GB ], Seagate 250GB SATA II X2 in RAID 0, Samsung SATA DVD burner.

#9 techextreme

techextreme

    Bleepin Tech


  • BC Advisor
  • 2,125 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, PA
  • Local time:06:11 AM

Posted 26 June 2009 - 08:07 PM

Myself, I have owned and worked on more systems that I care to remember, and in that time I have seen the AMD vs. Intel question come up many times. IMO the bang for the buck is in favor of AMD but the pure multi-tasking ability still lies with Intel. Every server I have owned or worked on except for 1 was intel based and they have/had all run quite well handling anything from SQL and Exchange and RDP clients without hiccup.

The only AMD server that I ever came across had troubles with multiple RDP sessions let alone Exchange.

With that being said, I do still find myself purchasing AMD procossors for my own custom builds when it's time for a new computer for me. I think it's more the underdog thing that comes into play. I don't do much in the way of gaming so I don't really see much of a need to spend an extra few hundred bucks for an intel Quad core when a similar "clock speed" AMD will suffice. Most of what I do on my machines is pulling images, doing research for problems and those sorts of things.

For me, my desktops run AMD. But when it comes to a server.... it's a Xeon every time.

just my 2 cents....

Techextreme

"Admire those who attempt great things, even though they fail."

-- Seneca

 


#10 dpunisher

dpunisher

  • BC Advisor
  • 2,234 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South TX
  • Local time:05:11 AM

Posted 26 June 2009 - 08:14 PM

On die memory controllers are here to stay. AMD pioneered it and in the process punked Intel's P4s for a good 24 months or so. The i7s use it, and the new Lynnfield/X55 as well. Since 2009 isn't over yet, we can add Lynnfield CPUs to the discussion in about 3 months. Lynnfields are going to be scary quick, especially in games.

As far as overclocking, I don't see where you can compare Intel and AMD. Intels have the overclocking award locked up, especially in the midrange segment. Mom's E5200 at 3.4ghz (stock voltage), E6750 at 3.6ghz, and my i7920 at 4.1ghz (stock voltage) put me in Intel's camp on this point.

I would have no problem purchasing an AMD CPU now. If I needed X amount of performance at a limited pricepoint (without overclocking) then AMD looks pretty good. The fact is in everyday use I wouldn't be able to tell a midrange AMD from a midrange Intel unless I "played" benchmarks and used a stopwatch to time video encoding. I still have a problem running AMD or Intel CPUs on 3rd party (cough,NVidia,Cough) chipsets due to stability concerns. AMD lost some business when they decided to sit out of the chipset business for a cycle. VIA and SiS, and NVidia brought their own baggage to the party. Fortunately that is in the past for the most part.

Another minor consideration, software coders follow Intel's lead as far as SSE and other implementations are concerned.

I seriously try to be unbiased, but slowly I have replaced my 3 AMD systems over the last 2 years with Intel and haven't looked back. In my situation, cranking up CPUs like I do, it made sense for me to go Intel. When AMD releases a worldbeater CPU architecture like they did in the past, then rest assured I will be in line to get it.

Edited by dpunisher, 26 June 2009 - 08:15 PM.

I am a retired Ford tech. Next to Fords, any computer is a piece of cake. (The cake, its not a lie)

3770K @4.5, Corsair H100, GTX780, 16gig Samsung, Obsidian 700 (yes there is a 700)


#11 fairjoeblue

fairjoeblue

  • Members
  • 1,594 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Local time:05:11 AM

Posted 26 June 2009 - 11:07 PM

I'm running my Xeon 3070 C2D [2.66GHZ/4MB/1066MHZ] at 3.2GHz with the multiplier lowered to 8 [from 10] with the bus set to 400 for a 1600MHz front bus & it's rather snappy.
[Getting a little long in the tooth though]

I know the old saw used to be , AMD for gaming, Intel for production but the AMD have always been such a hassle to get to run anywhere near cool I just avoid them.
OCZ StealthXstream 700W,Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R , E8500, Arctic Freezer Pro 7, 3GB G.Skill PC8500,Gigabyte Radeon HD 4850 OC [1GB ], Seagate 250GB SATA II X2 in RAID 0, Samsung SATA DVD burner.

#12 Techiant

Techiant
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:11 AM

Posted 08 July 2009 - 07:00 PM

... and in that time I have seen the AMD vs. Intel question come up many times.


Yes, as you said I've seen this classic discussion many times. Sort of like PC vs Mac (or Windows vs MacOS). Reason for my post was really to get everyone's opinion on the subject for the year 2009, as well as prognosis for 2010.

For some reason I never felt fully comfortable with AMD. To me the Intel CPU means a quality "OEM" part and the AMD CPU an "aftermarket" part. To put it another way, besides the speed advantage, I would think Intel CPU's quality would be more consistent than that of AMD. Obviously, I may be wrong.

#13 fairjoeblue

fairjoeblue

  • Members
  • 1,594 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Local time:05:11 AM

Posted 09 July 2009 - 12:22 AM

" I would think Intel CPU's quality would be more consistent than that of AMD. Obviously, I may be wrong. "

I belong to a couple of different forums.
Judging by the amount of "Problem with my AMD Phenom XXX" I've seen I don't think you're wrong at all.
OCZ StealthXstream 700W,Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R , E8500, Arctic Freezer Pro 7, 3GB G.Skill PC8500,Gigabyte Radeon HD 4850 OC [1GB ], Seagate 250GB SATA II X2 in RAID 0, Samsung SATA DVD burner.

#14 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 55,229 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:05:11 AM

Posted 09 July 2009 - 09:22 AM

That could be a valid indicator...but...how many times have each of us seen...that often it's the OP that's the problem, not the components?

Too many users don't bother to understand the limitations and strengths of computer components, software, or operating systems...and create their own scenarios...and then cry the blues.

I think there are more systems smarter than their owners/users...than we like to think...and neither Intel nor AMD has a corner on that market :thumbsup:.

If you look at all the posts in any given forum...what percentage of the posters would you possibly classify as "knowledgeable users" when it comes to preventing problems and/or handling such with dexterity?

I would not think the percentage is going to be high...because most "knowledgeable users" probably don't have problems with their systems which they need to air to the world when seeking a resolution.

I think forums reflect more on users than on system preferences or problems...but I've been wrong before :flowers:.

Louis

#15 fairjoeblue

fairjoeblue

  • Members
  • 1,594 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Local time:05:11 AM

Posted 09 July 2009 - 10:10 AM

hamkuis,

Are you, by chance, a Democrate ? :thumbsup:
OCZ StealthXstream 700W,Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R , E8500, Arctic Freezer Pro 7, 3GB G.Skill PC8500,Gigabyte Radeon HD 4850 OC [1GB ], Seagate 250GB SATA II X2 in RAID 0, Samsung SATA DVD burner.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users