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 Processors


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
35 replies to this topic

#1 paul88ks

paul88ks

  • Members
  • 1,321 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas,Texas
  • Local time:06:34 AM

Posted 26 September 2016 - 12:22 AM

I would like some input from you guys and gals out there on this. I have built many computers for myself and others. To save money ,I have advised some people to use an Athlon processor- depending on how they are going to use their computer. I think AMD is good for everyday web browsing,email etc. Which is better?Intel or Athlon? Seeing that Intel is more expensive than AMD,is it worth the extra money to go Intel? 



BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,397 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:02:34 PM

Posted 26 September 2016 - 05:33 AM

Athlon is quite old brand and nowadays only used for some cheap CPU's. Better to talk about AMD CPU's.

AMD is more than good enough for everyday use, not worth extra money to get Intel.

#3 QQQQ

QQQQ

  • Members
  • 379 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:34 AM

Posted 26 September 2016 - 11:05 AM

AMD's are usually a bit cheaper than Intel and they also run hotter. In my experience I have found the heat from the AMD's can eventually kill a motherboard or the chip itself. Usually it's the motherboard though. My boss wanted to try AMD's with a customer so we went with a small 3 PC store. (only had 3 pc's at this location.) In a 3 year period all 3 of the motherboards had to be replaced and 1 of them had to be replaced twice. We only use Intel now, he sneaks in an AMD or 2 on me still and he has to replace the motherboards on them himself if they go out. I am just not a fan of AMD as they gave me more trouble than the Intel's, but that is my opinion based upon 31 years of experience as a tech.



#4 Gorbulan

Gorbulan

  • Members
  • 832 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:34 AM

Posted 26 September 2016 - 12:29 PM

AMD's tend to be the choice of overclockers since they run at a higher speed compared with their Intel counterparts. Intel is still the standard for high performance, it's just costlier. As mentioned before, AMD's tend to run hotter than Intel.

 

If you don't know what you want specifically, but want high performance, go with Intel. Otherwise, AMD is perfectly fine cheap option for "everyday" computing.



#5 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,397 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:02:34 PM

Posted 26 September 2016 - 02:07 PM

AMD's are usually a bit cheaper than Intel and they also run hotter. In my experience I have found the heat from the AMD's can eventually kill a motherboard or the chip itself. Usually it's the motherboard though. My boss wanted to try AMD's with a customer so we went with a small 3 PC store. (only had 3 pc's at this location.) In a 3 year period all 3 of the motherboards had to be replaced and 1 of them had to be replaced twice. We only use Intel now, he sneaks in an AMD or 2 on me still and he has to replace the motherboards on them himself if they go out. I am just not a fan of AMD as they gave me more trouble than the Intel's, but that is my opinion based upon 31 years of experience as a tech.


How long time ago? Somewhere around year 2000 there was huge shortage of good quality capacitors. That meant almost every motherboard was unreliable, no matter if it was AMD or Intel. In fact, at that time Intel was much hotter CPU.

Also other parts matter too. Bad PSU can break any motherboard. So in your case it's possible that PSU was very low quality and broke those motherboards.

Today situation is different and there are generally no big reliability differences between AMD and Intel motherboards. In fact, in past years Intel has proven to be much less reliable (like P67 SATA fiasco).

#6 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 55,857 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:06:34 AM

Posted 26 September 2016 - 02:12 PM

I think of it this way...I can buy a FX 8320 or so for less than I can buy an i5 processor...and basically get equivalent performance.  I don't game so there is no consideration by me re gaming performance.

 

Lots Of Opinions.

 

Louis



#7 Gorbulan

Gorbulan

  • Members
  • 832 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:34 AM

Posted 26 September 2016 - 02:39 PM

I think of it this way...I can buy a FX 8320 or so for less than I can buy an i5 processor...and basically get equivalent performance.  I don't game so there is no consideration by me re gaming performance.

 

Lots Of Opinions.

 

Louis

 

Even if you did game I think the AMD would be superior. Most games just don't make use of all those cores. I have not seen any that benefit from more than 4. Between having a huge speed in GHz and a huge number of cores, you are better of with the high GHz for gaming.



#8 paul88ks

paul88ks
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 1,321 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas,Texas
  • Local time:06:34 AM

Posted 26 September 2016 - 04:41 PM

 

 

Athlon is quite old brand and nowadays only used for some cheap CPU's. Better to talk about AMD CPU's.

Sorry - that's what i meant- AMD!



#9 jonuk76

jonuk76

  • Members
  • 2,178 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales, UK
  • Local time:12:34 PM

Posted 26 September 2016 - 05:27 PM

 

How long time ago? Somewhere around year 2000 there was huge shortage of good quality capacitors. That meant almost every motherboard was unreliable, no matter if it was AMD or Intel. In fact, at that time Intel was much hotter CPU.

 

 

Intel's really started getting hotter a bit later with the introduction of the inefficient Netburst architecture (P4 family).  They even created a new form factor (BTX) where cooling was an integral part of the design, mainly because of the huge heat generated by higher speed P4's.  AMD had a clear price and performance advantage at that time for those in the know.

 

Now I tend to buy only Intel myself and apart from a few specific use cases (e.g. the Athlon X4 860K is excellent for it's low price) tend to recommend them.  Intel's pricing has been rising steadily though, and some credible opposition from AMD (the Zen maybe?) could shake up the market.


7sbvuf-6.png


#10 Mike_Soda

Mike_Soda

  • Members
  • 155 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States
  • Local time:04:34 AM

Posted 26 September 2016 - 09:23 PM

Although AMD currently still is the best performance per dollar, buying into any of their current product lines now is a dead end. At least that's what I've been told, since it's rumored that Athlon X4, A10 APU's & FX won't be compatible with AM4 Motherboards. Likewise I don't think they'll be making anymore new CPU's for those past generations. If you need to build something right now I'd say go with an i3-6100, they're about $120.00 & can pick up a decent LGA 1151 motherboard for $50.00 or less. That 2 core, 4 thread CPU by the way is significantly better than an Athlon 880k & even an FX 6-core.


Ryzen 5 1500X @ 3.9GHz On 1.3625V | MSI B350M Gaming Pro | 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4 3200MHz | 3GB MSI GTX 1060 Gaming X 2063MHz Core 9408MHz Mem | EVGA G2 550W | 250GB Samsung 850 EVO | Windows 10 Home 64-bit Version 1803 (OS Build 17134.112) | MasterCase Pro 3


#11 paul88ks

paul88ks
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 1,321 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas,Texas
  • Local time:06:34 AM

Posted 26 September 2016 - 10:31 PM

So- there is no equivalent to an I7 processor in the AMD line of products?



#12 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,397 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:02:34 PM

Posted 27 September 2016 - 05:34 AM

Although AMD currently still is the best performance per dollar, buying into any of their current product lines now is a dead end. At least that's what I've been told, since it's rumored that Athlon X4, A10 APU's & FX won't be compatible with AM4 Motherboards. Likewise I don't think they'll be making anymore new CPU's for those past generations. If you need to build something right now I'd say go with an i3-6100, they're about $120.00 & can pick up a decent LGA 1151 motherboard for $50.00 or less. That 2 core, 4 thread CPU by the way is significantly better than an Athlon 880k & even an FX 6-core.


Every socket right now except AM4 is dead end. Current DDR3 supporting CPU's are not compatible with AM4, it's well known fact, no need for rumour. Also AM3/FM2+ will not receive new CPU's as Zen will supersede them.

i3-6100 is only dual core and paying over $100 for dual core is no if you ask me. It has no match for AMD six core if all cores are used. Even quad core i7 has no match for AMD octa core on medium to heavy use (like virtual machines).

So- there is no equivalent to an I7 processor in the AMD line of products?


Depends on what i7. i7 may be dual core or 10-core.

In any case, Zen matches Intel's offerings clock to clock on "most applications". Clock speed will probably be lower but so is power consumption also. Zen also will not match Intel CPU's when using AVX-512, but that feature is mostly useless anyway and power consumption is huge. Putting full scale AVX-512 support for 95W octa core would mean very low clock speed. Best Intel can do at 140 watts is 3.2 GHz.

#13 QQQQ

QQQQ

  • Members
  • 379 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:34 AM

Posted 27 September 2016 - 08:39 AM

 

AMD's are usually a bit cheaper than Intel and they also run hotter. In my experience I have found the heat from the AMD's can eventually kill a motherboard or the chip itself. Usually it's the motherboard though. My boss wanted to try AMD's with a customer so we went with a small 3 PC store. (only had 3 pc's at this location.) In a 3 year period all 3 of the motherboards had to be replaced and 1 of them had to be replaced twice. We only use Intel now, he sneaks in an AMD or 2 on me still and he has to replace the motherboards on them himself if they go out. I am just not a fan of AMD as they gave me more trouble than the Intel's, but that is my opinion based upon 31 years of experience as a tech.


How long time ago? Somewhere around year 2000 there was huge shortage of good quality capacitors. That meant almost every motherboard was unreliable, no matter if it was AMD or Intel. In fact, at that time Intel was much hotter CPU.

Also other parts matter too. Bad PSU can break any motherboard. So in your case it's possible that PSU was very low quality and broke those motherboards.

Today situation is different and there are generally no big reliability differences between AMD and Intel motherboards. In fact, in past years Intel has proven to be much less reliable (like P67 SATA fiasco).

 

2006 if I remember correctly. Had a few Intel mobo's go out too but not like the AMD boards. PC's would power on but not post or boot at first. If you left it on for a few minutes and then hit reset they would post and boot fine. After a few months the boards went south.



#14 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 55,857 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:06:34 AM

Posted 27 September 2016 - 09:04 AM

Not to be impertinent...but what transpired in 2006 regarding CPUs/motherboards/systems...is probably not seriously related to CPU production in 2016 or more recent years, IMO.  I am not a fanboy of either Intel or AMD...but let's have pertinent facts put forth that are relative to here and now...if the goal is not confuse the OP.

 

Louis


Edited by hamluis, 27 September 2016 - 09:05 AM.


#15 QQQQ

QQQQ

  • Members
  • 379 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:34 AM

Posted 27 September 2016 - 09:30 AM

I agree hamluis it is old info, I seem to remember the "problem child" of the past. I don't have any current experience with the newer AMD chips so maybe some one else (drillingmachine) has more current input. He seems to be fairly knowledgeable about AMD, he recommends them quite often has to be a reason for that. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users