Page 1 of 1

Posted: 2004.04.26 4:17 pm
by Kage
Point Blank, this is a very very provoked topic, I like both, both preform well. There is no specs or special abilities of niether nor. Its in old arguement that is easily solved by saying, "They both are ok." AMD will always be around without them INTEL would be classified as a monoply and the whole thing would be shut down.

Here is my arguement.
Mine is not loud. (AMD) AMD would not fry w/o the heat sink. Until you have tested it, don't make assumptions. You can say "Well other people...." No. You need to experience it first hand. Performance, yes Intel has bigger badder Giga Hertz power. But, most people don't need that much power. Unless they have a server, yes, yes. But, contrary to popular belief, alot of servers go after AMD because it is so cheap and really with a duel AMD 64 Bit 3400 you would be fast as hell, and cost as much as only 1 Xeon 3.4 NT (This is based off of Manufacturers prices, not pricewatch) lets see here, 2.8 + 2.8 = 5.6 rather then the 3.4 of Intel. I am not going to bash Intel because I do like them just as much as AMD, but as far as it goes, AMD will probably be always cheaper then Intel.

I don't like this arguement, its easier to say, They both have their ups and downs.

I think it is funny that you argue this point behind a freezing p4 computer (I know the problem is not the processor but it still is funny)

Just my thoughts, and Nathan if this starts another war between us I will be mad :evil:

Posted: 2004.07.27 4:06 pm
by nrunge
Its always nice to have options. If Intel were the only CPU manufacturer most of the people who rave about intel chips would most likley be bashing Intel the same way people do to Microsoft. In the end even if you hate AMD (or Intel for that matter) you must respect the market that they live in and understand that competition lowers prices and increases R&D, getting you bigger, badder, cheaper, faster processors.

By the way, for all intensive purposes performance on the chips is basically the same as most the the extra instruction sets like SSE2 and 3DNOW! are not widely used. I get to play with alot of PC's at work and I can say that neither architecture really blows the other one away in real world performance. The only edge I see right now is AMD has a consumer level 64 bit chip. Intel is going to release one as well which I am sure will bring the performance close again. Although since most people run Windows the true abilities of x86_64 wont be utilized.

P.S. Chips cannot run "more quiet" than other chips. That all depends on what kind of fan you use. If I used a water cooling block on an Intel chip and an AMD chip are you to tell me that one is going to make more noise?

Posted: 2004.10.10 10:36 pm
by nrunge
I also use AMD products because they are cheap and perform well. I have seen people bicker back and forth about temperatures as well but at this point in the game I think we can all shell out a few extra bucks for a nice fan that pretty much nixes that argument. The chips actually do function quite the same though, just a bunch of transistors that either go on or off and obey X86 assembler instructions. Like I said previously there are extra instruction sets like MMX and 3DNOW! that dont seem to matter too much. I also like AMD's business model as well. They are willing to take chances. This is based on a heavy bias and strong liking for 64bit architechture.

Posted: 2004.10.10 10:44 pm
by Jeff
I don't care really. I stick with Intel not for their processors, but because I'm a fan of motherboards with Intel chipsets, and you don't tend to find those for AMD processors. ;)