AMD or Intel?

[misanthropy]

I plan on spending around $360 on the processor alone. It will be for gaming and photoshop. I dont plan on doing dual GPU because I think that is a waste of money. Perhaps I'll do a slight OC but nothing major. I should go for AMD right because all my pro gaming friends say they pwn?

 

[Gamer X]

AMD pwnd Intel for the last 3 years............until C2D arrived. If you are spending $360 on a
cpu get C2D E6600.

 

[Kromis]

Gah...

Look, although I have been using Intel but am leaning towards AMD, just go for Intel. They currently dominate right now. But! If you go AM2, you will be able to upgrade to AM3 or w/e in the future (with new shiz)! So...Intel...for...the...win...(Boo hoo hoo, I'm so sad that I had to say it...)

 

[DrMrLordX]

With a processor budget of $360, you should be able to get an E6400 or E6600. I'd go for the E6400 and spend the rest on a good 975x motherboard.

 

[Dadofamunky]

At present, unequivocally go Intel. Conroe looks like a real monster that delivers incredible value. The problem is they may hard to find for awhile. But even getting a 6300 or a 6400 and OCing the snot out of it will give you a fabulous machine.

Man, I wish this stuff had come out when I was doing my system build. Maybe I'll ask my boss for one at work.

I am really amazed at all the results I'm seeing. Conroe looks like a hands-down winner, and in a year or so, after the motherboards stabilize and the chips come back down in price, that's where I'm going for my rig.

The big issue for Intel is that NetBurst CPUs almost killed that company. That was Craig Barrett's baby, and he was the worst CEO Intel has had. The guy made a lot of bad decisions on the technology side. Intel's stock tanked further last week because they still have a huge inventory overhang of the NetBust (oops, I mean NetBurst) chips which they have been frantically slashing prices on.

Now, with Conroe out, no one will ever want to buy those pieces of NetBurst shee-ot except for corporate IT departments that don't know any better.

The only reason they got away with their stupid NetBurst product was their relative monopoly position in the CPU market, and the fact that most of the channel (Dell, etc.) was pretty much bound by contract and Intel's market position to use that crap. NetBurst was a total crap product produced by a company that was fat, dumb and happy in their monopoly position, thanks in part to Barrett's mismanagement.

Mistakes like NetBurst kill companies all the time. The only reason Intel will survive is because of its incredibly built-up position in the market, which AMD, through great engineering, somehow managed to partially undermine. Intel richly deserved it. We should all be grateful to AMD for forcing Intel to compete again.

Another problem Intel has is that it can't immediaitely flood the market with its new flagship CPUS, despite all today's hype, because it has all these other crap chips to get rid of. Basic economics. They have vast quantities of inventory they can't get rid of and most of their fabs were dedicated to cranking out NetBurst crap. They say openly that no more than 25% of their output for this year will be Conroe. Their stock will likely continue to tank for the rest of this year. Conroe will take longer to really take hold then a lot of enthusiasts believe.

AMD will be back, too. They have an established record now. Anyone on these boards who counts them out or says "AMD is dead" or some other nonsense, just because Intel finally started doing again what it was supposed to be doing in the first place, is a fool.

 

[stevty2889]

Your CPU budget is just right for an E6600. Up until now I would have said to get an X2, but now that Conroe is here, it's the better option.

 

[Washoe]

Yup conroe pwns all right now lol

 

[oztrailrider]

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky
The big issue for Intel is that NetBurst CPUs almost killed that company. That was Craig Barrett's baby, and he was the worst CEO Intel has had. The guy made a lot of bad decisions on the technology side. Intel's stock tanked further last week because they still have a huge inventory overhang of the NetBust (oops, I mean NetBurst) chips which they have been frantically slashing prices on.

Now, with Conroe out, no one will ever want to buy those pieces of NetBurst shee-ot except for corporate IT departments that don't know any better.

The only reason they got away with their stupid NetBurst product was their relative monopoly position in the CPU market, and the fact that most of the channel (Dell, etc.) was pretty much bound by contract and Intel's market position to use that crap. NetBurst was a total crap product produced by a company that was fat, dumb and happy in their monopoly position, thanks in part to Barrett's mismanagement.

Mistakes like NetBurst kill companies all the time. The only reason Intel will survive is because of its incredibly built-up position in the market, which AMD, through great engineering, somehow managed to partially undermine. Intel richly deserved it. We should all be grateful to AMD for forcing Intel to compete again.

Another problem Intel has is that it can't immediaitely flood the market with its new flagship CPUS, despite all today's hype, because it has all these other crap chips to get rid of. Basic economics. They have vast quantities of inventory they can't get rid of and most of their fabs were dedicated to cranking out NetBurst crap. They say openly that no more than 25% of their output for this year will be Conroe. Their stock will likely continue to tank for the rest of this year. Conroe will take longer to really take hold then a lot of enthusiasts believe.

AMD will be back, too. They have an established record now. Anyone on these boards who counts them out or says "AMD is dead" or some other nonsense, just because Intel finally started doing again what it was supposed to be doing in the first place, is a fool.

Well said.

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: oztrailrider

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky
The big issue for Intel is that NetBurst CPUs almost killed that company. That was Craig Barrett's baby, and he was the worst CEO Intel has had. The guy made a lot of bad decisions on the technology side. Intel's stock tanked further last week because they still have a huge inventory overhang of the NetBust (oops, I mean NetBurst) chips which they have been frantically slashing prices on.

Now, with Conroe out, no one will ever want to buy those pieces of NetBurst shee-ot except for corporate IT departments that don't know any better.

The only reason they got away with their stupid NetBurst product was their relative monopoly position in the CPU market, and the fact that most of the channel (Dell, etc.) was pretty much bound by contract and Intel's market position to use that crap. NetBurst was a total crap product produced by a company that was fat, dumb and happy in their monopoly position, thanks in part to Barrett's mismanagement.

Mistakes like NetBurst kill companies all the time. The only reason Intel will survive is because of its incredibly built-up position in the market, which AMD, through great engineering, somehow managed to partially undermine. Intel richly deserved it. We should all be grateful to AMD for forcing Intel to compete again.

Another problem Intel has is that it can't immediaitely flood the market with its new flagship CPUS, despite all today's hype, because it has all these other crap chips to get rid of. Basic economics. They have vast quantities of inventory they can't get rid of and most of their fabs were dedicated to cranking out NetBurst crap. They say openly that no more than 25% of their output for this year will be Conroe. Their stock will likely continue to tank for the rest of this year. Conroe will take longer to really take hold then a lot of enthusiasts believe.

AMD will be back, too. They have an established record now. Anyone on these boards who counts them out or says "AMD is dead" or some other nonsense, just because Intel finally started doing again what it was supposed to be doing in the first place, is a fool.

Well said.

You do realize how much 25% of shipments for a company like Intel is, right?

 

[Kwint Sommer]

That should be significantly more than a million chips if memory serves. Intel produces a lot and while the net burst chips couldn't do much per MHz they could reach crazy speeds. I've been part of the 5 GHz club for almost a year and I did it with a sytem that cost me less than $600 (not counting the cooling unit I built using spare parts). Net Burst never did as well as it should or could have but I think you overstate the extent of it. Regardless, it is good to see some real competition developing. I think we all owe Capitalism a big "thank you."

If you are building a system from scratch then I would suggest the E6600. It not just gives more performance per dollar at stock settings but it also Overclocks drasticly better than any chip since the single core socket 478s. 3 months ago I would have said go AMD but right now I'm waiting for an E6600 to complete my new system.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

360 is exactly how much Core 2 Duo is going for... Go for it!

 

[eelw]

What do you mean well said??? Intel has never been in any financial trouble. And I love how the AMD fanboys say the NetBurst is crap. Yes, it's not as efficient as the K8s, but the average computer user won't see any difference between either architecture.

 

[NewBlackDak]

Our office workers notice the difference. The ones with PIV don't need a space heater under their desk anymore!!

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: misanthropy
I plan on spending around $360 on the processor alone. It will be for gaming and photoshop. I dont plan on doing dual GPU because I think that is a waste of money. Perhaps I'll do a slight OC but nothing major. I should go for AMD right because all my pro gaming friends say they pwn?

The CPU has become almost the lesser of your choices based on price...Graphics cards cost more, Ram can cost more, and even motherboards cost more in many cases.
What's your total system budget (and keep in mind that Photoshop LOVES memory!)?

 

[misanthropy]

Around fourteen hundred for just the box. For the GPU I think I'll get something like a 7900GT. I thought saw one for under $300 on NewEgg. It would be nice to have 4GB RAM but I probably can only afford half that. I don't want to go over kill for any one component, just keep it upper midrange.

I'd like to hear the opinions of the people who voted for AMD. There's been five thus far.

 

[Zero Plasma]

Neither. I am offering a new supercool brand of processor for your enjoyment

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: Kwint Sommer
That should be significantly more than a million chips if memory serves. Intel produces a lot and while the net burst chips couldn't do much per MHz they could reach crazy speeds. I've been part of the 5 GHz club for almost a year and I did it with a sytem that cost me less than $600 (not counting the cooling unit I built using spare parts). Net Burst never did as well as it should or could have but I think you overstate the extent of it. Regardless, it is good to see some real competition developing. I think we all owe Capitalism a big "thank you."

If you are building a system from scratch then I would suggest the E6600. It not just gives more performance per dollar at stock settings but it also Overclocks drasticly better than any chip since the single core socket 478s. 3 months ago I would have said go AMD but right now I'm waiting for an E6600 to complete my new system.

Yeah, totally agree. that really is the sweet spot.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: eelw
What do you mean well said??? Intel has never been in any financial trouble. And I love how the AMD fanboys say the NetBurst is crap. Yes, it's not as efficient as the K8s, but the average computer user won't see any difference between either architecture.

Yeah, as if. I use an Intel at work (you HAVE a job, FANBOY?) and an AMD X2 at home and YOU BET I see a difference.

That's because, objectively speaking, NetBurst IS crap. Sorry if you can't handle the facts, bud. It's a bad architecture, and Intel knows it. They're selling this junk for $100 a pop to unload it, and they STILL can't. Go look on myriad threads to verify it, if you don't believe me. Or better yet, seen Intel's stock price lately? How about Dell's? They're stuck with the same overhang of crap that nobody wants anymore.

It has nothing to do with being a fanboy. It has to do with reading the business pages of the newspaper and a couple business mags every week. Both of these companies are dealing huge overhangs of obsolescent inventory now - bad management by Intel and especially by Craig Barrett and Paul Otellini - you know who those guys are, FANBOY?

And it's so bad that Intel will have an artificially induced scarcity of Conroe chips because they mismanaged their product line so badly. This was years in the making. A million+ chips won't even be close to enough to make up for their monumental screwups this year. All that wasted fab space! The opportunity cost wasted! Anyone else but Intel would be filing for bankruptcy now.

Come back when you actually know what you're talking about. I'm in a really sh!tty mood and just don't want to put up with ignorance, I don't even have time for one message a day on these boards and I swear to God that's a good thing.

I hate people who have the colossal stupidity to identify themselves with a corporate entity who could give a shee-ot about them or anyone else.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky
That's because, objectively speaking, NetBurst IS crap. Sorry if you can't handle the facts, bud. It's a bad architecture, and Intel knows it. They're selling this junk for $100 a pop to unload it, and they STILL can't. Go look on myriad threads to verify it, if you don't believe me. Or better yet, seen Intel's stock price lately? How about Dell's? They're stuck with the same overhang of crap that nobody wants anymore.

It has nothing to do with being a fanboy. It has to do with reading the business pages of the newspaper and a couple business mags every week. Both of these companies are dealing huge overhangs of obsolescent inventory now - bad management by Intel and especially by Craig Barrett and Paul Otellini - you know who those guys are, FANBOY?

Hey, since merom is beating K8 in many benchmarks by the same or more margin than K8 beating late-gen P4's, does that make K8 crap? Anyone who calls P4 "crap" is just ignorant. The true story is vastly more complex, and I seriously doubt any myriad of threads here or anywhere will tell the whole story.

Oh by the way, don't associate stock price with technical leadership, because that's just pure fantasy. Wall Street couldn't give a crap what is faster.

 

[theteamaqua]

E6400 > FX-62 u do the math ....

 

[Zebo]

PentiumD




























jk see sig

 

[tallman45]

If you also need a MB and Memory, then an E6600, no question

 

[eelw]

Hmm, Intel posts a $900 million profit while AMD posts a $90 million profit this past 2nd quarter. Yes, Intel's profit margin has taken a beating, but oh no, they're going bankrupt. And you're the ignorant one to base a companies success just on price per share.

As for the performance difference, the average person who is surfing myspace or using MS Word won't see the 1/2 second a difference in performance dumbass. Us gamers or encoders on this board of course will see the performance difference. But we represent the extremely small minority in the overall computer market. Why else are Celerons and Intel intergrated graphics represent the largest volume sellers.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: dmens

Hey, since merom is beating K8 in many benchmarks by the same or more margin than K8 beating late-gen P4's, does that make K8 crap?

It does make K8 crap. K8s run hotter and, in some instances, cost more while providing less performance than some of Intel's latest chips (especially after overclocking). Considering how weak Prescott and Cedar Mill chips are in comparison to Core 2 Duo, I guess that makes Netburst double crap? Crap squared? Eh, something like that.

And yes, we are that fickle.

 

[misanthropy]

12 people have voted for AMD and still not one has explained their reasoning behind it???????