I'm sure this has already been covered, but in general it is better to choose AMD over Intel because:
1. better price
erformance ratio on AMD parts
2. less power consumption, and therefore less heat
3. better performance on most (though not all) tasks
4. better upgrade path if you go with a socket 939 AMD part (so greater longevity on things like motherboards when you go AMD)
5. if you want to get into the low-level details of it, AMD's processor design is just superior to what is offered by Intel (you get an integrated memory controller, a bus that was actually designed with dual-core computing in mind, etc.)
...buying an Intel part is only really justifiable if your sole/primary interest is in multimedia encoding. For just about any other task, the AMD part will perform better and use less energy and put out less heat. Intel holds such a large market share mostly because they were the first company to really mass-market x86 desktop CPU's, and were well-entrenched by the time AMD became a viable competitor. It doesn't mean Intel is better, it just means that they were around first.
1. better price
erformance ratio on AMD parts2. less power consumption, and therefore less heat
3. better performance on most (though not all) tasks
4. better upgrade path if you go with a socket 939 AMD part (so greater longevity on things like motherboards when you go AMD)
5. if you want to get into the low-level details of it, AMD's processor design is just superior to what is offered by Intel (you get an integrated memory controller, a bus that was actually designed with dual-core computing in mind, etc.)
...buying an Intel part is only really justifiable if your sole/primary interest is in multimedia encoding. For just about any other task, the AMD part will perform better and use less energy and put out less heat. Intel holds such a large market share mostly because they were the first company to really mass-market x86 desktop CPU's, and were well-entrenched by the time AMD became a viable competitor. It doesn't mean Intel is better, it just means that they were around first.
i think a lot of people r still just trying to hold on to intel but thats just me..
intel is capable of a lot but now it seems like a marketing scam
intel is capable of a lot but now it seems like a marketing scam
i hope intel doesnt crap out on me. i dont want to give up the term hyper threading. that is, unless amd takes it.
if there were no competition i wonder how fast processors would be.. maybe the fx would only cost me $3 then again.. it would be outdated
things like that are probably discussed in the highly technical section, but i never been there.
Because Intel gives big fat discounts to large OEMs like Dell for offering Intel only systems.
And that 70% of the market are people who arne't very computer-orientated. They probably just buy a computer that fits their price range or whatever their friends suggest and get it to browse the internet, play a few games, etc. etc.
~ AMD > Intel.
Who cares about bus speeds? Or any particular feature by itself for that matter?
Do you buy a processor because it supports MMX? No, you buy a processor/platform because of performance in the apps you USE.
If you choose an intel processor at price point X you get 1 bus speed to choose from.
If you choose an AMD processor at the same price you get 1 bus speed to choose from.
So does bus speed really matter? Or does the overall performance of each platform matter?
To me overall performance in the applications I use are what matters. Who cares about any singlular feature if it doesn't have a direct impact on performance of the apps I use.
Buying a computer system based on the bus speed would be like buying a car based on the size of the fuel pump. It's the overall picture that matters more than any single feature.
Intel has done well in the past. They also have good marketing. Back in the K6 days there wasn't much of a rason to own AMD (Though i did
) because Intel did it so much better.When the originalAthlon came out AMD gave Intel stiff compeition and it was a dead heat. That is where AMD's reputation started to come from. T-bird and ealy P4 days AMD was spanking the P4, but AMD was also hot (P4 was also hot but not T-bird fire).
With the P4B and AthlonXP days they were in good competition, and this is really where "Intel for encoding" and "AMD for games" came from.
Again Intel pulled away with the P4C (but it was about 5% or so, but i guess 5% in the processor world is considered huge) for preformance/price
AMD came back with A64, and has been at the top since...intel didn't do much save for underwhelm us with PRescot and the 9XX series chipset.
So by that you'd think they would be in a dead heat, right?
But the signifacant difference is AMD's marketing crew exists of monkeys locked in a basement.
Just to give an example my friend just upgraded his processor in his computer. He has a 2.53 P4B. He had an option between a 3.2C or a 3.2 Prescott, but chose the prescott because it is "newer" and has "newer technology"...aside from the fact that in general usage it is still slower thana 3.2C. The scary part is he is an EE major and he has an irrational hatred for AMD. His dad wanted a PC so he went to frys and bought a 150$Celeron, instead of a A642800+ because "Intel is more Stable and better".
But Intel isn't #1soley because of marketing, but it plays a large role. If it didn't, we SHOULD be seeing a more more even split, not where intel has something like 80-90% of desktop market chips out there
i went with AMD for two reasons:
1. People here told me to. I am pretty easily swayed by the views of others, especially those whom are more intellegant than me on certain topics. I'd rather take the general concensus of a group of 20+ people than look at a spec sheet any day.
2. I like sticking it to the man whenever i get the chance. I'll almost always buy from an underdog if their product is equal to the big boys. I don't know why. My only exception is microsoft. I gave linux a chance but it wasn't doin it for me. i'll stick with windows for a while i think.
1. People here told me to. I am pretty easily swayed by the views of others, especially those whom are more intellegant than me on certain topics. I'd rather take the general concensus of a group of 20+ people than look at a spec sheet any day.
2. I like sticking it to the man whenever i get the chance. I'll almost always buy from an underdog if their product is equal to the big boys. I don't know why. My only exception is microsoft. I gave linux a chance but it wasn't doin it for me. i'll stick with windows for a while i think.
3 good reasons
1. Price / Performance - If the Athlon doesn't flat out win, it is generally a cheaper solution to go with
2. heat - the Athlon 64 tends to produce quite a bit less heat than Prescott P4s and PDs, the flipside to this quieter cooling solutions.
3. power - A64 generally tends to require less power.
Until Intel make their Pentium M suitable for desktop use, there's little reason not to go with AMD.
1. Price / Performance - If the Athlon doesn't flat out win, it is generally a cheaper solution to go with
2. heat - the Athlon 64 tends to produce quite a bit less heat than Prescott P4s and PDs, the flipside to this quieter cooling solutions.
3. power - A64 generally tends to require less power.
Until Intel make their Pentium M suitable for desktop use, there's little reason not to go with AMD.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter