I think most members here including the product reviewers are AMD devotees as it shows here in this forum and the way the reviews are conducted. The reviews of Intel's CPU may superficially look as though fair and square. But by dissecting the way it is written it gives the reader a tendency to lien toward AMD. This may explain why most viewers here downgrade Intel and hyped up on AMD.
This site is useless to me since I find it bias, and viewers become belligerent toward another. as soon as positive feedbacks on Intel is mentioned.
There are plenty other websites that are fair and square and best for making the right decision on what to buy-unlike here.
Can you quote/link to some specific examples of biased reviews? How about some links to these "fair and square" websites? You are aware that aside form Anandtech there is also Tomshardware and a number of other enthusiast/hardware review sites that have tested chips from both companies and concluded that under most circumstances, AMD's perform better? Are you also aware that the test configurations and methodology used are made completely public, so that flaws/bias can be pointed out and corrected? I'm trying real hard to not just completely write-off your accusations as baseless, but when you make claims like that, you need to support them with proof.
I think the other problem here is- AMD has sucked almost all of you to buy their product and attract you because of winxp64. Now that you are stocked with your outdated product and spent tons of money on DDR400 and all the gauges and find AMD is way off chart on dual, price wise, and Intel is what you should invest on but cant, you are upset and all you can do is promote your immature advice to a new buyer. EVERYONE knows that Intel is a better product when it comes down to quality. Specially when new RAM DDR2 SLI, and HT, Dual CPU, Motherboards, etc are now the latest technology. How many of you have 15 years old Intel CPU and motherboards and still works and how many had to replace their motherboards and burned out AMD CPU?s?
To quickly address a number of things:
1. AMD did not "suck me in" to buying one of their chips. I made a thoroughly researched and well-informed purchase when I decided to buy my Athlon64 3000+. I really didn't (and still don't) care about XP64, although I do care that my system perform well at the applications I use it for (which it does), and also about the fact that 64-bit support will increase the longevity of my system by letting me make the switch to 64-bit computing when it starts to become commonplace.
2. Yes, AMD dual-core chips are much more expensive than Intel's, but they also use a much more mature design. AMD pushed up its release of the chips by several months because Intel came pretty much out of nowhere and launched its Pentium D, and AMD had to do something to compete. All you have to do is look at the designs...everything about the Intel dual-core architecture says "rush-job", while the AMD architecture appropriately says "next-gen". One example is to look at the clock speeds. To make their dual-core work, Intel had to pull a full 600 MHz off of the clock speed offered by its top single-core P4 chip (for the top of the line dual-core...the entry-level one is a full GHz slower)...AMD's top of the line dual-core, however, runs at 2.4 GHz, the same as their top of the line Athlon64 (the 4000+), and only 200 MHz slower than the fastest FX chip (later replaced with the FX-57) that was available at the time of the dual-core launch. Clearly AMD made far fewer compromises in getting their dual-core setup working. Furthermore, if you look at the actual architectures, you see that the Intel offering is literally just two single cores squeezed together to fit on one chip. The cores lack any specialized way to communicate with each other other than over the FSB that is used for communication with the rest of the system as well (and can thus become saturated and in any event adds to the latency of intercore communcation). The AMD offering, on the other hand, includes a specialized bus designed solely to allow the two cores to communicate directly with one another without having to tie up the bus that's used to talk to the rest of the system. The AMD chip was actually *designed* with dual-core in mind, while the Intel chip really seems like a quick kludge designed to try to steal AMD's thunder (which AMD had a lot of pre-dual-core...they were the first to implement 64-bit compatibility, the NX bit, and advanced power management, and embarassed Intel by beating them in the clock-speed war)by beating them to the dual-core launch. AMD has a more advanced, more mature product, and is also a smaller company than Intel, so it cannot afford to get into a price-war with Intel on its dual-core parts, so of course its parts are priced higher (oh and lets not also forget that in most situations, they offer better performance and less power use as well).
3. DDR1 RAM still performs about the same (if not better, especially when overclocked) than DDR2 RAM.
4. SLI is just silly, regardless of whether you have an Intel or AMD chip.
5. HyperThreading is mostly obsolete...it was repacled by true dual-core CPU's.
6. I've never had a burned-out AMD CPU or mainboard, or a burned-out Intel CPU or mainboard for that matter. The only parts I've had die on me were a PSU, a HDD, a CRT monitor, and a CD burner. CPU's, mainboards, and RAM appear to be fairly durable, regardless of who makes them.
7. That was not nearly as quick as I thought it would be...
Yahh overclocking is good but why do you have to overclock in first place if you already have a quality and fast CPU?
Simple, I can buy a $150 part, and get the same performance out of it if I had bought a $500 part. It's not that the $150 part isn't a good part as it is, it's that I want to get as much bang for my buck as possible (and can't afford to be paying the price premium of getting top-of-the-line parts).
AMD is fooling everyone by unlocking their CPU?s for overclocking. But why? Because they have to compete w/ Intel?s 3.8 GHZ stock CPU.
No, because it's what many system builders and enthusiasts want, and AMD listens to their customers (and their multipliers are only unlocked in the downwards direction...this is *useless* for trying to increase the core speed by changing the multiplier). Intel's 3.8 GHz doesn really mean anything...study PC architecture for a bit. The AMD chip simply does more in a single clock cycle than the P4 does, so it doesn't need to be clocked as high in order to perform better. If you don't trust this because it's am AMD chip, then I also invite you to look at the Pentium M (or hell, a superscalar graphics chip from a modern graphics card that gets clocked at a mere 500 MHz or less but which can churn out more polygons per second than any desktop CPU), which is also clocked much lower than the Pentium 4, but which can also get equivalent/better performance despite its lower clock frequency.
By the time you put an AMD super clocked super priced AMD dual, you know you could have done this w/ Intel for ½ as much and faster CPU; and keep it for years not worrying everyday for burning up your machine because you had to overclock it to say to others ? my AMD runs @ 2.6" so you don?t look as bad when you are talking to your friend who made a wise decision and bought Intel 3.6 GHZ
Actually, there was an article on Tomshardware not too long ago...seems they tested a dual-core Intel chip and a dual-core AMD chip at stock settings under heavy load, and it was the Intel chip that had severe stability problems...but you don't have to take my word for it:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050603/index.html
Intel?s name is built on quality. AMD?s reputation is based on cheap product and inferior quality. That is why in first place you invested in AMD.
Actually, AMD's quality has been consistently increasing these past few years, and Intel has been making some pretty big mistakes. Did you know that they originally thought that they could bump the clock speed on the P4 all the way up to 5+ GHz (I've seen some reports saying they even thought the P4 would hit 10 GHz)? Maybe you remember the rather embarassing incident where Intel delayed the availability of its 3.8 GHz chips and completely cancelled the 4 GHz (and all higher) versions. Personally I find it apalling that a company as large as Intel, which employs a virtual army of engineers, would make such a huge snap-up. It has been AMD which has led the way in innovation the past few years as well, introducing things like 64-bit support, hardware support for the NX bit, Cool'n'Quiet/power management features, and an integrated memory controller, all of which (except for the integrated memory controller) are innovations which Intel has copied. What has Intel intorduced in the past few years (not counting things copied from AMD)? SSE, SSE2, and SSE3, proprietary multimedia extensions that improve the processor's performance in only a small range of applications, and were probably mostly intended as a way to keep AMD processors from becoming more widespread (i.e. "this application is optimized using SSE3, so if you want to run it you have to go with an Intel processor"), instead of focusing on trying to improve things from the consumer's point of view (which of course is perfectly fine business practice and just part of capitalism, but the other part of capitalism is that I get to choose which company I want to support, and I'm not about to choose one with as many obvious problems as Intel). Add to this the already mentioned poor design of Intel dual-core chips compared to AMD chips, and the fact that AMD holds the performance crown in nearly all application domains, and the fact that AMD chips offer excellent price/performance, and you'll have my reasons for investing AMD. Now, just to be clear, I don't play favorites (in fact, I used to be an Intel supporter, until all my friends built AMD systems which kicked the crap out of my first-generation P4 for less money), and I would invest in whichever company had the better product, but right now AMD has the better product for what I use my computer for, not Intel, and until that changes, I'm sticking with AMD.
Anyways, the point is there are a number of very good reasons to go with AMD, and none of them have anything to do with corporate brainwashing or trying to get an inferior CPU on the cheap...so, what were your reasons for loving Intel so much again?
Facebook
Twitter