What cpu will you use in your next upgrade or new system?

[Siddhartha]

Last year AMD was the cpu of choice for most of Anand's forum citizens who build or upgrade their systems. I am curious, for personal use which make of cpu do you plan on upgrading to or building a new system around this year.

 

[imgod2u]

I can't speak for the majority. To me, price/performance is not so much as important as guaranteed stability/compatibility. So for me, it's Intel.

 

[y2kc]

<< To me, price/performance is not so much as important as guaranteed stability/compatibility. So for me, it's Intel. >>



ditto

 

[corkyg]

So far it will be intel because of the 13 micron 2.2. GHz chip. The main idea is to reduce power consumption and heat while gaining performance . . . I call that efficiency.

 

[Turkey22]

There really isn't any stability problems with AMD's processors, so I really don't understand where stability comes into play. Currently they perform very close but the Athlon XP's are cheaper, not to mention nothing really uses or needs this technology yet. Though I think the higher clock speeds would be good if I were into video editing. Right now I have an 800 Athlon and it is just a little slow for me. The 1600+ XP is my next chip and maybe later this year or next (more likely) I'll get the clawhammer.

 

[Siddhartha]

I voted AMD. By the time I am ready to upgrade AMD will be at .13 microns.

If I had issues with AMD's stability I would not be using one now. I have wondered if the "AMD is unstable" line is reality or an urban legend that keeps being repeated. Perhaps it would be interesting to start a poll to get a number around forum's experiences with AMD stability.

 

[freegeekss]

the one that gives me the best bang for the buck -- i have no emotional bond with my CPU (looking at al those flamewars amd-intel, it seems to me that many AT members have some sort of intimate relation with the cpu they bought -- i don't understand that)

 

[glenn1]

Right now, my choice for my own system (and what i own currently) is the XP1700+, in the retail box from Newegg for $138.95 shipped.

For building a system for someone else, the absolute best value in CPU's today has to be the Morgan 1.0 ($58.95 shipped from Newegg).

There are plenty of stable platforms to use for AMD systems, despite what some naysayers might conclude. Statements like:



<< "To me, price/performance is not so much as important as guaranteed stability/compatibility. So for me, it's Intel." >>



must truly warm the hearts of the marketing people at Intel. Saying Intel makes more stable processors is as silly as saying that Exxon gas is better than Chevron, and you're willing to pay substantially more for it. I'd say the true source for system instability is perhaps 75% of the time user error/overly aggressive overclocking and performance boosting tactics, 24% of the time a software/OS issue, and maybe 1% of the time a CPU issue.

 

[Whitecloak]

Intel

 

[Finality]

Intel I would not even have considered it except for the new Northwoods that can easily OC. Barring AMD releasing something like this its Northwood for me.

 

[tornadobox]

i voted intel, the northwoods are sweet, and now that there's use of DDR for the intel chip (although not quite as much bandwidth as RDRAM, but no need for Parity!!) that's what i'm going for. i also think that the intel northwood chips are better for video editing (that's mainly what i do) so that's why i chose intel!

 

[Jittos]

i jsut bought a new CPU, XP 1900+. so prob wont upgrade for at least another year. so by that time, things will be different. I'll have to c how things r to decide which brand to buy. but with my budget, most likely I'll settle with AMD

 

[NewCompGeek]

i will most likely use AMD xp my new upgrade will be when i have enough money to buy all the things at once not like i did before and it screwed me bad

 

[GTaudiophile]

Just got finished upgrading with Intel. Installation was a snap and I have yet to have a single stability problem nor a lock-up. My new box has been running constantly for 50 hours now. (See "My Rigs" for specs.)

 

[madthumbs]

LOL@ Stability..... Some people will believe all that marketing crap!

My first Athlon build was unstable. Got black screens of death. More often I just heard fan speeds changing quite noticeably. I got a real PSU instead of the crappy one in a budget case. Never a problem with AMD since. I'd have to say that AMD has got incredibly stable chips if it could handle the power fluctuations that it did!

Price /performance AMD all the way!

The stability argument is moot.

 

[ToBeMe]

Another Northwood............ I like the XP's also, but already have a 1900+ and a 1800+ and the next "new release" is a ways down the road so my next system upgrade will be the old S478 P4 which will be upgraded to another Northwood. Going with the SiS board this time though and PC2700. Had great luck with the SiS Athlon boards so I gotta try the P4 version!

 

[Foundation]

most likely AMD for me

 

[CraigRT]

probably AMD.. depends on what is out, it's gonna be a few months, my T-Bird is fine for now.

 

[DSTA]

My 'roadmap' looks like this:

First a 1.1 GHz Intel 'Tualaron'.

Then a faster 0.13 micron AMD or Intel. Depends on pricing and what's actually available at the end of the year.

 

[Elledan]

I'll probably upgrade to an AMD Clawhammer CPU (from a Duron 600). I might use VIA CPU's for some other systems if the FPU of these CPU's improves.

I know, I don't upgrade that much I even have a Voodoo III 3000 videocard

 

[bobwill]

Well, here's my take on the whole AMD vs Intel. AMD has chips that are really fast on today's software, and really affordable; Intel has been spending all of their time reinventing the wheel, and making their processors faster for programs that haven't been written yet. You can see this these two philosophys perfectly in the article on hyperthreading and when you think about Intel's and AMD's 64 bit solutions.
I think that any stability problems with AMD are the result of the motherboard and psu, but Intel does make some nice stable chipsets. Of course even they've put out some lemons, remember the i820; but they atleast let you trade in your board and memory.

Here's my view on things, with intel you don't have to look into chipsets and powersupplys as much as you do with AMD, but you also pay a premium for their chips. With AMD you need to do a little bit more searching for your psu and motherboard combo but you can have a system just as stable as any intel desktop system for less money with similar performance for the time being. The interesting thing is going to be if and when we see some programs ship with P4's more advanced features in mind, at which point the Intel chips might just blow AMD out of the water.

Which one would I get; well, I ordered an Athlon XP this morning.

 

[Athlon4all]

I allways have to go cheapo and Intel is too expensive, so I'm going AMD.

 

[Viper GTS]

AMD, I'm trying to talk myself out of grabbing a couple 1800+'s for my Tiger MP.

My 1.2 TBirds are really fast enough, but dual 1800+'s would be even better...

And they're so cheap...



Viper GTS

 

[flexy]

i got my new system now only since 2 months (soyo D+, XP1800 clocked at XP2000, radeon 8500)


I must admit that a overclocked Northwood is VERY tempting (thinking about running almost 3ghz however i will never go with Intel and rather wait for a 0.13u CPU by AMD. The next CPU should have (at least) something like 2.5 REAL ghz...and a bigger L2 cache...if not then it's really not worth upgrading since i am quite satisfied with my current system.

AMD for sure, i think that's no question for me...

 

[Sid03]

<< To me, price/performance is not so much as important as guaranteed stability/compatibility. So for me, it's Intel. >>

yep, same here. and glenn1 you are right. amd cpu's are not unstable. but their via/sis platforms leave much to be desired. while the cpu's are up for debate, there's no doubt that intel makes the best chipsets on the planet... period.