• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What would be the deciding factor for you to acquire and Intel or Amd.

Drsignguy

Drsignguy

Platinum Member
I have been an Intel guy all my life and I have never had the interest of purchasing any Amd because believe it or not, Intel is all I know. ( no offence to AMD ). But with that being said, I do have friends that are sold on AMD? So, here is the realistic question, " what is the deciding factor for you to purchase a specific product" AMD or INTEL? Price? Quality? Product? Word of mouth? Faith? What? I prefer that the 2 have realistic strategies to compete with each other as "I" the consumer love the price to be completive but, being one whom has never owned an AMD product, can it be worthwhile? Is it worthwhile for an AMD believer to purchase Intel? I know one question would be, "what are you using the "certain" product for? With that also being said, realistically, Is one really better than the other, and what is the defining or deciding factor? Or is there?
 
I buy whatever I can afford at the moment and will work with parts I already have. Like right now, I have an LGA775 motherboard, so I am going to be going Intel. If I had an AM2 board, I would go AMD.

Both processors will play any game out there as long as you don't get the worst processor available. The Intels will just play them smoother.


Go for what you can afford, since what you cant afford wont be an option.
 
Price. I was looking at a q6600 to upgrade my X2 system, but instead found a Ph9500 on CL for a price I couldn't pass up.
 
Smoother? from what ive read from tony's thread in XS is that many reviewing the phenom has experienced that although with a lower avg FPS it results in a more smoother gameplay than intel's quad core offerings that maintain higher avg FPS but have "hiccups". I dont know if this is true or not, but could be further investigated.

As for the OP, buying because of brand name in the hardware industry can be one of the most unintellectual thing to do. Depending on the money, most of here buy what is best at that price segment. What i mean by "best" is its performance (i.e benchmarks) compared to its competitor (power isnt much of a issue unless its horrendous). Right now core2 duo/quad offerings are just superior overall i.e you can see how alot of people here have intel setups. Back when Athlon64 and X2s were around, they were simply superior overall to most pentium 4/D offerings intel had i.e there was alot of who had AMD setups.
 
I see all points but say, Im a Ford guy ( really chevy ), want a Dodge, what will get me me to purchase a chrysler product? What is the defining point? Here is why? I have owned Intel, never AMD, Would love to try, Friends say you will never regret but, I don't regret Intel as the company as they have never failed me.
 
I'll tell you my story. Not even a week ago I decided to get a quad core cpu. I looked at the 9850 and seen they don't have as much headroom to overclock as the Intel quads do and if I did go with an AMD that would mean I'd have to get a higher end MB with 8 phase power management for better stability which means a 200+ mb (200+ at the moment) Anyways, then I started looking and comparing the differences of power consumption to see which is going to cost me more in the long run. The entire time I was in Florida for the month of Sept. 04 the electric bill ended up costing 40$ less than the average, so that seeded the thought of lower power consuming PC products. I started comparing the Intel quads against each other and found out the Q9300 does pretty good against the Q6600 = http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...ad-q9300_13.html#sect0 Then, when I found the Q9300 open box (no HS & fan) for 250$ ; the Asus P5KC open box for 69$ (native DDR2 & DDR3) I quickly got some suggestions, got the best memory to my knowledge and clicked the "Submit Order" button. My direction is gaming and UT3 plays better on quad cores over dual cores. Currently I have an FX60 that I now use for my main pc, so you see buying by brand name didn't have any bearing on my decision making. I do believe good completion between cpu chip makers is better for the market and almost based my decision off that and right now, that would of been buying and AMD platform, but I did just buy an AMD/ATI MSI 3870 at a decent price so.

anyways, hows that?

529th
 
Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
I'll tell you my story. Not even a week ago I decided to get a quad core cpu. I looked at the 9850 and seen they don't have as much headroom to overclock as the Intel quads do and if I did go with an AMD that would mean I'd have to get a higher end MB with 8 phase power management for better stability which means a 200+ mb (200+ at the moment) Anyways, then I started looking and comparing the differences of power consumption to see which is going to cost me more in the long run. The entire time I was in Florida for the month of Sept. 04 the electric bill ended up costing 40$ less than the average, so that seeded the thought of lower power consuming PC products. I started comparing the Intel quads against each other and found out the Q9300 does pretty good against the Q6600 = http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...ad-q9300_13.html#sect0 Then, when I found the Q9300 open box (no HS & fan) for 250$ ; the Asus P5KC open box for 69$ (native DDR2 & DDR3) I quickly got some suggestions, got the best memory to my knowledge and clicked the "Submit Order" button. My direction is gaming and UT3 plays better on quad cores over dual cores. Currently I have an FX60 that I now use for my main pc, so you see buying by brand name didn't have any bearing on my decision making. I do believe good completion between cpu chip makers is better for the market and almost based my decision off that and right now, that would of been buying and AMD platform, but I did just buy an AMD/ATI MSI 3870 at a decent price so.

anyways, hows that?

529th
Click to expand...


This is exactally what I'm questioning, A defining moment!


I have to say, "fords" did me right. But Chevys did and have done something that made me a true believer in their product. Ok, with that being said, Intel has never proven me wrong but, Amd hasn't "sold me". If or are you an AMD guru, What would you say to me to sell me your product? Here's why? I would love to have "the best of both worlds" gaming and buisness. If I were to have the "best of", IYOO, What is the best overall, To Date? So far, Intel............?
 
Originally posted by: Drsignguy
What is the best overall, To Date? So far, Intel............?
Click to expand...

Obviously not. From the date that the first Athlon 64 was released, until the day that the C2D was released, Intel had nothing to compare to the A64's, especially at first. Now some of their $1,000 chips came fairly close, but the problem for Intel was that the lesser chips, that had no L3 cache, didn't. The original Athlons also seriously outperformed the PIII, but that didn't last all that long. BTW, the AMD 486's also had a clock-for-clock advantage, if you want to go back that far. Now, obviously for the past 18 months, your statement would be completely correct.
 
I am going to guess, good. C,mon AMD! I love chit chatting with my buddys and hoping they and myself, will always have something to brag about!
 
Buy an AMD if you have a psychological need to support the underdog, want to help retain competition, etc. Buy an Intel if you want the best basic value (without taking into account political/economic strategy). Intel has gone past AMD with the core architecture and now the 45 nm shrink. Intel chips overclock better, do more work per watt, etc. There has been a lot of AMD propagandizing lately, much of it predicated on selective information.

I used to be an AMD fan, but there comes a time where asking more for a part that has worse performance irks a buyer.
 
Originally posted by: Drsignguy
I see all points but say, Im a Ford guy ( really chevy ), want a Dodge, what will get me me to purchase a chrysler product? What is the defining point? Here is why? I have owned Intel, never AMD, Would love to try, Friends say you will never regret but, I don't regret Intel as the company as they have never failed me.
Click to expand...

if you want a chrysler just ask me for help 😉
 
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
Originally posted by: Drsignguy
I see all points but say, Im a Ford guy ( really chevy ), want a Dodge, what will get me me to purchase a chrysler product? What is the defining point? Here is why? I have owned Intel, never AMD, Would love to try, Friends say you will never regret but, I don't regret Intel as the company as they have never failed me.
Click to expand...

if you want a chrysler just ask me for help 😉
Click to expand...

Actually got a question, you got PM.
 
For me there's no *one* factor. Everything has tradeoffs and I realize that -- I look at overall value before making a purchasing decision. Power use, overclockability, performance/watt, performance/watt/dollar, total platform cost and features, platform stability. They all factor into the equation.

Since February I had to buy a dual core, a quad and new mainstream video (8800GT 512). At the time the difference between value offered by AMD and competitors was so large I couldn't justify going with the underdog. In some ways it's a bit worse now (permanent under $200 Q6600 hot deals, low end x2s being replaced by Semprons, 9600GT and 8800GTS a good $20-30 less than AMD's offering AR).

If I had to do it over again I'd take a good hard look at the 780G & 790FX and still wind up with Intel x 2 on a P35 chipset and an NV video card.
 
Originally posted by: Drsignguy
I see all points but say, Im a Ford guy ( really chevy ), want a Dodge, what will get me me to purchase a chrysler product? What is the defining point? Here is why? I have owned Intel, never AMD, Would love to try, Friends say you will never regret but, I don't regret Intel as the company as they have never failed me.
Click to expand...

I just realised after reading some more of your posts in this thread... Not everyone needs a "defining moment" in order to upgrade from Intel to AMD or vice versa. For some (most?) it's just a matter of which product offers the best value at the pricepoint they are willing to spend their money on, based on that person's criteria which could include performance, price, power consumption etc. There really is nothing more to it than that.

A few people also have an emotional barrier that needs to be crossed, based on brand loyalty. They are usually called fanboys....
 
I got an XP because it was more affordable than a P4, then I upgraded to an AMD64 3200+ because Intel were still lagging behind, and then I got an X2 because it was a simple upgrade.

When I next upgrade I'll probably get Intel because I will overclock, and Intel offer a better price/performance than AMD after overclocking. Fairly simple decision really. Intel will give me better performance for my money, so I will buy Intel.
 
This is the conclusion

power consumption - Intel
Overclock - Intel
Integrated graphics - AMD/nVIDIA
performance crown - Intel

IGP is the only thing AMD beats Intel, all the rest, such a power consumption, overclockability, intel wins. For a home deskop user, power consumption is not much of an issue, it is just for marketing purposes, only laptops offer significant power saving. If power consumption is an issue, buy a laptop. Buy whatever suits you the most and what amount of money you are willing to pay. If you want the current fatest platform and money is not a problem, of course Intel proc + nVIDIA graphics. Sometimes USD 20 difference between 2 processors is negligible for certain countries, and you definitely choose the other proc that is USD 20 more expensive, but the value is different in different region, USD 20 might mean a lot of money for certain ppl. Do some research on the performance and features each platform offers, buy the one that suits you most.
 
whatever results in a system with the best performance for my budget.

On previous builds often Intel boards have been expensive and/or used more expensive memory, which obviously did nothing to offset me being able to get both cheaper and faster chips from AMD (again, meaning on previous builds, not at present). But these days motherboards are broadly comparable (possibly even in Intel's favour) and both use same memory at my budget.

I've never been able to figure why so many CPU reviews liked to compare whatever chip with it's supposed competitor when said supposed competitor was often 1/3 cheaper. They're getting better at using price as the baseline though.
 
AMD is no longer the 2nd class brand it once was during the 90's. I believe it all comes down to comparing the products both companies are selling head to head on performance and price/performance. Also taking into consideration any special needs you might have like a need for a fanless pc, or good onboard video etc...

Right now Intel is pretty much universally accepted as the performance winner, and also takes the cake for price/performance when overclocking. AMD is a good buy for ultra cheap dual, tri and quad cores that perform decently at stock settings. They also have one of the best onboard video solutions allowing high gaming performance compared to Intel. It all comes down to what is best during a specific generation of hardware, AMD ruled most recently from 2003-2006 and Intel has had the crown since then.
 
AMD is a good buy for ultra cheap dual, tri and quad cores that perform decently at stock settings.
Click to expand...
The consensus, as far as I've seen, is that the tri-core parts are not a good value at all, when one can get a Q6600 for $180-200. As far as the "ultra cheap", I don't see how anything AMD is offering beats an OEM e2140/60 running at 3 GHz on a DS3L.

They also have one of the best onboard video solutions allowing high gaming performance compared to Intel.
Click to expand...
"High gaming performance" onboard video?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top