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

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: superstition

AMD is a good buy for ultra cheap dual, tri and quad cores that perform decently at stock settings.

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.

"High gaming performance" onboard video?

He is talking about stock setting, which is what mass majority of pc users use. and he is talking about high gaming performance "compared to Intel", not some dual/tri SLI setup.

 

[zach0624]

I buy the best performing product in my price range. I factor in the cost of overclocking and possible benefits also.

I love AMD they have been in my rig from a xp 1800+ to a x2 5600+ but now with the core 2 architecture I can get more for my money in my price range.

 

[Viditor]

There was a time (several years ago) when brand actually was important. In those days, Intel platforms and chips were always the more stable and reliable choice and everything else was a poor compromise.
Those were the days when "you never got fired for buying Intel"...

That is no longer the case. Today, good choices are product specific and not brand specific.
You have your finger on that point when you said ""what are you using the "certain" product for?", it's the only real question for deciding which brand to get...

 

[Gum]

I have been on AMD since day 1 I know how to DIY a PC. 🙂

K5, K6, K6-2, K6-III, Slot-A Athlon, Socket-A Athlon aka TBird, Athlon MP, Athlon XP, X2.

For me I tend not to choose the latest and most highend product at the point-in-time when I've decided to upgrade my cpu & mobo. It boils down to (tight) budget and my unwillingness to shell out more $$ for that little extra performance.

I always go for the best value cpu + mobo combo based on what my budget allowed, and I end up getting an AMD combo at the end of the day...

It's that simple for me. 😀

 

[Davegod]

Originally posted by: Viditor
There was a time (several years ago) when brand actually was important. In those days, Intel platforms and chips were always the more stable and reliable choice and everything else was a poor compromise.
Those were the days when "you never got fired for buying Intel"...

That is no longer the case. Today, good choices are product specific and not brand specific.
You have your finger on that point when you said ""what are you using the "certain" product for?", it's the only real question for deciding which brand to get...

I'd say that was more than just several years ago. Time flies, Athlon 64's 2003 is 5 years ago now! First Athlon is almost a decade ago and about that time Intel was having quality issues.

I'd agree there was a corporate and mass-market perception along the theme of "you never got fired for buying Intel" but it was based on ignorance* and not fact. In my personal experience (YMMV) I'd say this took a couple of years of the Ath64 and Opteron thrashing Intel before corporate and mass market considered them on par.

IMHO AMD's chips are less competitive now than back then. They're still fine chips, but Intel really delivered and then some with Core 2 Duo. AMD used to have highly competitive products and an image problem, now the image is much better but they can only compete on the lower-mid to low end.

P.s. people tend seem to assume they're being argued with when quoted but I'm agreeing more than not 😉

* Sounds a bit harsh so I'll note my view that ignorance can be underrated, very often it's a good rule of thumb. AMD's apparent phobia of proper marketing didn't exactly help either.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Davegod

Originally posted by: Viditor
There was a time (several years ago) when brand actually was important. In those days, Intel platforms and chips were always the more stable and reliable choice and everything else was a poor compromise.
Those were the days when "you never got fired for buying Intel"...

That is no longer the case. Today, good choices are product specific and not brand specific.
You have your finger on that point when you said ""what are you using the "certain" product for?", it's the only real question for deciding which brand to get...

I'd say that was more than just several years ago. Time flies, Athlon 64's 2003 is 5 years ago now! First Athlon is almost a decade ago and about that time Intel was having quality issues.

I'd agree there was a corporate and mass-market perception along the theme of "you never got fired for buying Intel" but it was based on ignorance* and not fact. In my personal experience (YMMV) I'd say this took a couple of years of the Ath64 and Opteron thrashing Intel before corporate and mass market considered them on par.

IMHO AMD's chips are less competitive now than back then. They're still fine chips, but Intel really delivered and then some with Core 2 Duo. AMD used to have highly competitive products and an image problem, now the image is much better but they can only compete on the lower-mid to low end.

P.s. people tend seem to assume they're being argued with when quoted but I'm agreeing more than not 😉

* Sounds a bit harsh so I'll note my view that ignorance can be underrated, very often it's a good rule of thumb. AMD's apparent phobia of proper marketing didn't exactly help either.

I remember well the first Athlons...I bought AMD shares for the first time then (10k shares in July 1999), and they were released one month later.

But I strongly disagree about AMD competitiveness then and now...

Then,
1. AMD had no platform
2. had at the most .000005% of the server market (there were a handful of arcane K6 servers)
3. had minimal support from anyone (especially mobo makers)
4. had no major advantage in chips except pricing
5. had only a single Fab

Today,
1. AMD has arguably some of the BEST platforms
2. Has a very large cut of the server market
3. Has no competition from Intel at all in the Enterprise x86 market (though Nehalem is supposed to make Intel competitive in this next year)
4. Is back to price as the only advantage in desktop chips
5. has multiple Fabs plus working overflow companies

What I find fascinating is the flip flop with chips and chipsets...
Prior to now, Intel always had the best chipsets. Even though their IGP graphics have always sucked, they always had rock solid chipsets and motherboards while AMD and their partners were shaky at best (though there were some major winners there as well).
At the same time, AMD was beating Intel's brains in on CPUs...

Today,
AMD has the obviously superior platforms (G45 still has problems), but Intel is beating AMD's brains in on CPUs...

At the end of the day though, a buyer should pick the product that is best suited to their needs, and not the brand...there is no more clear cut brand advantage across the boards.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Gum

I always go for the best value cpu + mobo combo based on what my budget allowed, and I end up getting an AMD combo at the end of the day...

It's that simple for me. 😀

Sorry cant ever see AMD as the better machine unless as someone above me stated, your looking for a IGP system like a small HTPC box.

 

[brencat]

No brand loyalty. I'm 75% gaming so for me it's best performance for a given budget (which varies but is typically not too big) factoring in overclocking headroom. Since I like to tweak, however, no OCing or minimal OCability = no interest. In that context, Intel was the easy choice for my build last year.

 

[mancunian]

I've had AMD and only AMD ever since my 650Mhz Duron, which was a great machine. Had a Pentium II 400 prior to that.

However, performance is what matters to me.

So when the bonus from work rolls in next month, I'll be buying a Gigabyte P35 board and an E2180 chip.

Much as I like the little guy, and he gave the big guy a real run for his money for a long time, he isn't offering anything like as good value for money as he once did.

Not a fanboy, will buy whatever's best at the time. Right now, that is Intel.

 

[hooflung]

Intel has system I/O bottleneck. That is why AMD computers can seem faster. AMD's do not have a northbridge like the Intels. This means the CPU connects to what is commonly referred to as a Southbridge. The only different really between an AMD Southbridge and the Intel Southbridge is that a) AMDs connects to the CPU directly using a very fast link b) AMDs also has the AGP/PCIe interface integrated.

Since all the system I/O ( USB/Audio/Hard Drive/Firewire/etc ) has more bandwidth on the AMD systems and thus there is less latency. So depending on your hardware configuration and the implementation of sub system components ( SATA over PCI instead of over PCIe, audio over PCI instead of PCIe ) you could end up with a high clocked C2D that could be plagued by overall system performance issues. This is why Intel is going to an integrated memory controller next.

 

[superstition]

you could end up with a high clocked C2D that could be plagued by overall system performance issues.

Is that why Intel leads in most, if not nearly all, benchmarks? Ideal design is one thing, but real world performance is another. Some have said one of the reasons why AMD has had so much trouble getting clock rate up is because of the IMC. Will we be seeing 100% overclocks from Intel's IMC?

 

[aigomorla]

actually whichever gives me the free tshirt i'll buy! 😀

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: superstition

you could end up with a high clocked C2D that could be plagued by overall system performance issues.

Is that why Intel leads in most, if not nearly all, benchmarks? Ideal design is one thing, but real world performance is another. Some have said one of the reasons why AMD has had so much trouble getting clock rate up is because of the IMC. Will we be seeing 100% overclocks from Intel's IMC?

Do you believe SLI has the same user experience as a single graphics card when both put out the same amount of FPS? There are times when my Opteron 180 feels faster than my C2D 2.96ghz especially when I am stressing my hard drives and sound. Also, being able to speed through a benchmark doesn't exactly express how the system will feel or react to real life usage.

 

[jaqie]

Originally posted by: Drsignguy
what is the deciding factor for you to purchase a specific product?

There are several criteria I use for deciding which parts to use, not just the CPU but every working part in the system, and here they are in no particular order:
*Price/performance ratio (this includes POWER USED!)
*compatibility with the OS I wish to use (32 bit? 64 bit? drivers for the part?)
*Reliability of the hardware and driver (great hardware with crap drivers is just as bad as crap hardware)
*Longeivity of the brand in general (do they tend to fail in a year? two years? how about if I need to RMA it, will the company be around for an RMA the whole time the warranty is valid?)
*Warranty length

When I last did a major system upgrade (Ive since done a HDD and video card upgrade, but not a system overhaul upgrade) the Athlon 64 x2 had just come out, and I am seriously smitten with SMP systems, and can't stand uniproccesor ones, so this was my chance. At the time, they were the best CPU by far meeting my wants and the factors above. Right now a C2D or C2Q would be, and amd would not even be considered by me. I also have another A64 system here (single core, my PVR) and a dual CPU P3 933 system.

 

[deepinya]

I buy the best gaming platform available. I used to use AMD for years cause they raped Intel but now the tables are turned and Im building my first Intel rig. It also doesnt hurt that it uses less power and produces less heat in my already warm room.

 

[Pederv]

I'll get what I want.
Screw what everybody else thinks.

 

[aigomorla]

@ jaqie

i have a SMP system. Its a really weak one tho, but its a sassoman. 😀

Ahaha i think all my Quads would stomp it to next week.

 

[Gum]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Gum

I always go for the best value cpu + mobo combo based on what my budget allowed, and I end up getting an AMD combo at the end of the day...

It's that simple for me. 😀

Sorry cant ever see AMD as the better machine unless as someone above me stated, your looking for a IGP system like a small HTPC box.

hmm... i didnt mention AMD as the better machine... and i wld totally agree with anyone who says that Intel CPUs are faster at any CPU era...

well...I'm not so well to do, thus budget and value-for-$ is on top of my priority when i decide to upgrade CPU + mobo.

I last upgraded in Dec 07 and I chose a Athlon X2 4400 + MSI nvidia 570 chipset mobo becos that was the 'sweetspot' and what I was willing to pay for at that point-in-time.

Hardly performance stuff when X2 6400 and the 'E' and 'Q' series Intel are available but for a higher price premium when I also take into consideration that Intel mobos are generally more expensive... All i use my PC is for surfing, typing reports, movies, and occassional gaming so paying more for more performance is no go for me...

During AMD's initial penetration into the market, their platform was comparatively weaker and lacks supports. Finding a driver that actually works in Windows was tough and when there are drivers, they had to be installed in a particular sequence or i'll end up screwing Windows!! And I actually enjoyed every bit of challenge and frustrations this brought upon me cos I get to learn trouble-shooting the hard way. 🙂

Lastly, I'm the sort who usually supports 'the alternative competitor' so that the market leader does not get away with dominating the entire market and charging a price premium for their products - even when the product is crap cos there is simply no other choice available... Competition keeps product development keen and makes prices go down.

Cheerz!!

 

[hooflung]

No way has Intel had the faster chip at every CPU era. AMD's 486DX/4 133 was faster than the Intel model. The Athlon XPs were faster than the original P4s and the AMD64 FXs smoked the P4s of their day too.

And what is this about platform being weaker? I've owned an AMD of every generation since the 286. There wasn't even windows on that machine... it was a tandy using deskmate. My AMD 386DX40 didn't have driver issues with 3.11. My AMD DX/4 120 didn't have problems in windows 3.11 or Windows 95 OR OS/2 for that matter. My K6/2 450 didn't have problems with Windows 98 and my Thunderbird Athlon didn't seem to mind Linux or Windows 2000.

There was a time on windows you had to install drivers in windows a certain order to make a stable system on Windows 98 but it wasn't just AMD. It was a problem with the chipsets and USB support. SE fixed that. Stop trying to spread Fud dude. Intel and AMD have had colorful histories supporting the Microsoft Operating systems there is no reason to blatantly lie to make Intel seem the clear choice.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: hooflung
My K6/2 450 didn't have problems with Windows 98 and my Thunderbird Athlon didn't seem to mind Linux or Windows 2000.

Actually, the Super Socket 7 platform wasn't all that stable. I know, I had a K6-III 450 myself, and while I never personally had any problems with it, alot of people did. Of course, that was because of the chipset manufacturers, not AMD (from what I could tell). At the time, Via made the best chipset, as oxymoronic as that sounds, and it was not as stable as the Intel chipsets. Of course, there haven't been problems like that since the debut of the original Athlon, which was 9 years ago, IIRC.

 

[Gum]

Originally posted by: hooflung
No way has Intel had the faster chip at every CPU era. AMD's 486DX/4 133 was faster than the Intel model. The Athlon XPs were faster than the original P4s and the AMD64 FXs smoked the P4s of their day too.

And what is this about platform being weaker? I've owned an AMD of every generation since the 286. There wasn't even windows on that machine... it was a tandy using deskmate. My AMD 386DX40 didn't have driver issues with 3.11. My AMD DX/4 120 didn't have problems in windows 3.11 or Windows 95 OR OS/2 for that matter. My K6/2 450 didn't have problems with Windows 98 and my Thunderbird Athlon didn't seem to mind Linux or Windows 2000.

There was a time on windows you had to install drivers in windows a certain order to make a stable system on Windows 98 but it wasn't just AMD. It was a problem with the chipsets and USB support. SE fixed that. Stop trying to spread Fud dude. Intel and AMD have had colorful histories supporting the Microsoft Operating systems there is no reason to blatantly lie to make Intel seem the clear choice.

I presume you were replying to my post?

Hmm... is there a need for an AMD supporter to attack another AMD supporter with words like "Stop trying to spread Fud dude" ???

cool dude...

It appears that your AMD journey has been lots smoother than mine so I'll reserve the comments I made to myself then.

 

[Valis]

My dad's old friend used to be a sales manager at AMD. :laugh: I wonder if I should ask for another free chip. 😀

But I don't like that AMD and ATI merged. That sucked. 🙁