Why does everyone always choose AMD ??

[Davegod]

Originally posted by: caz67

In gaming AMD offer a few FPS better performance. In the real world, this is "equal performance", as most people couldnt tell the difference.!!

But, it's a few FPS more for a system that costs significantly less. A quick glance at a cheap etailer in UK shows a 2600XP AMD is 2/3 the price of a 2.6ghz P4. Nevermind the fact that people seem to be having great success overclocking a 2500+ bartons (less than half the price of 2.6gh P4) up to a 3200+.

Further, bear in mind Intel boards also usually cost significantly more than the AMD options, your choice of CPU also limits your choice of motherboard. I'd suggest most people consider their "cpu choice" really be cpu + motherboard choice.

But, similar performance for less cost is only one way of thinking about it. More performance for the same cost is the other . comparing a 2600+ AMD with a 2.6ghz Intel (for example) often is only relevant when you're looking for a certain performance for the least money. Often it works the other way around - for a set amount of money, what is the best performance? Looking again at my cheap e-tailer, the relevant comparison is a 3000+ with a 2.6ghz P4; actually a 3200+ when taking account of a quality motherboard.

 

[n0cmonkey]

I can't buy Intel for philosophical reasons. Their lack of support for open source and free software is ridiculous. Development versions of ia32e are broken. Why bother with them when I can support a company that does give a damn.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: caz67
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi

In gaming AMD offer a few FPS better performance. In the real world, this is "equal performance", as most people couldnt tell the difference.!!

As games are GPU dependant, what does the few frames AMD offer even matter??? Like most people can tell a 5% -10% improvement, with out testing/benchmarking.

Most regular gamers wouldnt, even tell the difference.

If you benchmark, its a bragging rights thing!!!

thanks heaps for your comments guys.

This is true on both ends in certain apps Amd is better and others Intel is better, on comparable chips they are normally +/-5% so that leads us to the next deciding factor... money.

Sounds like your not getting the answer you want to hear so you keep probing.

 

[Budmantom]

dp

 

[daballard]

In addition to price/performance that everyone has said and the edge in gaming rigs:

I have come to learn a few things about Intel in my days studying at college. Some of their business practices are just shoddy. Know that your divider causes errors but still realeasing your chip? I believe this was on the pentium II in the mid 90's. I also look at what AMD can do with a much reduced clock speed. Don't you think it's noteworthy that a processor running around 2 GHz can be on par, if not better then an Intel running in the upper 2 GHz to 3Ghz range? Most of my processors hate intel for their poor engineering practices, including my current one who used to work for Intel as a chip designer. (Class is on transistor level chip designs.)

 

[randomboy]

All I know is that I got an XP1500+ for $30 brand new that ran 1.75ghz right out of the box. When was the last time you bought a 1.7g P4 for $30?

 

[charloscarlies]

I'm sorry I just don't see the price/performance anymore. The new A64's are pretty much the exact same price as their Intel counterparts. I know in the past AMD was in fact much cheaper...but that is no longer the case at all:

p4 3.4 - 418
p4 3.2 - 277
p4 3.0 - 189
a64 3400 - 401
a64 3200 - 265
a64 3000 - 205

Now like I said past XP chips were a better deal, but people can no longer argue that AMD is that much cheaper. Now don't get me wrong I love my A64...it's perfect for what I do which is gaming. I buy what is best for me. I have no biases towards either company.

I also think the argument that "oh look what amd can do with slower clock speeds...imagine if they had the same clock speeds as intel" is laughable at best. Yes it shows that AMD makes more efficient chips...but the bottom line is they DO NOT make chips that clock the same and probably won't for a long time. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the architecture of the amd chips prevent it from reaching as high of clock speeds?

Intel and AMD both make great chips. I've always used Intel up until now because they had a slight performance advantage. Now the bar is pretty much equal (slight advantage to AMD even), so I bought an AMD chip. You should buy what fits your needs. Brand loyalty is a stupid stupid thing in this case. Just my honest opinion.

 

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: charloscarlies
I'm sorry I just don't see the price/performance anymore. The new A64's are pretty much the exact same price as their Intel counterparts. I know in the past AMD was in fact much cheaper...but that is no longer the case at all:

p4 3.4 - 418
p4 3.2 - 277
p4 3.0 - 189
a64 3400 - 401
a64 3200 - 265
a64 3000 - 205

You're comparing apples to oranges here. The P4 is NOT a 64-bit chip like the AMD64 is. Compare the AMD64 to Intel's 64-bit processors and THEN talk dollar differences.
AMD has Barton processors around 3GHz... compare THAT to a P4, please.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: bluemax

Originally posted by: charloscarlies
I'm sorry I just don't see the price/performance anymore. The new A64's are pretty much the exact same price as their Intel counterparts. I know in the past AMD was in fact much cheaper...but that is no longer the case at all:

p4 3.4 - 418
p4 3.2 - 277
p4 3.0 - 189
a64 3400 - 401
a64 3200 - 265
a64 3000 - 205

You're comparing apples to oranges here. The P4 is NOT a 64-bit chip like the AMD64 is. Compare the AMD64 to Intel's 64-bit processors and THEN talk dollar differences.
AMD has Barton processors around 3GHz... compare THAT to a P4, please.

barton at 3.0Ghz???? lol yeah right

 

[0roo0roo]

i like supporting the only company keeping intel from r@ping us.

 

[Yourself]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i like supporting the only company keeping intel from r@ping us.

Lol....put the shoe on the other foot and take Intel out of the equation. The AMD rapefest would begin immediately....

 

[JediJeb]

Originally posted by: charloscarlies
I'm sorry I just don't see the price/performance anymore. The new A64's are pretty much the exact same price as their Intel counterparts. I know in the past AMD was in fact much cheaper...but that is no longer the case at all:

p4 3.4 - 418
p4 3.2 - 277
p4 3.0 - 189
a64 3400 - 401
a64 3200 - 265
a64 3000 - 205

Now like I said past XP chips were a better deal, but people can no longer argue that AMD is that much cheaper. Now don't get me wrong I love my A64...it's perfect for what I do which is gaming. I buy what is best for me. I have no biases towards either company.

I also think the argument that "oh look what amd can do with slower clock speeds...imagine if they had the same clock speeds as intel" is laughable at best. Yes it shows that AMD makes more efficient chips...but the bottom line is they DO NOT make chips that clock the same and probably won't for a long time. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the architecture of the amd chips prevent it from reaching as high of clock speeds?

Intel and AMD both make great chips. I've always used Intel up until now because they had a slight performance advantage. Now the bar is pretty much equal (slight advantage to AMD even), so I bought an AMD chip. You should buy what fits your needs. Brand loyalty is a stupid stupid thing in this case. Just my honest opinion.

I'm not being disrespectful, but would those prices be that close if the Intel chips were 64bit?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Yourself

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i like supporting the only company keeping intel from r@ping us.

Lol....put the shoe on the other foot and take Intel out of the equation. The AMD rapefest would begin immediately....

Agreed, but that's what companies do. Competition is a good thing.

 

[paladiin]

I personally refuse to pay over $100 for a CPU. Until Intel can offer CPU's that outperform AMD's CPU's under $100, I'll go with AMD. I've purchased a Duron 700 (oc'd to 1Ghz), Athlon XP 1500+ (non-oc'd, and now in my wife's rig), and now have a Barton 2500+ (oc'd to 2.34Ghz). In every case I paid under $100. I don't need the latest and greatest in technology - I just need enough power to do what I do. The current sub-$100 AMD chips offer that to me.

If the day comes where Intel offers better price/performance over AMD, I'll jump ship. I'm not loyal to any particular company, but I am loyal to my wallet!

I wonder who's going to have the first sub-$100 64bit CPU?

 

[Yourself]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Yourself

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i like supporting the only company keeping intel from r@ping us.

Lol....put the shoe on the other foot and take Intel out of the equation. The AMD rapefest would begin immediately....

Agreed, but that's what companies do. Competition is a good thing.

Yep...competition is good. I just find it interesting that people think one company is higher on the "moral" totem pole than the other when it's really just perception and not practice. They both want your money and will do what it takes to get it.

 

[Fern]

Cas67 wrote "I realise, that most of the users here are gamers, but i like to use my pc for more than that.

IMO, id rather spend, money on a product, that offers more rounded usage. Than just one outstanding feature."

Having been a long time user of Intel who switched over to AMD a year or so ago, I used to "buy into" the Intel marketing machine. As previously mentioned the performance/price is better for AMD.

But unlike the veiw you express above, I think it's Intel which only does one thing better and that's video/audio encoding. Although the benchies I've read don't give Intel the lead in all phases.

I'm now migrating my office machines to AMD because they work wonderfully and the price is so much better.

Finally, I am interested in OC'ing (as you may assume from the rig in my sig), that's just icing on the cake for AMD.

Cheers,

 

[Abhi]

I have never had an AMD machine... however ... next machine... will most certainly be one.

AMD's are getting recommended because computers have a relevant lifetime of 2 yrs ... max. The depreciation on value is phenomenal. So if good performance at a lower price is available... its the ultimate package....

Locally... here in india, AMD was known as a cheap, underperforming alternative till last year. Intel was good.... AMD was cheap and bad. Assemblers of computers actually told me a celeron is better than any AMD... as recent as starting of 2003. The normal perception was, AMDs dont survive in the hot indian weather and fry themselves.... Here... most computers are without case fans...

But slowly, the perception of people is changing. ... and the lying on the part of the vendors is lessening...

 

[Markfw]

Well, the first AMD chip I liked was the K6. I bought a 166 that would run at 200 easy, and would blow away the 200 Intel chip of the time at half the price. Then came the Athlon, and Intel went down as the underdog in price and performance for a year or so. Then they ramped up, and dropped prices (about P4 2.4c time) and I bout a couple. Then the Athlon64 came out. I still think they are more than a tad faster than the P4 in 32 bit mode, and I already have a taste of their 64 bit performance AND THEY NOW ALSO RUN COOLER and well as being priced at least the same if not cheaper ! (especially the $80 Barton that runs at 3200+ speeds most of the time on stock voltage)!

So right now the way I see it, they have price/performance locked up AND total performance (by a small margin in 32bit mode) AND cooler running chips !

Lastly, if there weren't good compitition, you would still be paying $1000 for a CPU right now.

 

[daballard]

Originally posted by: charloscarlies
I also think the argument that "oh look what amd can do with slower clock speeds...imagine if they had the same clock speeds as intel" is laughable at best. Yes it shows that AMD makes more efficient chips...but the bottom line is they DO NOT make chips that clock the same and probably won't for a long time. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the architecture of the amd chips prevent it from reaching as high of clock speeds?

I never made the connection to, "oh imagine if AMD's could go that fast." That's not possible. I just appreciate the engineering involved instead of the "Lets just make the clock faster!!!" Besides, things like power are quickly becoming more important then clock speeds. Personally, I'm going to stick with AMDs. When there is more 64-bit programs out there, I'll be picking one of those up.

 

[Atlantean]

Cause for the same or better speeds you get a processor for a lower price... though the lower price doesn't really matter to me, I am just loyal to amd.

 

[chocoruacal]

Originally posted by: caz67
Hi All.

This is not intended to start a flame war, but i just don't get the obsession with AMD.

I am new to this forum, and i respect all your excellent opinions.

Just explain to me, why everyone always picks AMD over Intel.

I'm sorry, but an intelligent person doesn't need to read anything past that sentence: not everyone chooses AMD. In fact, if you were to take 5 minutes to try and qualify that statement, you would see why you should be horribly embarrassed.

 

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: nick1985barton at 3.0Ghz???? lol yeah right

Isn't that what the 3200+ is? Or is it just a regular XP and Bartons are only 2500-2x00?

AMD
you can even buy one in Canadian buckazoids!

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Yourself

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i like supporting the only company keeping intel from r@ping us.

Lol....put the shoe on the other foot and take Intel out of the equation. The AMD rapefest would begin immediately....

won't happen. at this point intel is charging way more for its chips, not based on performance alone, but marketing. walk into an electronics store and you'll here joe shmoe or more likely jane schmoe? you hear "oh that ones got more ghz, its faster!"...intels got em worked real good. if amd for some reason leaps ahead and starts charging like intel, well, people like me will buy cheap intel chips instead.

 

[Megatomic]

Originally posted by: bluemax

Originally posted by: nick1985barton at 3.0Ghz???? lol yeah right

Isn't that what the 3200+ is? Or is it just a regular XP and Bartons are only 2500-2x00?

AMD
you can even buy one in Canadian buckazoids!

The 3200+ runs stock at 2.2GHz. That's the fastest stock chip (32 bit) AMD sells. Of course, they are overclockable. I've seen some Bartons over 2.4GHz without water or phase change.

 

[Texun]

It depends on the need. Not everyone does encoding or gaming, but either chip will still do a respectable job with either task. For me, I started with AMD because they had the best price\performance ratio over Intel. As far as quality... I've had probably a dozen AMD chips in my personal system and have never had the slightest hint of a problem of any sort.