AMD or Intel

[GolfProRM]

I was curious as to what brand of processor people prefer. I currently run an AMD Athlon XP 2000+ and love it. I get great performance out of this chip, and it cost me very little!Edit - Thanks bambi for coming up with a new home... I thought about putting it here, but wasn't sure.

[Guest LilBambi]

GolfProRM --Great question!My answer was null ... actually it was YES!And depending on your situation, the answer would be different.There are pros and cons to both camps.BTW: I moved it to the Q&A: Answers to Tough Questions because it really is a tough question! A a great questions, but a tough one too!

[L_P]

I had always used Intel chips up until I started building my own. I switched to AMD, and have been happy with the way they perform.The only problem I've had with AMD is the heat they put off. For my next build, I'm looking at a P4, because the tower I'll be using doesn't have the best ventilation options, and I'm thinking the Pentium should run cooler. I'd also like to check out hyperthreading.

[Big Jeff]

When I had my box built, it was my first "modern" rig. I took the advice of experts I trust and went with Intel and I have no complaints. If cost is an issue, I may consider AMD in the future. I do not like where Intel is going with the Palladium platform, so that may be an issue in the future as well.

[Guest Paracelsus]

Perhaps I shouldn't admit this, but...Even though I read from time to time, the relative pros & cons of the major Processors, I haven't bothered about it, myself. Things change so rapidly, anyway.The "Thoroughbred" computers I use are at work, on my instruments, and I accept the "build" of the instrument manufacturer. (I thinks these are all Intel)At home, I squeeze every penny's worth of value out of the PC I own before I bother with a new one. (I've only owned three, in the last fifteen years. With each new one, I usually assume that the (at the time)"quantum leap" in speed from the old, will take me on for a while.Settled for 1.1GHz Celeron in the PC I bought in Feb. '02, when I was told that, for what I would be using it for (I'm not a Gamer and don't a lot of graphics manipulation) I wouldn't notice the difference between it and a Pentium.Since this was replacing a 100MHz PentiumI (OC'ed to 133), it still seems pretty fast to me Now that I'm more comfortable playing with PC Hardware, I may take the leap to building my own.

[quint]

When I decided to build my PC, money dictated all my choices; went with AMD and I am very pleased with it, even though it's long ago obsolete. My only concern is if it will be as reliable as the old Pentium that was on my first PC, which is still chugging right along for the kids.

[zox]

The "Thoroughbred" computers I use are at work, on my instruments, and I accept the "build" of the instrument manufacturer. (I thinks these are all Intel)...

Thoroughbred sounds to me more like AMD, rather then Intel

i already have a new 7200rpm 75gb hd, new 256mb 133mhz, 50x cd player. am deciding btwn cd-r and/or dvd-r rw. only thing left to buy is amd chip and mobo....

If you are going with Asus A7N8X mobo, which is great motherboard with Nvidia 2 chipset, I believe you will need to replace that ram since only DDR ram is accepted on Nvidia chipset.DDR 333 Mhz or better is recommended, and it wouldn't work at all with PC100 or PC 133 RAM.There is a problem though with Deluxe version and Serial ATA raid on that motherboard, so if you are going to use serial ATA raid in the future, you might reconsider and opt with ABit motherboard with same chipset since Abit fixed it in BIOS while Asus still have not.I love AMD and I say, support the underdog.If it wasn't for healthy competition from AMD, we would be probably stuck now at 350 Mhz from Intel for About 1000 Bucks :PAMD Athlon XP line has proven itself and you get more bang for a buck.Hyperthreading is just a poor excuse from Intel for not being able to make really good processor and jump more ahead of AMD (considering their resources).It looks like AMD might have hit the nail on the head with Clawhammer, and Opteron (64bit computing for masses).Time will tell, but I am big believer in AMD

[L_P]

i'll probably go with AMD because1.  The Asus A7N8X main board is hot. (still.)2.  AMD is less expensive.

Temmu, one of my self built's has the Asus A7N8X Deluxe, along with an AMD 2100 Tbred. I really like it, and I haven't OC'ed it. I had some problems with cheap ram causing stop error reboots. I bought new ram (crucial) only to find out there are some problems with it and the nForce2 boards. So, at some point I'd like to get twin sticks of Corsair or OCZ and take advantage of the mobo's Twinbank capablities. But, they are so pricey.

[Bruno]

This is an easy one, looking at my budget: AMD ! Bruno

[GolfProRM]

The "Thoroughbred" computers I use are at work, on my instruments, and I accept the "build" of the instrument manufacturer. (I thinks these are all Intel)...

Thoroughbred sounds to me more like AMD, rather then Intel

i already have a new 7200rpm 75gb hd, new 256mb 133mhz, 50x cd player. am deciding btwn cd-r and/or dvd-r rw. only thing left to buy is amd chip and mobo....

If you are going with Asus A7N8X mobo, which is great motherboard with Nvidia 2 chipset, I believe you will need to replace that ram since only DDR ram is accepted on Nvidia chipset.DDR 333 Mhz or better is recommended, and it wouldn't work at all with PC100 or PC 133 RAM.There is a problem though with Deluxe version and Serial ATA raid on that motherboard, so if you are going to use serial ATA raid in the future, you might reconsider and opt with ABit motherboard with same chipset since Abit fixed it in BIOS while Asus still have not.I love AMD and I say, support the underdog.If it wasn't for healthy competition from AMD, we would be probably stuck now at 350 Mhz from Intel for About 1000 Bucks :PAMD Athlon XP line has proven itself and you get more bang for a buck.Hyperthreading is just a poor excuse from Intel for not being able to make really good processor and jump more ahead of AMD (considering their resources).It looks like AMD might have hit the nail on the head with Clawhammer, and Opteron (64bit computing for masses).Time will tell, but I am big believer in AMD

Zox... I agree with your post 100%. I was just about to post basically the same thing.I'm sure the Thoroughbred is an AMD... They've run the Thunderbird, and Palomino cores also... Bingo on the RAM too... no matter what system you build, throw out the 133Mhz SDRAM... You're wasting the benefits of the increased FSB of either the Athlon or the P4. DDR333 (PC2700) or better for the AMD or I'd possibly sugges Rambus if you go with a P4.I sure hope that AMD hits the mark with the Clawhammer and the Opteron... I'm really curious to see how they run... of course the Clawhammer was SUPPOSED to be out August/Sept. of last year... hopefully the delay will pay off!

[Guest ComputerBob]

As others have already stated, I too am using an AMD Athlon XP 2100 with an Asus A7N8X (standard) motherboard. I'm using Crucial DDR memory and haven't had any problems at all, even though I overclocked it for the first month or so.My older PC has an Intel PII-266. You can imagine how happy I was to upgrade to my newer computer, though I still use my older one for most of my actual work, and use the newer one to "audition" Linux distros, so that hopefully, it will become my main "work" computer in the future.So, I would have to say that I will use whichever chip maker's CPU gives me the best bang for the buck at the time that I am in the market to buy one.

[GolfProRM]

wow.so many responses.  so much for my existing ram.  :(thx for the input, all. 

If you've got a different PC that takes SD RAM, throw your chip in there.... or sell it to a friend/neighbor..

[Gus K]

I'll stick with AMD, because of the competition they provided we all benefit with great fast running cheap rigs on both platforms. I shudder to think what computers would cost, and what speed/performance we'd have, if Intel was the only game in town.

[Stryder]

I have built countless systems using both. I think both are very good. Amd gives you a little more bang for your buck, but with it comes the need for extra cooling. Other than the original P4, which was a dog, Intel chips are very fast and reliable. I lean towards Intel.....but not by much.

[jbredmound]

My current box is about two years old (a "cow" if you know what I mean.When I was "making my list and checking it twice", I had never had anything but Intel. Wow, the AMD was rated a tad faster than the P4, and had it's own cache memory! Cost? Two thirds (or a little better).I wasn't supporting the underdog...I was paying for value.I have been really happy with this processor, and I can't for the life of me figure out why I would buy Intel for home, office or otherwise.

[Prelude76]

I had always used Intel chips up until I started building my own. I switched to AMD, and have been happy with the way they perform.The only problem I've had with AMD is the heat they put off. For my next build, I'm looking at a P4, because the tower I'll be using doesn't have the best ventilation options, and I'm thinking the Pentium should run cooler.  I'd also like to check out hyperthreading.

maybe certain batches of each chip might differ, but from my experience, the PC at work is a P4 1.5gig with 1 gig RAMBUS and it has MAJOR overheating issues. i experienced numerous lock ups until i replaced the standard fan with a heavy duty coppy fan. and then i have my good ol' first generation Athlon 700, cracked her case 2 years ago and installed an accelerator chip on it, and have it overclocked to 850 with no overheating issues whatsoever. and with 1 gig of PC133 ram, to me it feels as if it performs just as fast as the P4 at work, especially number-crunching operations like opening large assemblies in SolidWorks. IMHO, i think Intel dumbed-down the P4 (the P3 was a much better processor) just so they can overclock the crap out of it and beat out AMD in the gigahertz race to 2 gig and beyond. heard that from lots of people in the industry as well. any thoughts on this?p.s.- hyperthreading and opteron are both quite interesting. we'll just have to wait and see, but for anyone who disses either AMD or Intel, keep in mind that how lucky we are to have TWO chip makers giving us such stiff competition. if intel killed amd in the pentium era, we wouldve been only at 1 gig chips now, and their cost wouldve been tripled.

[L_P]

Well, I lied.. kind of. I changed my plan. Now I'm going to build an AMD and a P4. AMD will come first.

[quint]

Here's some info I found interesting (ignore if previously posted):Prescott-Hammer timeline

[labyrinth]

I'm running Intel PIII 500 on my older machine...It's solid as a rock...Never turn it off. But when building my newer machine, I went to AMD...solid as a rock...less expensive for the speed. When I upgrade my older rig next December I'll more then likely run with AMD, the apps I run (Video and Audio) processes faster with the AMD architecture.

[GolfProRM]

Well... after 20some votes, it's pretty balanced... kind of what I expected, but yet, still somewhat surprising...Wonder how the votes would have changed if I put a "it doesn't matter" option in the vote?

[teacher]

I used to be a buy AMD because it is cheaper. Now I am a hard core Intel fan. Why? Of the 9 computers I have owned I have had 3 AMD chips. Of the 9 computers, 13 motherboards, etc., I have burned up exactly 3 processors. Guess which ones? AMD. Of course, if you pay attention, it took me three times to decide not to buy AMD. I think in each case I had problems with excessive heat from the processor for the fans installed. I am typing this on my daughter's P4 HT at college (parent's weekend). This is my latest purchase and it is the HT solely because of what I have read about HT and Photoshop and the other art programs that are her mainstays.This time I wanted it super-reliable because of the 10 hour car drive each way to see her. I did not want to do telephone consulting. Thus I went with both an Intel chip and an Intel motherboard designed to match. This computer really rocks - 30 seconds to boot despite being loaded and dual-booted. Of course, it was not purchased from a major vendor and came with a lean systray and startup routine!. Okay, I have said my piece, but the comments were so pro AMD I had to say something. Did you ever know me to be able to shut up?

[Lover of quiet computers]

A report appeared on the Inquirer today: "Intel strong armed vendors at AMD launch." I became enraged at Intel after hearing about it.Wouldn't it be nice to boycott Intel whenever possible?

[GolfProRM]

A report appeared on the Inquirer today: "Intel strong armed vendors at AMD launch." I became enraged at Intel after hearing about it.Wouldn't it be nice to boycott Intel whenever possible?

Great link...Really shows you how badly Intel is hurting if they're playing games with AMD like this... I've seen some crazy stuff before, but never have I heard of one company threatening vendors to keep them from going to another company's release... I buy AMD because I like the architecture better, but this doesn't help my view of Intel any. I hope they get nailed for Monopoly issues.

[greengeek]

I use Intel, I'd rather pay a bit more for something I know will last.Joy

[havnblast]

Presently I run a celeron 1.0 ghz, but if I rebuild I would go AMD - it's a great chip and within my budget.

[WeldedShut]

AMD for me. Lower costs and performance combination hard to ignore.

[zox]

This is another great article on The Inquirer.http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9164One of the reasons for me to love AMD chips is the same reason I am slowly switching to Linux, monopoly.I have experienced Intel's monopoly when AMD Athlon original came out first time.You could not find motherboard for it.Finally ASUS released their first motherboard called K7M which got great review.I managed to buy combo AMD Athlon 600 Mhz with ASUS K7M motherboard.'Motherboard came in plain white box without any logo or anything.It had manual from ASUS inside and that was it.Apparently ASUS was "scared" of Intel and they released motherboard for Athlon "quietly".Almost a year after release that motherboard, K7M showed up on ASUS web site for the first time.That is when they started shipping it in normal boxes with ASUS lettering on them.In the meantime I couldn't get BIOS updates on their site .This was about 3 years ago, and at the time I felt like I was buying something "forbidden" in all our freedom and democracy.Today, more then 3 years after I got original Athlon 600 Mhz, it still runs great, and I have converted it to my server/burning station.It has never failed me, and I like it very much.That has convinced me in AMD quality and performance and that big name doesn't mean much.AMD is breaking rules again and they are up to releasing 64 bit platform for us.Intel doesn't like it of course.But it has proven that twisting arms doesn't work in the long run.My Athlon story adds to this theory.I am big AMD believer.BTW, 30 seconds boot time has not much to do with processor alone.

[SonicDragon]

I have never used anything elts but Intel (*Gasp*). I usually use/get/buy Gateways, Dells, and IMB's. They usually come with Intel so that's what i end up using.BTW, i just read a very interesting article at the Register that reported that AMD and Apple may be working together. As soon as i find the link, i post more in a seperate thread.

[Marsden11]

I use both...It's not about the stupid megahertz race.It's about how fast a second of video gets compressed. It's about how fast a frame of 3D gets traced. It's about how much data can move to the ram, back to the processor, out to the video card, and back to ram on its way to the hard drive.The only reason for the existance of high-end workstations is how much WORK they do in a given period of time.I don't care if it's 1Mhz or 3Petahertz. If the Athy outruns the Intel for the same price, it wins. If the Intel outruns the Athy for the same price, it wins. If one of them is slower but costs less, then you have to figure out work-vs-cost, and whether you can cluster multiples and still be on the winning side of that equation.Any other factor is TOYstation, not WORKstation.On the server side, it's slightly more complicated. Things such as stability, heat production, power draw, longevity, redundancy - all of those need to be factored in (probably before performance in most instances).