• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

AMD vs Intel

m_asim said:
You will never enter Cupertino again.

steve_jobs_630x.jpg
Click to expand...

:rofl:rofl^^^

If AMDs where such great chips, you'd think apple would have partnered with them instead of intel.:p

Srsly, AMDs are fine and just like anything else in this world: You get what you pay for... If you are just websurfing you don't need to go apeshit on the hardware.
 
}Dragon{ said:
:rofl:rofl^^^

If AMDs where such great chips, you'd think apple would have partnered with them instead of intel.:p

Srsly, AMDs are fine and just like anything else in this world: You get what you pay for... If you are just websurfing you don't need to go apeshit on the hardware.
Click to expand...

'You get what you pay for' is BS in most cases, and is definitely crap in this one.

Were US built cars better than Japanese cars back when they were more expensive and had worse reliability and milage? They must have been, because 'You get what you pay for'.

Chromed out Dubs on a donk must be better than stock, because they're more expensive and 'You get what you pay for'.

I'm not an AMD fan, or an Intel fan for that matter, but to claim that Intel CPUs are better because they're more expensive just doesn't make sense.

On the very high end, Intel's current Nehalem based chips have better performance in an array of Apps, but are selling for far higher prices.

Back when the original Athlon came out, AMD chips were both faster and cheaper than what Intel had on the market.

So why were Intel chips still the bigger seller? The FTC had the same question and is currently suing Intel over unfair business practices.
 
AMD was resting on thier laurels and got blow out of the water when the core series chips came out. I think tho if your just websurfing and not doing anything hardcore like video editing or gaming you'd be fine getting one.
 
fromeast2west said:
'You get what you pay for' is BS in most cases, and is definitely crap in this one.

Were US built cars better than Japanese cars back when they were more expensive and had worse reliability and milage? They must have been, because 'You get what you pay for'.

Chromed out Dubs on a donk must be better than stock, because they're more expensive and 'You get what you pay for'.

I'm not an AMD fan, or an Intel fan for that matter, but to claim that Intel CPUs are better because they're more expensive just doesn't make sense.

On the very high end, Intel's current Nehalem based chips have better performance in an array of Apps, but are selling for far higher prices.

Back when the original Athlon came out, AMD chips were both faster and cheaper than what Intel had on the market.

So why were Intel chips still the bigger seller? The FTC had the same question and is currently suing Intel over unfair business practices.
Click to expand...

Look up how Intel multi-core chips do multi-threading and how AMD performs the same tasks and come back here to say Intel is shite.
 
I'm not saying that Intel chips are bad, I'm saying that the argument that they are good because they're more expensive is bad.

Intel took back the crown for top tier chips when it released Core2. They've expanded their lead with with the latest Nehalem based chips.

At the same time they've released mother boards that are more expensive, and with more socket choices and changes that make upgrading more expensive.

For the mid level, AMD is currently shipping a six core CPU for under $200 (compared to Intel's top of the line chips that ship for $1,000), that's as good or better than anything Intel has in it's directly comparable price range.. which doesn't even take total system cost into account where AMD has a further $50 to $100 price advantage because of mother board costs.

No matter what Intel does right now, the vast majority of buyers right now would be better off buying AMD for desktop systems.

AMDs products aren't all that great in the mobile market right now, but that should change when they release Llano (and generally make the long overdue jump to a 32 nm process).
 
Ant.

Which chip is better. Easy answer. Whichever one is IN the PC, when you get the fucker on SALE.

All comes down to $$'s and ¢¢'s my friend.
 
I have used both AMD and Intel chips and it really depends on what your gonna do with it...AMD have always been the gamers choice based on the fact the AMD processor is often dedicated to a single program which offers the user a superior gaming experience. whereas Intel chips provide better performance on multiple programs opened at any given time. The fact is, you really can't go wrong with either one.
 
Ant said:
No gaming just basic web surfing, digi camera pics/photoshop stuff etc.
Click to expand...

amd is fine. enjoy your new comp. lmk if you need help with it.
 
fromeast2west said:
'You get what you pay for' is BS in most cases, and is definitely crap in this one.

Were US built cars better than Japanese cars back when they were more expensive and had worse reliability and milage? They must have been, because 'You get what you pay for'.

I'm not an AMD fan, or an Intel fan for that matter, but to claim that Intel CPUs are better because they're more expensive just doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Look, it's pretty easy.

AMD is and has always been better at price/performance than Intel. Thus, if the performance of AMD's CPUs is enough for you, then getting one is the better deal.

On the other hand, except for a short period where Intel miscalculated on their Netburst architecture, Intel's chips have always had higher absolute performance. In other words, if you needed a certain level of performance (and x86 architecture), you needed to get Intel.

To use your car analogy, it's more like comparing the Asian mass brands to a luxury/performance brand. If you just need transportation, an Accord is a better deal than a Mercedes or BMW on most objective criteria. But surprisingly enough, people still buy the latter...

Yes, Intel has very aggressive marketing and who knows what goes on in their negotiations with buyers, but in the end they don't force you to pay more for their chips, but you decide to because they simply make better and faster ones.
 
teclador said:
Look, it's pretty easy.

AMD is and has always been better at price/performance than Intel. Thus, if the performance of AMD's CPUs is enough for you, then getting one is the better deal.

On the other hand, except for a short period where Intel miscalculated on their Netburst architecture, Intel's chips have always had higher absolute performance. In other words, if you needed a certain level of performance (and x86 architecture), you needed to get Intel.
Click to expand...

Based on WHO's numbers? Every damn review I've seen on an Intel chip in the LAST 4 YEARS, has involved overclocking. Same thing with AMD chips. Basically NO ONE is doing a HANDS ON, FAIR comparison. Of the processors, and boards they need to be on.

It's no damn secret that EACH chip designer (CPU, GPU, NorthBus, Southbus) has their own damn designs and methods. It's no fair that NEITHER cpu can use the SAME board.

Thus already, we are on an uneven plain for comparison.

I say, whatever your pocket book can afford. Is what yea' shall build.

Quibiling over who is right, who is wrong, what is better, etc.. Is just trivial bullshit. In either manner, the hardware will get the job that YOU decide you want it to do, in YOUR price range. (otherwise it will be RMA'd :laughing)
 
Dopesick said:
Based on WHO's numbers? Every damn review I've seen on an Intel chip in the LAST 4 YEARS, has involved overclocking. Same thing with AMD chips. Basically NO ONE is doing a HANDS ON, FAIR comparison. Of the processors, and boards they need to be on.
Click to expand...

I don't know what publications you read, but the results are usually pretty clear...

It's no damn secret that EACH chip designer (CPU, GPU, NorthBus, Southbus) has their own damn designs and methods. It's no fair that NEITHER cpu can use the SAME board.
Click to expand...

Frankly, you should consider the available motherboards and components part of the platform. Very hard to provide 'fair' ground considering the differences. For example AMD's chips were the only ones with memory controller on the chip.

Quibiling over who is right, who is wrong, what is better, etc.. Is just trivial bullshit. In either manner, the hardware will get the job that YOU decide you want it to do, in YOUR price range. (otherwise it will be RMA'd :laughing)
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Clearly, buy whatever you want for your own system. In general there is, however, a point to be made against Intel for the time when AMD's chips were objectively better but their market share didn't really improve much anyway, possibly due to unfair marketing practices.
 
The last pentium processor I owned was a PIII which was back in the days and I think it was a 366 or what the fuck ever. AMD all day everyday since then.

If you are not a overclocker or gamer then get anything.

If you want to rape your boards/and cpus...AMD.

The big ole copper and fans screaming mhz from an AMD is nothing like no other.

Oh, and for the fanboys. Who helped create AMD? Intel......nah, competition is bad.
 
-AMD sells better deal for 99% of users.

-If you want to brag about your 3dmark score on internet forums get an Intel to maximize e-peen.

/thread
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top