• 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

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...
Most mainstream review sites do not review exclusively overclocked processor. Try Anandtech, or Toms Hardware, or HardOCP, or...

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...

That's like saying it's not fair to review two bikes that aren't using the same chassis.
 
Anti-Hero said:
If that's the case, why is Intel outselling AMD in every market?
Click to expand...

.. you mean beyond the unfair business practices they're being sued for?

For most people, they just buy what they know about. Most people don't know that there is anything other than Intel and Apple. For a long time that was pretty much true. Until the AMD built the Athlon Intel didn't have much competition. That should have changed things, but Intel's advertising and (allegedly) unfair business practices kept AMD from gaining the market share their technology deserved.

Look at the MP3 player market. The iPod has dominated that market, and if you ask the average consumer they'd probably tell you that Apple invented MP3 players. Common perception and market share /= truth.
 
fromeast2west said:
.. you mean beyond the unfair business practices they're being sued for?

For most people, they just buy what they know about. Most people don't know that there is anything other than Intel and Apple. For a long time that was pretty much true. Until the AMD built the Athlon Intel didn't have much competition. That should have changed things, but Intel's advertising and (allegedly) unfair business practices kept AMD from gaining the market share their technology deserved.

Look at the MP3 player market. The iPod has dominated that market, and if you ask the average consumer they'd probably tell you that Apple invented MP3 players. Common perception and market share /= truth.
Click to expand...

AMD shot it's tiny little load with "Phenom" an over priced, under performing answer to the Core line up; it failed. Intel will continue to tick tock it's lead far into the future. Intel's R&D budget alone is many times greater than AMD's entire operating bankroll. AMD even has to outsource its fab and foundry production. I wouldn't be surprised to see AMD bought by ST Micro or Samsung.
 
Anti-Hero said:
AMD shot it's tiny little load with "Phenom" an over priced, under performing answer to the Core line up; it failed. Intel will continue to tick tock it's lead far into the future. Intel's R&D budget alone is many times greater than AMD's entire operating bankroll. AMD even has to outsource its fab and foundry production. I wouldn't be surprised to see AMD bought by ST Micro or Samsung.
Click to expand...

funny how tomshardware called the Athlon II X3 440 the best bang for the buck gaming cpu 10 days ago.
 
Anti-Hero said:
AMD shot it's tiny little load with "Phenom" an over priced, under performing answer to the Core line up; it failed. Intel will continue to tick tock it's lead far into the future. Intel's R&D budget alone is many times greater than AMD's entire operating bankroll. AMD even has to outsource its fab and foundry production. I wouldn't be surprised to see AMD bought by ST Micro or Samsung.
Click to expand...

They outsource to Global Foundries; a unit they spun off from AMD not too long ago so that the IC design group could focus on design, and the foundry side would have more freedom to work with other companies.

Who cares how big each company is, who they may be bought by, or how they get their chips to the market. You keep making these arguments to try to prove that Intel is so much better, and you keep failing to cite any of the actual tests that compare the platforms.

The OPs question was very simple, given his needs, is there any reason to go with either AMD or Intel. I haven't seen him post a budget, but given his needs, and the fact that most people would rather save money they don't need to spend; AMD wins.

If you think otherwise, spec out a system that he could buy/build w/ an Intel cpu/mb and I'll find an AMD build that can beat it on price and/or performance.
 
fromeast2west said:
.. you mean beyond the unfair business practices they're being sued for?

For most people, they just buy what they know about. Most people don't know that there is anything other than Intel and Apple. For a long time that was pretty much true. Until the AMD built the Athlon Intel didn't have much competition. That should have changed things, but Intel's advertising and (allegedly) unfair business practices kept AMD from gaining the market share their technology deserved.

Look at the MP3 player market. The iPod has dominated that market, and if you ask the average consumer they'd probably tell you that Apple invented MP3 players. Common perception and market share /= truth.
Click to expand...
This.

IIRC, the big confusion in the AMD vs Intel CPU war started when AMD started making chips that did more "work" per cycle, which translated into a chip that ran (x) Ghz and did (x) "work." Intel created chips that did (x) work, but did less per cycle while running at a much faster clock speed(cycle). Send that to marketing, and all of a sudden the Intel chips are "twice as fast" as AMD. True if taken literally, but when comparing the amount of processing power took a bit more effort for the hardware review sites.

Send the competing boxes to Best Buy, and the average idiot(read consumer) is gonna pick the box that says, "eleventy billion Ghz!!! AMD iz 2slow4u!!!" This forced AMD to move away from selling CPUs based on clock speeds and moved onto the "comparable" naming conventions they had.

I'm in the camp that AMD is better bang for the buck, but you have to look at this kind of thing as a package.
 
PhoS said:
funny how tomshardware called the Athlon II X3 440 the best bang for the buck gaming cpu 10 days ago.
Click to expand...

Gamers are known for measuring epen0rs, and you can't do that with a "best bang for the buck" AMD CPU.

I have an overclocked i7 on an X58 board, not really because it's super awesome at things I do 99% of the time, but because it seems cool. When I actually do something like transcode 2 gb of video it will beat any AMD machine :dunno
 
fromeast2west said:
They outsource to Global Foundries; a unit they spun off from AMD not too long ago so that the IC design group could focus on design, and the foundry side would have more freedom to work with other companies.
Click to expand...

Yeah...that's the propaganda they put out. The fact is AMD was flat f'n broke after failing hard with Barcelona and Phenom and needed some cash to pay bills, so they sold their most valuable asset to an Arab sovereign wealth fund.

The idea that you can "focus on design" without controlling your fab process is laughable. It's like designing an airliner with no consideration of metallurgy or composite materials. Process and design go hand in hand on microscopic levels, otherwise you end up with something huge, hot, and slow.
 
Aluisious said:
Gamers are known for measuring epen0rs, and you can't do that with a "best bang for the buck" AMD CPU.

I have an overclocked i7 on an X58 board, not really because it's super awesome at things I do 99% of the time, but because it seems cool. When I actually do something like transcode 2 gb of video it will beat any AMD machine :dunno
Click to expand...

The OP didn't ask about gaming or A/V transcoding (or ePen for that matter).

For the occasional A/V transcode the AMD 6 core cpu comes pretty close to the i7, and costs close to $1,000 less (cost difference of CPU and MB).

So you're basically just repeating what's already been said; The top of the line Intel chips beat AMD chips on performance, but in the mid range there isn't any substantial reason to go with Intel over AMD.
 
fromeast2west said:
The OP didn't ask about gaming or A/V transcoding (or ePen for that matter).

For the occasional A/V transcode the AMD 6 core cpu comes pretty close to the i7, and costs close to $1,000 less (cost difference of CPU and MB).

So you're basically just repeating what's already been said; The top of the line Intel chips beat AMD chips on performance, but in the mid range there isn't any substantial reason to go with Intel over AMD.
Click to expand...

OP didn't ask for your opinion about 6 core pricing and performance, either :rolleyes
 
the OP hasn't a clue what you guys are even talking about :laughing

Basically what I was looking for was reliability between the two chip makers. I've been an 'Intel only' person for no other reason than brand recognition so I'm giving myself more choices by concidering AMD.
 
PhoS said:
funny how tomshardware called the Athlon II X3 440 the best bang for the buck gaming cpu 10 days ago.
Click to expand...

AMD pretty much always has the best bang for the buck. It's just that if you want the biggest bang then Intel is your only option. Based on historical trends, this is not going to change in the foreseeable future since Intel has a solid 1-2 year lead in process technology on the rest of the industry.

All this CPU manufacturer fanboy action is always pretty strange to me... everybody just buy what they like best already.
 
Ant said:
the OP hasn't a clue what you guys are even talking about :laughing

Basically what I was looking for was reliability between the two chip makers. I've been an 'Intel only' person for no other reason than brand recognition so I'm giving myself more choices by concidering AMD.
Click to expand...

nec_lavie_g_hello_kitty-060607.jpg


you know you want it.. :party
 
Aluisious said:
OP didn't ask for your opinion about 6 core pricing and performance, either :rolleyes
Click to expand...

That was a specific example given to highlight what the OP was asking about; the pros/cons of AMD v. Intel.

The two most relevant aspects to that decision are generally price and performance.

In this case, the OP said all they need to do is light general use, so performance is a given.

Price becomes the next basic variable, so that's what I addressed.

You made a specific comment about your i7 and video encoding, so I posted a recent test with information addressing your specific claim.
 
Ant said:
Basically what I was looking for was reliability between the two chip makers.
Click to expand...

i'm sure it happens, but i've never seen a processor/cpu/chip fail.
both are reliable from that perspective.

maybe 15 or 20 years ago you might have incompatibility issues (some software crashed on one cpu and not on the other) but i don't think that's an issue today especially if you're using mainly popular software like MS Office, Firefox, IE, etc.
 
Ant said:
the OP hasn't a clue what you guys are even talking about :laughing

Basically what I was looking for was reliability between the two chip makers. I've been an 'Intel only' person for no other reason than brand recognition so I'm giving myself more choices by concidering AMD.
Click to expand...

For your purposes both are equally reliable.

When a computer 'breaks' it is from other factors such as spyware and viruses from the Internet. There are a lot more software issues then hardware issues for computers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top