• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Who left Intel and came Back?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Recursion

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Location
Bronx, NY
i wanted to make a Little poll concerning people who had Intel Chips and then found AMD to good of a value to pass up compared to Intels current lineup. and then after you experienced AMD, did you and why did you come back.

this will also really help me make my decision on my next system as I have always been a Diehard Intel fan, but Ive never used a AMd 64 or any dual core chips from then and there xp line is pathetic.

Im really considering an Opteron 165 system, but I really dont wnat to go AMD.
 
i went amd > intel> amd> amd>amd>amd> now my next rig will be a 630 p4 cpu. I really have no preferance of one over the other. IMO Intel is an overall better cpu, people are mostly getting amd since they tend to game more and its a bit cheaper too.

Reason i went with Intel this time around was mostly because i traded another CPU i had for a 630, and abit mobo. I really don't game anymore, i am pretty much an internet junky, and tend to bench alot.
 
i did.. the last one ive tried is the A64 venice...i went back to intel because i find the p4 to be better in multitasking...i might try the AMD X2 in the future because ive heard it's good in multitasking...
 
built my first rig with an Amd, because it was cheap. Built a duallie with Xeons because they were cheaper than opterons. Built 630 based system because it was cheaper and looked better benchwise than an equal AMD system. Stayed with it since then
 
it's been for me intel>intel>intel>intel' and probably will be until AMD gets some sort of hyper-threading...
 
went from AMD K6 to K6-2, back to Intel Celeron 300A/333A overclocked, to a 533A overclocked, to AMD XP 1800+, 2000+, 2500+ mobile, to Athlon64 3000+ S754, to Intel P4 530, to 630 where I am now.

There's a few in between but those are the most memorable ones.

Came to Intel because of the smoothness when multitasking.
 
Quick question is there a very noticable difference between Intel and AMD when multitasking or is it just a slight one?
 
I've always like Intel, Tualatin celerons were my favorite. I tried AMD XP because of the high clocks from the 1700 XP and the 2500M processors. They were very fast computers for gaming but I like the feel of an Intel better. I switched back starting with a 2.8C, 3.0C, and now a 650.
 
133mhz intel - 400mhz celeron - 2.0Ghz Northwood - AMD64 3000+ @ 2.44Ghz

right now i lean towards amd since most of their chips are still fairly cheap..and i do alot of gaming....but i do like intel for their multitasking properties either way i've had both and i like both :) but i think i'll stick with amd's for my gaming career
 
Intel > Intel > AMDXP > Intel > AMD64 > Intel. I dont really have a preference. I love this AMD64 3400+ I have right now, its been an awesome chip and is still hangin in there. Hopefully here in a month or so ill be on an Intel 640 or 650.
 
Blackmage said:
it's been for me intel>intel>intel>intel' and probably will be until AMD gets some sort of hyper-threading...

AMD doeesn't need hyperthreading, nor would they benifit much from it. P4's only benifit from ht because of their excesively long pipelines. AMD chips have shorter pipelines and so would not benifit as much. Dual core is a much better way of getting good multitasking performance, in which the x2's completely blow intel processors out of the water.
 
intel>amd>amd>intel for life

dam you amd for quitting 2 and 4 days after your warranties were up (and i didnt even overclock)
 
well i went intel-amd-intel and now im goin intel again. Im jus lookin for the best bang for my buck. In todays world intel is simply cheaper , especially with its newest linups compared to amd. I can only dream of a 939 sli system right now lol
 
Intel>AMD>Intel (many of each in each place)

Who knows whats next. I have no loyalty. I am set for now with Intel and late next year I will see.
 
Blackmage said:
it's been for me intel>intel>intel>intel' and probably will be until AMD gets some sort of hyper-threading...
AMD probably will never have hyper-threading. Even Intel when they first anounced dual-core processors said they may at some point not support hyperthreading any more. Multi-core processors is making hyperthreading obsolete. Also, hyperthreading makes individual cores more complex.
 
I went p3 800 AMD athlon 2400 mobile and then 505 550 and next stop is 6x1 I kept thinking that hey the A64 is nice but they really haven't had anything viable enough for me when I was buying.

I also like the fact that you get very few lemon overclockers with Intel Vs AMD.
 
Intel ==>Intel==>Intel==>AMD==>AMD==>Got sick of the bugs and lack of support==>Intel and probably staying with Intel.

Intel has always made reliable smooth stuff, and AMD has not. I don't see either of those changing.
 
Man most of you guys are young. I guess 22 is old.

I started with

Intel 486DX 66-> 100mhz
Intel P90->120 mhz
Intel P150-> 180MHZ
Intel P166->200 MHZ
Intel P2 333-> 400MHZ
Intel Celeron 300A->504MHZ
Intel P3 500->564MHZ
Intel P3 600e->~666mhz
Intel p3 800->903mhz
Intel p4 2.0a->2.666
Intel p4 2.8c->3.6
Intel p4 3.2e->3.7
Intel p4 3.2e->4.066

I'd say I'm an intel only guy. I guess back in the day previous althon AMD was usually garbage, and I've never seen a reason to switch.
 
Back