Whats better Intel or AMD ???

I was told AMD is better for gaming and overclocking as well. Some people told me intels even better. Even overclockign is better for AMD. Why is it that the AMD or expensive when the intel are cheaper?

Intel is better right now in all areas, speed, price (relative to performance), performance, overclockability.

It had been the case that AMD was better for low-low end dual-cores, but now that the Celeron has gone dual-core I think intel has them beat there too.

Sadly Intel is kicking AMD's rear in the low, mid and high end segments right now

WeezleXX89 said:

I was told AMD is better for gaming and overclocking as well.

Click to expand...

Over 3 years ago, that statement was accurate. Today however, AMD is vastly inferior in every category and respect. BTW, this is coming from a former AMD fan.

I believe the Intel folks have rather over stated the Intel lead right now. Yes, Intel, with it's vast resources and the the corporate ethics of a rattlesnake is ahead, (I take that back, it's not fair too rattlesnakes) but not necessarily in all segments. The AM2 is very competitive in the lower end and the the quad cores are becoming more competitive at the higher end, but they still fall short of Intel's entries. When you look at a budget system, you need to look at the costs of all the fixings and what's needed to build an AMD system is generally cheaper. The AMD budget cores are actually more scalable then their more expensive models.

Cheers!

R7

I was told AMD is better for gaming and overclocking as well. Some people told me intels even better. Even overclockign is better for AMD.

Click to expand...

Your friend may have IQ points that tower above mine, but it is my perception your friend stopped paying attention PC tech developments about two years ago.

rseven said:

I believe the Intel folks have rather over stated the Intel lead right now. Yes, Intel, with it's vast resources and the the corporate ethics of a rattlesnake is ahead, (I take that back, it's not fair too rattlesnakes) but not necessarily in all segments. The AM2 is very competitive in the lower end and the the quad cores are becoming more competitive at the higher end, but they still fall short of Intel's entries. When you look at a budget system, you need to look at the costs of all the fixings and what's needed to build an AMD system is generally cheaper. The AMD budget cores are actually more scalable then their more expensive models.

Cheers!

R7

Click to expand...

Heh, spoken like a true AMD fanboy, R7.

For pure performance and overclockability AMD doesn't hold a candle to Intel's offerings right now (and probably for the foreseeable future either). Bottom line is, if you are looking for max performance for the dollar, Intel is the one to look at, IMO. Their Core architecture processors do more IPC than the comparable AMD procs (comparable price-wise, not clock speed where AMD would really lag), but they also overclock generally much better than AMD's present processors do, giving even better performance. With that said though, in the majority of systems, your graphics card will be your major bottleneck in gaming.

Unlike R7, I am a fanboy of my wallet and buy the systems I choose based on who gives the best performance for my money. A few years ago AMD was clearly the performance leader by a large margin, but the Intel Core architecture changed that up. And for out and out number crunching, the Intel quads rule in doing Distributed Computing work like Folding@Home or Seti. From what I've seen from others posting on their Phenoms and Seti, the Intel quads process 20-35% faster than the corresponding Phenom.

But you can still put together a pretty decently performing AMD machine too. And the newest B3 stepping Phenoms are doing pretty nicely too.

tranceaddict said:

Over 3 years ago, that statement was accurate. Today however, AMD is vastly inferior in every category and respect. BTW, this is coming from a former AMD fan.

Click to expand...

5 years ago it was true up until about 18 months ago


AMD is not VASTLY inferior.

For OVERCLOCKERS, yes they are inferior. But for people running the CPU at stock there is a marginal differnce clock for clock (I believe it was on the magnitude of 5% for things like gaming, slightly higher for encoding as intel always is by staying ahead on the SSE side of things, but still worse on memory bandwidth).

Having said that, I overclock and hence made the switch to Intel. e6550 at 3500mhz, 4-4-4-12 1000MHz ram Stil lmis my 2800mhz 2-2-2-5 system but what can you do RAM speed makes up for loose timings on intel's side.

the "snappiness" is gone on my system (no more 18 second boot times to usable desktop) but programs run faster so it makes up for it I suppose

As of right now the only thing AMD is superior at is core interconnectivity (if that even matters that much), and main memory bandwidth with direct connect architecture and the IMC.

But all of that will change with Nehalem. If I was going to buy a computer for my mom that does light gaming, web browsing, email, word processing. I would still buy an AMD system, since the whole package seems cheaper. Also if I was going to buy a notebook with those things in mind I would buy AMD.

How about cheap quad core systems? AMD definetly has the advantage there, and the only one with a tripple core CPU.

A blanket statment like "Intel is better at everything right now" is ridiculous to me, try and realize there are uses for computers and CPUs out there that outstrip your own. Pure performance and overclocking Intel has the upper hand right now definetly, but that means nothing to someone trying to build a cheap multi-core HTPC for instance.

For one, AMD has the upper hand in a platform right now imo, they're new chipsets are very good especially for the integrated graphics, which is the top performer and does full HD video encode/decoding. Intel has alot of catching up to do in that regard.

Yah blanket statements are ridiculous and you can immediately discount anyone that uses the terms "Kills, murderes destroys, or rapes" the competing arch, because they dont.

Muddocktor, you've got me all wrong. I'm no fanboy. I don't think with my wallet, either. I do like how AMD treats it's customers. Intel, on the other hand, is a corporate monster and I will not give them any financial aid and comfort. I will not empower them to do any more harm to people than they have already done. Yes, they do make faster CPU's right now, but that is hardly written in stone. I can sacrifice that small amount of speed for principle. I guess if you want to call it fanboyism then I guess you have the green stars to do it, but it doesn't change what Intel is and what it does to people. I don't think the owners of this forum want me trumpeting that news, but to use one of the great phrases in film history, frankly, I don't give a damn!

Cheers!

R7

I agree with you rseven. I was told Intel runs hot too while AMD are cooler. On my spec i have the DFI lanpart nf4 ultra-d socket 939. I need a better processor for gaming or should I just buy a new mobo?

How about cheap quad core systems? AMD definetly has the advantage there, and the only one with a tripple core CPU.

Click to expand...

If you are happy with the performance of an AMD quad core, then yes, cheaper is better. The four-cores are probably priced appropriately for their performance level. I've heard the tri-cores described as such, "three-quarters the performance for ninety percent of the price." Don't know, haven't read much about the real world utility.

and the the quad cores are becoming more competitive at the higher end

Click to expand...

I wish I could agree with you, but I just don't see any AMD CPUs right now that I could classifiy as high or higher end. As I said, I wish it weren't so.

He asked which is better, the clear answer is Intel.

Better by how much? You can debate to the end of time.

I suppose it kind of depends on if you have a soul or not.

+soul = go AMD
-soul = go Intel

Seriously though, if you enjoy the process of overclocking then AMD will be more fun. If all you care about is top benchmarkable performance, Intel is your best choice.

Particle said:

I suppose it kind of depends on if you have a soul or not.

+soul = go AMD
-soul = go Intel

Click to expand...

LOL! Sad but true...

Particle said:

+soul = go AMD
-soul = go Intel

Click to expand...

that's pretty good.

In the end they both want your money though, I don't believe any corporation is above resorting to shady business tactics given the opportunity. Not AMD, not Apple, nobody. The business world is cutthroat and soulless.

Particle said:

I suppose it kind of depends on if you have a soul or not.

+soul = go AMD
-soul = go Intel

Seriously though, if you enjoy the process of overclocking then AMD will be more fun. If all you care about is top benchmarkable performance, Intel is your best choice.

Click to expand...

Hector has a soul?

BLASPHEMY