[Archer0915]

I know why I buy AMD and though a small part is cost the other is a long standing dis-satisfaction with the way Intel does things.

I still run Intel products, but only where there is a need, everything else is AMD.

So why do you use AMD?

[col_sanders]

I like underdogs! while its possible that amd has done some underhanded business practices I have not heard of them. While intel has a long documented history of some pretty evil and anti-competitive stuff. Not to mention the obvious huge bang for the buck value of amd chips. Why spend $1000 on an intel chip when a $150 AMD chip can stand on its own? I mean sure, I can afford both but I think with my brain before making the purchase.

[TheQuadFather]

cost does it for me, ive always had an amd system of some kind, first one was a athlon xp

[ChanceCoats123]

Mainly price. And cost-effective upgrade-ability. IE: X4 940 when Phenom II first came out. intel throws every new CPU in a brand-new-one-fit-only socket. As for the price, people say there is no price advantage to go Amd over intel, and I will politely disagree. intel may have us on the top end of power with 1k+ CPUS, but Amd is no where near $1000 mark in the desktop region of processors. In my eyes, the 955 is still the best bang-for-buck gaming processor on the market.

[Marshmallow64]

Costs and price/performance ratio for me. The black edition at a low price also sealed the deal for me on my last build.

[David]

Price. I needed a rig cheaply, so got an X2 7750 and a cheap board plus some half-decent DDR2 (when DDR3 was still extortionate).

[Neuromancer]

Price was got me started using AMD. With 939 though it was all about the IMC, and the awesome desktop snappiness

I use either manufacturer though and have an i7 rig as well, I just do not run it 24/7 like my AMD setups

[DragoXT]

Price and the fact that AMD systems run smoother imo with lots of snappiness vs the sluggishness of Intel.

[{PGA}AfterShock]

definitely price/performance ratio. Amd chips do more work per clock cycle than a comparative intel chip so why should a pay %50 more for something that has to run faster and hotter just to get the same work done? Another thing is I chose amd for is compatibility. I can start with an athlon ii x2 250 now and in a couple months pick up any new or old phenom and slap it in without having to get a new mobo.

[Archer0915]

Originally Posted by {PGA}AfterShock

definitely price/performance ratio. Amd chips do more work per clock cycle than a comparative intel chip so why should a pay %50 more for something that has to run faster and hotter just to get the same work done? Another thing is I chose amd for is compatibility. I can start with an athlon ii x2 250 now and in a couple months pick up any new or old phenom and slap it in without having to get a new mobo.

UHHH today's chips are not as good as Intel clock for clock. This is from an AMD guy. Please no warz.

[Marshmallow64]

^ Agreed, maybe back in the glory athlon 64 days amd was doing more work per clock cycle. Nowadays it is behind =(

[TheQuadFather]

server market for AMD chips are good though, i think anyway, way cheaper than the equivelent Xeons

[killem2]

It used to be for cost, but with how crazy these intel chips can overclock, the price actual is worth it for an enthusaist, for a normal consumer who might not overclock amd still wins the budget wars.

Originally Posted by DragoXT

Price and the fact that AMD systems run smoother imo with lots of snappiness vs the sluggishness of Intel.

I'm not exactly sure where you get these things from. I have an e8400 clocked at 4 ghz and my system runs great. I can playing 1080p videos while playing games, and it works great. I can rip videos in a decent amount of time.

If you are getting sluggishness in anyway, then I would look at your hard drive or OS choice. Windows 7 here with a samsung spin point f1, hoping one day to upgrade to SSD.

As far as I can tell, processors unless you are just using one hell of an ancient processor should not be causing any sluggishness.

Originally Posted by {PGA}AfterShock

definitely price/performance ratio. Amd chips do more work per clock cycle than a comparative intel chip so why should a pay %50 more for something that has to run faster and hotter just to get the same work done? Another thing is I chose amd for is compatibility. I can start with an athlon ii x2 250 now and in a couple months pick up any new or old phenom and slap it in without having to get a new mobo.

One of the primary reason I went with a dual core e8400 was, in apps that didn't utilize all four cores (which every game I play outside of possibly gta4 and maybe wow) didn't at the time I bought it... the e8400 was spanking amd dual cores like it a kindergartner was fighting mike tyson, then up against amd quads, it was equal or better, even more so when it was overclocked (keep in mind this was in feb 2008 right after the e8400 came out), so what ever amd quads were around then, I can't remember.

So then with that in consideration, and being able to upgrade to the intel quads which are even further ahead of the game, it was a no brainer for me, and at that time memory was so damn cheap, it didn't really matter what platform you were on. ram was just disgustingly cheaper.

But clock for clock speeds I don't think that is the case anymore.


My system before this e8400 was amd, and I loved it, it was fun, it was a newcastle from 2004 or 5 or something ran ok. no complaints but I wanted more. And when I saw all the reviews of amd cpus vs intel, it wasn't like they were neck and neck and amd was just lower cost, no they were actually pretty far behind. Which kinda made me sad because as said it above it hasn't always been that way.

[ChanceCoats123]

I want to branch off of Killem, who made a great point. At the time Amd offered the original phenom series, which lets be frank, sucked it up big time. The Phenom II's are still just about as good in raw number crunching as Q2Quads now. The I7's are far ahead and we all know that, but one of the huge and I mean HUGE drawbacks of the C2D/C2Q platform can be summed up in three numbers: 775. That whole platform was such a drawback. The bus held everything back and when it came to oc'ing intel, it wasn't about your cpu it was about how high your board would let you go. It all came down to the FSB speed. With Amd however, at the time that 775 was holding back intel, the Amd side was sitting pretty with unlocked multi's as well as a stock bus of 200 which had a totally different purpose than an intel bus. With Amd, the board was almost completely forgotten about. A board with a max ref. clock of 250 was just as good as one with a 350 max because that wasn't the limiting factor anymore. Dare I say it, Amd's technology is what brought the P II's ahead of current C2D/C2Q's. I mean look at Nehalem, IIRC, it uses an adapted form of Hypertransport so nicely renamed as QPI.

[QuietIce]

I run AMDs for $$$/performance. For everyday tasks no one needs an i-series quad, and quite honestly, no one needs a 955BE, either. The average home computer user just doesn't run anything to speak of that requires that kind of computing power. Quads do have a decided advantage in multi-tasking, which is something more and people are doing, and again AMD comes through with a $100 quad - something Intel doesn't have and may never have. An Athlon II X4 coupled to a good, high-end video card runs circles around anything else of comparable price. The Athlon II quad and high-end GPU is also the best bang for buck in SETI, which is my main computing need, or any BOINC project that supports GPU computing. I suspect F@H has a similar GPU-heavy emphasis, though I don't know that for a fact.

In the end it all comes back to bang-for-buck and even Intel owners can't deny that basic fact of life. Sure, a few people have money to burn but most of us have a set amount to spend on computing and AMDs are more than sufficient to run most of our apps so why pay more ...?

[mjw21a]

Bang for buck. I like AMD as a company but in the end, if Intel offers me better value for money that'll be my next rig.

Unfortunately Intel just never seems to be better value for money and the last Intel rig I owned was an old Pentium 100, after that was a 600MHz Slot A Athlon, then 3200+ Athlon XP (Barton), 3x socket 939 rigs and finally my current Phenom II 955 + Athlon II X4 secondary rig.....

I'd go Intel, but so long as they're ahead they just cost too much.

[donuts]

Because I can. Like has been summed up, bang for the buck, and it plain works. Let's face it, in everyday computing most people aren't going to notice the difference.

I currently own both (C2Q and 9850be), I'm on the fence about the next upgrade with the 6+ core Opterons coming out. DC projects like fast cores.

[Archer0915]

Well the one response I have not seen is cyclic. AMD can keep users in cycle longer than Intel. I know it was touched on but that is a main selling point for AMD at the moment.

I remember when AMD was where Intel is now. The FX went on server grade 940, mainstream went on 939 and budget was 754. Let us not forget the 1207 flop as well. AMD learned I guess Intel does not get it yet.

[EarthDog]

I dont. I do not have a need for their parts. I can afford Intel and I bought it. Do I need Intel chips? Heck no. Could I get by with any AMD offering? Absolutely, just like 95% of us could. I have built PLENTY of AMD rigs for my clients in the past.

[Archer0915]

Originally Posted by EarthDog

I dont.

But the question was why do you. If you don't the the question was not addressed to you

I do understand your point though. Personally if Intel would tighten up on their mobile GFX they would have an untouchable mobile solution with the i3. That I could recommend over most AMD lappys. As it stands if they don't use an add in card they are only good for general usage.