My 2 Cents on Intel vs AMD.......

tym64 · Feb 22, 2012

I will never understand this debate. Both are decent, both run fine. In the real world I would put up my FX 6100 Against any Intel cpu, and in the real world under normal use, you wont notice a difference.

Cost should be the only factor, which is more cost effective to the user. What they can afford. In the long term, both AMD and Intel can fail. Sometimes you just get a bad chip. It happens.

I know this is a overclocker forum, I have my own personal opinion on overclocking. While its cool to do, fun to learn. leaving it that way for prolonged periods of time can and will kill the cpu. Plus under normal use, you wont notice a difference anyway.

I realize under benchmark tests this or that chip runs better, again, real world, no difference.

IMHO, The BEST thing I did for speeds was switch my sata drive with a solid state drive. Goodness knows I have tweeked, upgraded this or that did all I could possibly do. When I made the jump to solid state, WOW!!

Ok, I am gonna shut up now. I am sure others will disagree. I just see so many users possibly frying a cpu because they believe overclocking will give them a much better faster machine. It simply does not work that way. There are so many other factors besides the cpu that dictates the speeds of your computer. To many to list.

LOL Let the flames begin.

manu2b · Feb 22, 2012

Anything new under the sun? :shrug:

EDIT: inflation strikes hard :blah:

Whitefang · Feb 22, 2012

Go render a video on a stock i5 2500k and an overclocked it 2500k. I imagine the difference is somewhat large.

manu2b · Feb 22, 2012

Whitefang said:
Go render a video on a stock i5 2500k and an overclocked it 2500k. I imagine the difference is somewhat large.

Don't overclock, that will kill your cpu by 2025 :facepalm:

trekky · Feb 22, 2012

lol by that time it would be worth more as a keychain then a computer (if they would call that a computer by 2025 lol)

Whitefang · Feb 22, 2012

manu2b said:
Don't overclock, that will kill your cpu by 2025

But... But... But...

Rotary · Feb 22, 2012

I upgrade every 3 years so i overclock my hardware to the MAX and try to burn it up so i can tell my wife that my pc is broke

Khan · Feb 22, 2012

Been running my 955 at 3.8 for over 2 years now, sure it can stay that way for a while too, an OC'd cpu can last a pretty long time if you have decent cooling.

Aldakoopa · Feb 22, 2012

I don't like Intel mostly because of their business practices. Bribing OEM manufacturers with generous discounts to not use AMD products doesn't make me think highly of them. I can do anything I want or need to on an AMD processor, even if they aren't as "good" as Intel, and not have a single problem, so I'm sticking with AMD. Like you said, real world performance is what matters.

keny · Feb 22, 2012

Rotary said:
I upgrade every 3 years so i overclock my hardware to the MAX and try to burn it up so i can tell my wife that my pc is broke

manu2b · Feb 22, 2012

Aldakoopa said:
I don't like Intel mostly because of their business practices. Bribing OEM manufacturers with generous discounts to not use AMD products doesn't make me think highly of them. I can do anything I want or need to on an AMD processor, even if they aren't as "good" as Intel, and not have a single problem, so I'm sticking with AMD. Like you said, real world performance is what matters.

A basic industry principle is: use any possible mean to win.
If AMD had enough money, they would do the exact same thing.
We are not living in a pink candy world...

Aldakoopa · Feb 22, 2012

manu2b said:
A basic industry principle is: use any possible mean to win.
If AMD had enough money, they would do the exact same thing.
We are not living in a pink candy world...

Obviously, but I'd much rather invest my money in an underdog than a corporate giant anyday, as long as they still had an entirely functional product that could match my needs.

I would rather do my part in keeping AMD from going under than add to Intel's dominance of the market.

manu2b · Feb 22, 2012

Aldakoopa said:
Obviously, but I'd much rather invest my money in an underdog than a corporate giant anyday, as long as they still had an entirely functional product that could match my needs.

Why? Isn't AMD a corporate giant?
Is BurgerKing a better company than MacDonald's, or Texaco than British Petroleum?
I put them all in the same basket and go where I get the best bang for my money (except fast foods where I never go :bday:

)

Aldakoopa · Feb 22, 2012

I don't classify AMD as a corporate giant when they only have approximately 16% of the desktop CPU market share compared to Intel's 83%, and when their entire annual income is less than Intel's research and design budget alone. Now if they were evenly matched, then yes, I would throw them in the same basket and probably not have a problem with using one or the other, but having one company that's on the verge of becoming a monopoly is never good news, so I feel justified by doing my small part to prevent that from happening.

Arbiter Odie · Feb 22, 2012

Hello tym! Welcome to the forums. I'd like to address a few of your points below.

tym64 said:
While its cool to do and fun to learn, leaving it that way for prolonged periods of time can and will kill the cpu.

Well, that actually doesn't appear to be the case. There's a guy here who has an old AMD chip running at 1.8 volts (I think). It's still alive and being used for daily stuff. Why is it alive? I don't know.

tym64 said:
I realize under benchmark tests this or that chip runs better, again, real world, no difference.

Unless you're rendering something, or encoding video, or doing other cpu intensive work. A lot of us do that stuff.

tym64 said:
IMHO, The BEST thing I did for speeds was switch my sata drive with a solid state drive. Goodness knows I have tweeked, upgraded this or that did all I could possibly do. When I made the jump to solid state, WOW!!

A while back, I had a sempron 140 (single core, 2.7 ghz chip) with 8 gigabytes of ram, and a solid state drive. The computer was very slow and lagged in a lot of scenarios. I unlocked the second core, overclocked it to the moon, and suddenly safari stopped lagging with 10+ tabs open and music playing. And Crysis worked better too

Now I have a FX 8120, 16 gigabytes of ram, and two solid state drives in RAID 0. It felt slow, in the most subjective of terms available. Being a totally sane person, I overclocked it. Most of my games load much faster than before.

tym64 said:
LOL Let the flames begin.

We're actually pretty friendly here. We don't flame people

Again, welcome!

Odie

Automata · Feb 22, 2012

Some of the posts in here are pretty inappropriate and I'm a bit shocked no one has said anything yet. Regardless of what the OP thinks, that doesn't give us free reign to be rude.

tym64 said:
I realize under benchmark tests this or that chip runs better, again, real world, no difference.

Tym64, I would first like to welcome you to the forums. There are many real world scenarios where overclocking will benefit, outside of benchmarking. I would wager a guess that gaming is the most common reason for overclocking, but there are others (video rendering, programming, 3d modeling, etc) that require significant amounts of computing power to perform. While it isn't required, it most certainly makes a difference. Either way, overclocking is also a hobby. Learning about computers is something we like doing and making the system run faster is simply another way to learn more about the computer and push it to the limit. While you are free to believe what you want about overclocking, we don't do it solely for big numbers in benchmarks and there is a difference depending on what software you run.

To understand why we overclock, it may help to know where overclocking originally started. Back when processors were very expensive, you could get the slower and cheaper processor, overclock it a bit and get the same speed and performance of the more expensive version. It could save you a lot of money. Generally, we don't do it to simply to match the fastest stock processor anymore, but instead do it to get the max performance out of the hardware. Why would you turn down free performance? The cost (hardware degradation) is nearly non-existent since the hardware is very outdated in five years.

anonymous22x · Feb 22, 2012

i think this thread was intended for everyone just to agreed to disagree

Frakk · Feb 23, 2012

I realize under benchmark tests this or that chip runs better, again, real world, no difference.

Well that's because most benchmarks don't represent the real world.

what does one use a computer for.

browsing the Internet watching movies, youtube, facebook.... an Intel celeron will do that just as well as an i7.

packing and unpacking archives..... AMD's do that better

converting movies from one format to another, these days that is done in multi threaded so again an AMD with lots of cores has the upper hand.

You might render some graphics as a hobby, the apps for that are again multi-threaded.

You play the most popular games, yet again they are all going multi-threaded...

Today in the real world there is no performance advantage going Intel.

So for me when i look at £90 for 2 core Intel vs £90 for 4 core AMD or a 4 core Intel for £170 vs a 6 core AMD for £120 and an 8 core AMD for £170...... i don't spend to log scratching my head.

Most of those benchmarks that are spread around the net are done on benching apps which don't mimic real market apps.

PS welcome to the forum, i hope you stay, don't let your first experience here put you off. most of the time things are much more pleasant around here.

David · Feb 23, 2012

tym64 said:
I will never understand this debate. Both are decent, both run fine. In the real world I would put up my FX 6100 Against any Intel cpu, and in the real world under normal use, you wont notice a difference.

Cost should be the only factor, which is more cost effective to the user. What they can afford. In the long term, both AMD and Intel can fail. Sometimes you just get a bad chip. It happens.

I know this is a overclocker forum, I have my own personal opinion on overclocking. While its cool to do, fun to learn. leaving it that way for prolonged periods of time can and will kill the cpu. Plus under normal use, you wont notice a difference anyway.

I realize under benchmark tests this or that chip runs better, again, real world, no difference.

IMHO, The BEST thing I did for speeds was switch my sata drive with a solid state drive. Goodness knows I have tweeked, upgraded this or that did all I could possibly do. When I made the jump to solid state, WOW!!

Ok, I am gonna shut up now. I am sure others will disagree. I just see so many users possibly frying a cpu because they believe overclocking will give them a much better faster machine. It simply does not work that way. There are so many other factors besides the cpu that dictates the speeds of your computer. To many to list.

LOL Let the flames begin.

Welcome to the forums!

thideras said:
Some of the posts in here are pretty inappropriate and I'm a bit shocked no one has said anything yet. Regardless of what the OP thinks, that doesn't give us free reign to be rude.

This ^^

thideras said:
Tym64, I would first like to welcome you to the forums. There are many real world scenarios where overclocking will benefit, outside of benchmarking. I would wager a guess that gaming is the most common reason for overclocking, but there are others (video rendering, programming, 3d modeling, etc) that require significant amounts of computing power to perform. While it isn't required, it most certainly makes a difference. Either way, overclocking is also a hobby. Learning about computers is something we like doing and making the system run faster is simply another way to learn more about the computer and push it to the limit. While you are free to believe what you want about overclocking, we don't do it solely for big numbers in benchmarks and there is a difference depending on what software you run.

To understand why we overclock, it may help to know where overclocking originally started. Back when processors were very expensive, you could get the slower and cheaper processor, overclock it a bit and get the same speed and performance of the more expensive version. It could save you a lot of money. Generally, we don't do it to simply to match the fastest stock processor anymore, but instead do it to get the max performance out of the hardware. Why would you turn down free performance? The cost (hardware degradation) is nearly non-existent since the hardware is very outdated in five years.

My view is one of horses-for-courses. I run some machines overclocked and some at stock. My laptop runs at stock, because (a) it has ample performance for what I need of it, and (b) any extra performance is not worth the extra heat and lesser battery life. We have a dual quad core workstation in the research group that crunches numbers all day - it's not overclocked because we want maximum lifespan and stability under an almost constant 100% load (almost 1 year of uptime).

I overclock my leisure machines because I can, because I enjoy finding the maximum performance level. I run a couple of machines with a relatively mild (10 -20% or so) overclock which they are happy with 24/7. I'm a member of the benchmarking team (see: http://www.hwbot.org/teams/overclockers.com) who compete to find the best level of performance that can be gained from each chip. I have a set-up of mostly older chips (P4-era and Core 2 Duo-era) on a S775 motherboard that doesn't ever need to do any useful work. I simply collect cheap (<$15) chips from Ebay and try to score as many HWBot points as I can. I like to think you get a good feel for the limits of computers when you strive for the highest possible overclock.

I have to admit I get a buzz from seeing a 2.8 GHz P4 run at over 4 GHz. It's not stable enough for daily use, but I like to think I'm seeing the limits of that silicon when I sit and tweak things in the evening. It's very much one of those hobbies that appeals to a specific type of person who has a specific mindset about computers.

If you need your machines to always be super-stable, and mission critical, and if any downtime is a major hassle or cost issue, then don't overclock. However, if you have a gaming rig and enjoy messing around with hardware, it's worth a shot just to see what you can do with it.

My dad takes apart and rebuilds motorbikes for a hobby. I take apart, rebuilt, tweak and overclock computers. I think there's a common thread in both hobbies.

glazer1972 · Feb 25, 2012

My daughter and I have AMD dual cores in our laptops. Wife has an Intel C2D in hers.

I ordered an Intel this time.

Maybe AMD should have reinvested some of the CEOs pay in R&D. :chair:

My 2 Cents on Intel vs AMD.......

Registered

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

KING OF PROCRASTINATION Member

Member

Member

KING OF PROCRASTINATION Member

Member

KING OF PROCRASTINATION Member

Member

Destroyer of Empires and Use

Registered

Member

Forums Super Moderator

Member

Similar threads