Processor Fanboyism

[Rival904]

A WHILE back, I went into a big AMD vs Intel hunt, to figure out what the differences are...And my results were

AMD uses shorter pipelines, alot of times, in games, a pipeline will encounter an error, and restart itself(supposedly happens millions of times a minute). So where does this leave us? If you have a problem on the end of a long assembly line, wouldnt it take longer to go back to beginning?

 

[Enablingwolf]

Bang for the buck baby!

My kind of person. Loyal only to his wallet. Thats what I am talking about.

 

[Rickster]

what exactly are the bad practices of intel? i had a an intel chip and two amd chips. just bought what was best for my money.

 

[Super Nade]

Simply bashing either company without providing a convincing argument would be a quick way to lose all your credibility on these forums. Most of the members here are intelligent enough to know that or intelligent enough to keep quiet and avoid an unpaid vacation from the forums.

I have no preference. My criteria apart from bang for the buck would be having fun.The moment that stops, I'd switch. I must be the only person on the forums who switched from a kicak-*** C2D to an Opty 144 setup, because I was not having any fun.

If I were to pick a brand, I would choose AMD, not because they have the faster processor, but because of what is yet to come, i.e new HT, DDR3 support and modularized chip paradigms (circa co-processor/slot-processor). Perhaps you guy guys already know that there is some talk of finally leveraging the on-chip DSP capabilities of the A64's.

Likewise, I like what ATI have brought to the table. The ring-bus concept is very interesting. I've owned equal number of NV cards as ATI. But for now, I'm sticking with ATI.

 

[Gautam]

I think everyone sorta has a soft spot for one or the other, we're only human. The past well um...ten...CPU's I've owned (don't ask) all happened to be Intel, but I just instinctively prefer AMD anyways and miss them.

However I don't let emotion get in the way of a purchase for a second. I always vote with my dollar for the better performer/value.

 

[Vipersfate]

I completely forgot about DDR3 etc...supa fast!

 

[tenchi86]

Well I probably prefer Intel over AMD myself as they were my first. However never on a build do I count AMD out or of lesser quality, in the end it all comes down to Price to Performance ratio. So I think some people may just be like me and prefer one because it was their first and what they have used the most.

 

[Enablingwolf]

My first was Intel and I have owned more of them too. Even over the Cyrix, IBM and AMD combined.

I learned to not like Cyrix though. That brand just made me mad very evenly. It was fun to overclock, but it did strange things all on its own.

I do admit, my old SlotA AMD was what gave me the most fun overclocking and tinkering. There is something about tearing open an old SlotA and getting busy.

As for the various Intel I have owned. I am soso about them. They did what I expected of them and well. If AMD hasn't got what I want by next upgrade. I will be using this brand once more.

 

[grumperfish]

I'm probably more partial to Intel-based systems having used them more (Pentium Pro->P4 northwood->P4 prescott/p4-m laptop), but I have an old K6 system that still works fine for basic web and email. I have a few more oldish processors (both AMD and Intel) that will be running in systems at somepoint as well, so processor brands matter much less to me than product performance and longevity.

When I upgrade this year to whatever's the current processor tech I'll probably just go with whichever is cheapest and performs the best for the price.

I don't really understand strict fanboyism as really I'll basically latch onto whichever company has (what I perceive) to be the better product and service. However, I have no problem becoming a detractor - I'm looking at you SONY *shakes e-fist* - when a company has continuously produced worthless products or jerked me around personally.