Intel Vs. AMD
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:27 am
I know that there are other Chip makers out there, but let us put that aside for the moment. If you had to chose one or the other what would it be?
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:43 am
Need application preference stated for my vote.
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:00 pm
Intel seems to be too much like Microsoft. And, DUDE, DELL uses them. 
AMD is also generally cheaper, and I have never seen a performance difference. I have had people affiliated with intel trying to tell me that the only reason AMD gets the processing speed they do is that they overclock them and then say that they are not overclocked. I judge a company by those affiliated with it, and this guy did not impress me.
AMD is also generally cheaper, and I have never seen a performance difference. I have had people affiliated with intel trying to tell me that the only reason AMD gets the processing speed they do is that they overclock them and then say that they are not overclocked. I judge a company by those affiliated with it, and this guy did not impress me.
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:29 pm
Assume a wide range of applications, eg. quake, cad, word, fireworks, compiling. Generally speeking, an all around good chip.
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 2:04 pm
Price-performance ratio is what does it for me.
AMD = teh cheap with comparable if not superior perfomance...
Intel = teh expensive
AMD = teh cheap with comparable if not superior perfomance...
Intel = teh expensive
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 6:50 pm
well I don't have to explain it
AMD
AMD
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:33 am
Dell just got into talks about offering AMD and I *think* offers one server that is an Opteron if specifically asked for (ie. not advertised, but available). Also, Gateway and HP both offer AMD systems. If you're opposed to "cookie cutter" comp systems using a specific proc, well both are used so that point is moot.
AMD
Pros:
1 ). Price to performance (can't beat 'em midrange)
2 ). Excellent high end (FX)
3 ). First with desktop 64-bit and MS is throwing their support behind it (rather than Nocona)
4 ). Hypertransport
5 ). "Underdog"
6 ). Better on heavy databases
7 ). Run relatively cool
8 ). Very good overclockers on Socket A
9 ). Cheap workstations available
10 ). Nvidia "round punch" (ie. FX + nforce)
Cons:
1 ). Lack of economical enthusiast workstation board for Opteron
2 ). Socket change (754, 940, 939.........that'd better be it)
3 ). 64 bit is a shat implementation compared to Itanium
4 ). Weak SSE* support
5 ). A64's have been shat overclockers up 'til now
6 ). Large scale operations will be in question what with new die sizes
7 ). Server cost (Opteron's aren't exactly a poor man's proc)
Intel
Pros:
1 ). Superb overclockers
2 ). Itanium 64 bit is really the true 64 bit
3 ). Large resources to pool on (they've got more money than the Queen)
4 ). 300 vs. AMD's 200 wafer size
5 ). Better on smaller databases
6 ). Linux compile time is amazing (note the larger file difference with AMD)
7 ). Better overall mobos (CSA, ICH-R, etc.)
8 ). Excellent SSE* implementation
9 ). Hyperthreading (it actually is an improvement overall)
10 ). Encoding they simply mop up the floor
Cons:
1 ). F#$king number system
2 ). Low end and mid range is either shat or too expensive
3 ). Itanium 64 bit is used by whom?
4 ). Intel's Nocona 64 bit is even worse than AMD's
5 ). Did I mention their shat modeling system?
6 ). Anything greater than 2 cpu's bogs out
7 ). Draconian rule over everyone
8 ). Cost more money on almost every level
9 ). Prescott's slower than Northwood.........and 50 bajillion times hotter it seems
10 ). F#@k Intel and their numbering system. If you can't tell..........I really hate them for this.
Overall, AMD gets the edge........but it's pretty close.
AMD
Pros:
1 ). Price to performance (can't beat 'em midrange)
2 ). Excellent high end (FX)
3 ). First with desktop 64-bit and MS is throwing their support behind it (rather than Nocona)
4 ). Hypertransport
5 ). "Underdog"
6 ). Better on heavy databases
7 ). Run relatively cool
8 ). Very good overclockers on Socket A
9 ). Cheap workstations available
10 ). Nvidia "round punch" (ie. FX + nforce)
Cons:
1 ). Lack of economical enthusiast workstation board for Opteron
2 ). Socket change (754, 940, 939.........that'd better be it)
3 ). 64 bit is a shat implementation compared to Itanium
4 ). Weak SSE* support
5 ). A64's have been shat overclockers up 'til now
6 ). Large scale operations will be in question what with new die sizes
7 ). Server cost (Opteron's aren't exactly a poor man's proc)
Intel
Pros:
1 ). Superb overclockers
2 ). Itanium 64 bit is really the true 64 bit
3 ). Large resources to pool on (they've got more money than the Queen)
4 ). 300 vs. AMD's 200 wafer size
5 ). Better on smaller databases
6 ). Linux compile time is amazing (note the larger file difference with AMD)
7 ). Better overall mobos (CSA, ICH-R, etc.)
8 ). Excellent SSE* implementation
9 ). Hyperthreading (it actually is an improvement overall)
10 ). Encoding they simply mop up the floor
Cons:
1 ). F#$king number system
2 ). Low end and mid range is either shat or too expensive
3 ). Itanium 64 bit is used by whom?
4 ). Intel's Nocona 64 bit is even worse than AMD's
5 ). Did I mention their shat modeling system?
6 ). Anything greater than 2 cpu's bogs out
7 ). Draconian rule over everyone
8 ). Cost more money on almost every level
9 ). Prescott's slower than Northwood.........and 50 bajillion times hotter it seems
10 ). F#@k Intel and their numbering system. If you can't tell..........I really hate them for this.
Overall, AMD gets the edge........but it's pretty close.