AMD or Intel
 

what does everyone prefer, AMD processors, or Intel processors?

Intel P4, GeForce 4Graphics, RDRAM 800Mhz

AMD Athlon XP 2200, ATI Radeon 8500 128mb DDR, DDR 333mhz

Look for the amd part (section 3) on this article. Lol, "third-world based company,"child labor," I know this is old, but that guy is so misinformed it cracks me up every time.

And oh, I have an amd.

Stephen

wow....that article couldn't be more wrong, i hope everyone who reads it knows that it is a joke, and AMD is based in cali of course....like all other big tech companies. AMD will always be 2 steps ahead of Intel

/me starts chanting AMD

INTEL is just like Nike, over priced!!! All you pay for is just the logo, and crap "under the hood"

AMD all the way

Definitely AMD. Better price for performance, even if may not be the fastest.

I like AMD so much, I bought two of their procs ;)

SMP! w00t

ASUS A7M266-D, 2x Athlon MP 1800+ (@1.92 GHz), 1GB PC2100 crucial DDR, ASUS GeForce 3 (madly overclocked, but soon to be upgraded), 19'' monitor, and my favorite part - 500W Power Supply.

i have all AMD's, except for one old Pentium Pro n200, which was given to my dad as a 'worthless' computer. i'm currently running linux on it, since it's actually pretty stable. other than that though, all AMD :p.

Seems like this is an AMD group... not suprising seeing how most people in FIRST are geeks!

Of course, there are always those people who say they like AMD better than Intel, yet still use Intel... pity pity. Kinda like those people who say they don't like Windows, but don't bother to try an alternative...

Please say you're joking.

Eh, well, I don't know. Have you read that whole article? I personally thought it was hilarious. I mean, that guy either wrote it as a joke, or he's the most misinformed person in history. Of course, if he is serious, than I don't find it funny if people believe him. But, come on, comet cursor is a hacker program??? If he knows what comet cursor is than it has to be a joke. Then there's the whole linux is 'soviet technology' thing. If anybody believes any of that I guess I don't find it funny, but for someone who knows about that stuff, I at least thought it was amusing.

Stephen

hehe, AMD are just so much better, i love my 1ghz Athlon and its more than fast for any game with my 128mb ATI Radeon 8500, in all, AMD is the best, fastest, and they cost about 1/4 of what they probably should, but i'm not complaining

You count be more right....Excellent analogy...especially from a fellow shoe salesman :D

AMD isn't a step ahead
 

I have many friends at Intel (In Arizona Fab Plants) and I asure you they are not a step behind AMD. In fact ask AMD who likes to reverse engineer chips and rename them. Intel has a strict buisness plan that allows them to make money on each chip set. When the demand dips, notice how a new chip is released. I have heard Intel has multiple next generation chips available now, it just doesn't make sense to release them at this time when there is no competition for them.

For me? I still remember the days when Intel compatible didn't always mean 100% compatible, companies like Cyrix and AMD. These days I think they are totally interchangeable but I still like having Intel Inside just like some people like to wear nike's because they can.

Looks like we have some geeks in here....

I have an AMD Athlon XP 1600 sitting in my box right now... the PR ratings suck and all, but they're still good processors.

Re: AMD isn't a step ahead
 

Right. AMD is about to release a chip toward the end of this year, they had working samples of it at Comdex. Funny thing, Intel had working samples of nothing there. Hmmm.

But... I'm not gonna get into a mis-information argument right now...

Both present pretty advanced technology. Intel with their hyperthreading, and AMD with their integration with their new Hammer core (cheap, fast PCs). Integration is a bandwagon Intel stepped off long time ago (well... they never got on it... it was all talk), and Hyperthreading is something AMD has yet to accomplish.

[H]ey, with all this talk of computers, I thought I should ask....
 

is anyone else on here a frequenter of the [H]ard|Forums? its a computer/OCer forum....check it out at www.hardforums.com - be sure to put FIRST in your sig.
Theres also a whole section dedicated to AMD vs. Intel ;)

I'm with Matt Reiland. Intel Forever! :D

Re: [H]ey, with all this talk of computers, I thought I should ask....
 

Yes, I am... or used to be... don't visit there much at all anymore...

AMD
 

AMD for me!

looks like i'm in the majority too...

:)

AMD Athlon XP 1800+ in my computer

I've got a Palomino core Athlon XP 1700+, running at 1800+ speed. :-D

BTW, the Thoroughbred core (.13 micron) has been released.
AnandTech has a review. Same as before, but smaller, allowing more room to grow.

I want a Hammer....
And then software to take advantage of 64bit computing....:rolleyes:



Wetzel

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They sould just skip a generation and go to 128bit.

Well asofar I don't have any AMD cpu's in my computers, so I'd have to say Intel (my fastest comp is PIII 600mhz)

But if I ever upgrade, it'll be to AMD. Intel is worse than Nike... at least the shoes look good. Who looks at your processor? (unless of course you have a modded case)

I don't know about you, but I have a nice copper heatsink and fan sitting on top of my CPU....


Wetzel

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cool runnings....
Jamacia mon:)

I can't say mine is copper, but it pushes 38cfm... :D

edit:
Oh yeah, my CPU is a Tbird 1.2GHz AVIA... I tried for an AXIA, but this isn't that bad...

At least none of you are pushing Macs :D

AMD & Intel = Good

Apple = Baaaaaaad

not really. apple is good for graphics/research stuff. for our purposes (most likely gaming), they pretty much suck cause there's no market for apple games. but just because you don't like apples, doesn't mean that they suck. plus, i think that the apple OS is based on Unix, which would make it a hell of a lot more stable than windows, so i'd think that many people like apples for their stability. so, even if you have no reason to like apples, doesn't mean you have to hate em.

Just so you know, Adequacy.org only has ridiculous articles. That's what they do. So it isn't really suprising to see something like that. Some of the current headlines (as of my writing this are) A final solution to the problem of Evil, Debunking the Holocaust Hoax, and Ancient History for Ignorant Americans. Not precisely the most fact based group. ;)

Matt

I have had as good or better results with windows 2000 than MAC OSX. Strip away the pretty plastic outside and what do you really have? Graphics? We use Silicon Graphics and Sun Workstations for buisness. Many of the components inside are similar if not the same or worse than PC's, when I look at the current setups of a power mac = Geforce4 MX (MX is the lower end of the chipset in PC) or Radeon chipsets. Do they suck, probably not, at least the prices are reasonable on them. Many of the people at work that have them run soft windows to run apps and they convert all their files for their work pc. Why? Why not just get a PC. The old idea that they are superior in graphics is holding less and less water especially when they contain the same graphics chipset as regular PC's.

hmm, it seems that all the scientists lie/don't know better (i went to a local college, and they all had macs). i know that windows is getting better, but i guess macs are just staying the same. oh well, i never really use macs anyways, hopefully i never will have to. i like windows better :p.

*waits for the linux lovers to come and flame*

I think that the Mac OS is totally done by Apple and doesn't have anything to do with Unix.

One of the things that I don't like about Apple computers is that they only have one mouse button (the old ones are this way, I'm not sure about the newer ones :confused: ) I don't know much about them though, I never really ran into them much. They do seem to be more user friendly though.

If Apple hadn't have screwed up their business by not opening up third party software development much, me might be talking on Macs right now :D

The OSX kernel is BSD, Unix. If you can ignore the cute GUI (an interesting system called Darwin, which also runs on x86), and managed to get yourself to a shell prompt, many of the same commands and programs you'd find on a *n*x system. Same syntax, same everything.

The "I hate Apple because they only have one mouse-button" argument annoys me the most, especially nowadays... All current Apple computers have USB, and support for practically any USB mouse on the market, including Microsoft and Logitech mice. For the past few weeks, I've had an iBook, on loan from my school, so I've become pretty farmiliar with the hardware Apple uses. Any time I needed to, I just plugged in my MS Intellimouse Explorer, and it worked perfectly, never had any problems, whatsoever.

Now, on the software side, I have a different opinion. MacOS (including OSX) sucks. Plain and simple. They focus on making it look pretty, and being easy for computer-illiterate people to use, but by doing so, they alienate savvy and hardcore users.
"OMFGZ!! THE ICON!! IT'S BOUNCING!!!"
Umm.... right... I still don't care...

PPC isn't bad at all, but the operating system still sucks...

Recently, I saw an RC5 benchmark which had a 1GHz G4 whooping the %%% of a 2.4GHz P4, which I would have to say is pretty respectable.

And, in response to the statement that being closed to third-party development killed Apple... well... if they had enough support, Apple would act just like Microsoft... but they dont, so they have to look like the underdog, the rebels... which is BS, IMHO...

Horray, that was about $0.06 worth of talk...

Edit:
Oh yes, I should point out that the day I recieved my iBook, I installed Debian/GNU Linux on it... As I said, I can't stand and form of MacOS... :)

Well at Purdue (the non-local college I went to) the regular labs were all Gateways and Dells and the higher end labs were sun workstations. Not sure where you went to school but to say that since your school uses Macs that the rest of the world does is incorrect (honest, look at thes sales figures). Most (definately not all) buisness users will be running some form of windows. For performance, you and I could each come up with a test/application where one or the other would excel past the opposing machine. There are very few apples to apples tests for these machines that I have seen.

It pretty much comes down to two things (in the PC vs. Apple realm) that I can see:

1) If you want a computer that you buy and plug in, and never change. Or, a computer where you can run it out of a cardboard box (like one of them in my room now) and have it work fine. Changing hardware and modding cases...2 things I enjoy.

2) Software. 'nuff said

The purely RISC architecture of the G4 processor is far superior than that of the AMD/INTEL Processors. Many, many more operations in a second can be performed on a 1ghz G4 than a 1.8ghz AthlonXP or a 2.4ghz Pentium 4.

Graphics programs that are used (modelling, video editing, photoshop (kinda)) rely on the processor to do all the rendering needed. Photoshop becomes a mere speck to today's processors, but Macs are still very, very good for digital video editing. The video subsystem on a 2d level serves just as a method of putting the image on the screen. Sure, some video cards do have some fancy features, and they will speed up modelling programs that use opengl to pre-render their images, but come time to render it, and the processor is used extensively.

There are so many ways around Mac software...for about 60 bucks you can get a copy of Virtual PC, and if my source was correct they have a XP version ready...Your Mac runs like windows, and runs windows and mac programs...


Id take a G4, OS 9 (X needs work...) with Virtual PC over most PCs that have the same power

I'm not saying that it doesn't work at all, but from my experience with Vitrual PC, it's nowhere near WINE or WINEX...

And, I have a terrible opinion of Windows XP, so I might just as well stick with Linux on PPC...
For my purposes, there's nothing Linux can't do...

Lol that totally slipped my mind, but still to the point :)

Btw your sig says "Jamacia" :D

Personally, I have an Intel. However, I don't think I would ever buy another system with an Intel. For now though, I must deal, because I am too poor to upgrade:(

I would never buy a Mac. Maybe just because I am a geek, but I think a Mac is for non-intelligent life forms. How simple do you want it? Everything is self explanitory in windows, I can't imagine it any easier! I have the same opinion of AOL too. Why would you want something so simple, that basically controls you, and you have no options or control over.

Not that I like macs, but they used to be the be-all end-all in the PC market until Bill Gates stole all Apple's ideas.

They're still superior for media purposes, but that's about it now.

This argument is getting less and less true. For example, Steve Jobs (CEO of Apple computers) is also the CEO of Pixar (the animation studio that put out Toy Story, Monstors inc). Pixar's own redering and graphic design program (Renderman) won't run on a mac, but it is designed for Win XP.

i just learned how to play MOH Allied Assailt online.....this has no real relevence but I thought you all should know.

Re: AMD or Intel
 

I just voted intel because i've never used amd.

Re: AMD or Intel
 

AMD all the way. On computer I have now, I saved about $200 by going with the AMD chipset. It may run a little hotter, but I don't care..I run my computer with the side off anyway. I have an AMD T-Bird 950MHz at home and am running an AMD 3000+ on my computer.
Eric

Re: AMD or Intel
 

I love my P4 and it's HT. I love being able to run UT, Musicmatch, Word, and multiple IM windows without lag.

Re: AMD or Intel
 

I have never really seen the advantage to using AMD. I know AMD is a good processor, but for high-end kind of applications and games, i prefer Intel. I just dont like the idea of running something that might stress the processor and worry about overheating.

Re: AMD or Intel
 

defently getting one of those new 64 bit cpus for my college laptop!!!!!!!

Re: AMD or Intel
 

I'm more of an AMD guy myself. All my older computers run 800-1000mhz celerons but my newer machines only run on AMD. I have never had any overheating problems with them and they're cheaper in the long run.

Also what I enjoy about AMD chips is that they keep the same chipset configuration, at least for the chips I am using. What upset me about Intel is that on the older P4's, they suddenly switched to a different config. That kinda worries me as I like inter-changeable processors (switching from one computer to another to see any boost in preformance). I don't want to have to buy a new mobo because Intel suddenly released a new chipset.

Another problem I have with Intel is that they are continually flooding the market with new chips (a.k.a. those little letters at the end of the processor type). Most of the time, the speed gained is not that substantial and I think they are fooling customers into buying more chips unnecessarily.

Rant of the AMD person. If you have more than one computer, just link the processors to gain extra power. Cheaper than buying a new chip. :D