Intel vs. AMD!

[AMD]

Well i am fairly good for applications that really take advantage of a large amount of cores, and I've also heard that I'm better for beowulf clusters.

[Destroyer34]

I've always used intel cpu's and ATI Video cards in my own builds. I do however recommend amd processors to people from time to time.

[Pinkdonut666]

I have always been an AMD fanboy, but my main rig has a 2600k... what dose that tell you... absolutely loved my first athlon MP build (always been into multicore) got an opteron 939 dual core, when to an AM2 dual core, then a 955 black, (I still have as a media center) and then got this i7 2600k... that sort sums up what I think...

[MalenskiiPC]

I have always been an AMD fanboy' date=' but my main rig has a 2600k... what dose that tell you... absolutely loved my first athlon MP build (always been into multicore) got an opteron 939 dual core, when to an AM2 dual core, then a 955 black, (I still have as a media center) and then got this i7 2600k... that sort sums up what I think...[/quote']

Athlon 64 is one of my favorites! Even though I am a pretty big Intel fanboy, it's still one the best processors in my opinion. Not in performance, but just in sentimental value. My first complete DIY build had a 64. Everything after the 64 has been kinda bad though.

[Mcdoom]

AMD chips are great for entry level systems, but Intel definitely has quite an edge over AMD for performance based machines.

[Pinkdonut666]

Everything after the 64 has been kinda bad though.

I still have my original DFI lanparty and athlon 64 3000+, I meant to hang it on my wall...

But, I still think the 955 black that I bought was amazing... it would perform almost exactly like a i7 920, but at half the cost from what I remember, and I won the silicon lottery with that black edition, It's been running @ 4ghz for it's whole life... and it's more stable than ALOT of stock CPU's I've come across...

[Pyromaniaca]

Definitely AMD for budget builds (for the cheaper motherboard chipsets especially) but Intel for pretty much everything else. Gaming especially tends to perform better on Intel platforms.

[Simon]

No, not a thread like this please. :rolleyes:

[Pyromaniaca]

Definitely AMD for budget builds (for the cheaper motherboard chipsets especially) but Intel for pretty much everything else. Gaming especially tends to perform better on Intel platforms.

[Pinkdonut666]

AMD chips are great for entry level systems' date=' but Intel definitely has quite an edge over AMD for performance based machines.[/quote']

well, AMD used to be great kings of performance per dollar, I think itel alwasy had the edge in performance, but when a 955 black was almost half the price of a i7 920, you had to look twice before going "INTEL!!!!11!!!"

[christophercolumbusdog]

As Slick and Linus were partly discussing on last night's live stream, I have to say Intel. AMD has been pretty stagnant in terms of gains in performance, while Intel is constantly pushing out very high performance CPU's that totally destroy most AMD CPU. However, I do think that in some circumstances AMD could be better (like in an ultra low budget rig). But, for the most part, if you're going for a gaming/performance PC, it's really not a contest...

[MalenskiiPC]

As Slick and Linus were partly discussing on last night's live stream' date=' I have to say Intel. AMD has been pretty stagnant in terms of gains in performance, while Intel is constantly pushing out very high performance CPU's that totally destroy most AMD CPU. However, I do think that in some circumstances AMD could be better (like in an ultra low budget rig). But, for the most part, if you're going for a gaming/performance PC, it's really not a contest... [/quote']

I agree, but I really wish AMD would push out some amazing stuff, then Intel would too. Right now it seems that intel is pushing out very slowly because they have no real competition.

[Pinkdonut666]

I agree' date=' but I really wish AMD would push out some amazing stuff, then Intel would too. Right now it seems that intel is pushing out very slowly because they have no real competition. [/quote']

exactly, because intel has no competitor (really) intel doesn't have to do much of anything... I think if AMD was doing better we might have 8 core i7's, but nope just 6 core (with 2 cores disabled...)

[jrga]

AMD has an 8 core... Haven't seen an 8 core from Intel. And AMD is much more cheaper. But Intel is good too. Intel has their products, AMD has their products.

The "8 Core" isnt quite the same, its in between hyper threading and an actual full core. Think of it like this:

And engine is a core, the wheels are threads.You have a car with 4 wheels and 2x 200 horse power engines; Each engine is attached to two wheels, this is like hyper threading (a dual core CPU with 4 threads). With conservation of energy, this 200 HP is split to two movements acting upon each wheel, the advantage is like if a car gets stuck and one wheel is spinning in the air, there is still the other moving the car forward and this increases efficiency but the threads are linked, they can only move together.

If you had 4x 200 horse power engines attached to one wheel each it would be more powerful as the total power is greater, each wheel could move independently or in the same direction. (Quad Core, No hyper threading)

Now you get into the big boys: Semi Trucks.

You have an 8 wheeler, 4 200 HP engines each connected to two wheels (quad core with hyper threading)

You have and 8 wheeler, 8 engines 200 HP each each connected to a single wheel (True 8 core no hyper threading)

(But now you come to the AMD 8 Core) You have an 8 wheeler, 8 engines but only 100 HP each each connected to one wheel. You have the freedom of different of individual tasks, making it more effective than a hyper threaded CPU but they are not full cores so you dont get the true power of an 8 core, you get similar to a quad core, this is why you have similar performance from something like an i5 on the intel side to an 8 Core FX from AMD.

[jrga]

For and of the AMD guys fighting for the 8 core here is an explanation of what it is because its not quite what you're fighting with.

The "8 Core" isnt quite the same, its in between hyper threading and an actual full core. Think of it like this:

And engine is a core, the wheels are threads.You have a car with 4 wheels and 2x 200 horse power engines; Each engine is attached to two wheels, this is like hyper threading (a dual core CPU with 4 threads). With conservation of energy, this 200 HP is split to two movements acting upon each wheel, the advantage is like if a car gets stuck and one wheel is spinning in the air, there is still the other moving the car forward and this increases efficiency but the threads are linked, they can only move together.

If you had 4x 200 horse power engines attached to one wheel each it would be more powerful as the total power is greater, each wheel could move independently or in the same direction. (Quad Core, No hyper threading)

Now you get into the big boys: Semi Trucks.

You have an 8 wheeler, 4 200 HP engines each connected to two wheels (quad core with hyper threading)

You have and 8 wheeler, 8 engines 200 HP each each connected to a single wheel (True 8 core no hyper threading)

(But now you come to the AMD 8 Core) You have an 8 wheeler, 8 engines but only 100 HP each each connected to one wheel. You have the freedom of different of individual tasks, making it more effective than a hyper threaded CPU but they are not full cores so you dont get the true power of an 8 core, you get similar to a quad core, this is why you have similar performance from something like an i5 on the intel side to an 8 Core FX from AMD.

[Simon Brezhnev]

Although AMD still offers some processors that are good values and overclock well in the mid tier, I wish they were more competitive when it comes to the high performance range. The fx-8350 isn't a bad value but doesn't perform like a flagship CPU should.

[BlueLion]

I like Intel because of how much technology they have working in their favor but I'd use a AMD APU solution if I'd build a computer for a friend because of how affordable they are and the performance they deliver.

[MalenskiiPC]

Thanks for that great explanation! It's great to see people around here like you!

[Chris_nz]

Ive Always been and AMD fanboy. i own a fx8120 which is a nice cpu.. but recently, watching the linus live streams is making me think intel, just because AMD isnt delivering in the processor department, i really hope they bring something out in CES this year, like a new socket and cpu combo (pray to god its a new socket) just wanna see AMD ste away from compatibility, and make a new 'Unique" socket.

[mvitkun]

I got an i5 2500k for less than I could buy an FX 8150/8350 it's called microcenter people lol it's awesome wish for one to come to your neighborhood.

i5 3570K 169.99 = not too pricey

http://www.microcenter.com/product/388577/Core_i5_3570K_34GHz_LGA_1155_Processor

then look at the FX 8350

http://www.microcenter.com/product/401795/FX_8350_4GHz_AM3_Black_Edition_Boxed_Processor

it costs more than the i5 3570K lol'd so hard when I saw that.

[Mattress]

I was an AMD fanboy until I bought my Asus G75.

[MetalLobster]

I don't doubt the performance of Intel, but I still love my 1100T =D

[IdeaStormer]

My workstation' date=' laptops, and esxi server are all Intel because i need the performance for these systems (for running vm's) The data-server on the other hand has a AMD because its only for data and some other less intensive tasks.

All AMD's on my ESXi servers, more cores = more VM's!

[Pinkdonut666]

All AMD's on my ESXi servers' date=' more cores = more VM's![/quote']

you could have a dual xeon rig with the same number of cores... are more hyper threading... but thats not the point...

[deafboy]

Intel solely because AMD hasn't stepped up much in recent years.

I want AMD to step up so they push Intel to do more.