AMD or Intel

[Nacho-RT74]

what you read and why ?

I'm in process on get a new PC ( would love a Mac but is out of my funds )

[CFMopar]

Cheaper and they can be overclocked stupid fast if you get a good cooler..

[Troy]

Just like cars, which model are you looking at? The top of the line chip of either manufacturer will anihilate the mid and low end models of the other so make sure you're comparing similar features. I tend to use AMD myself but that's just because the performance-per-dollar is a bit higher and I'm more familiar with the motherboards (I build a lot of these things). Any computer built with quality components these days will be overkill for the average user. Your big decisions any more should be the size and type of RAM, video card (if you play games, do 3D modeling, or work with graphics), and the speed of the hard drive(s). I think it is unlikely that a "normal" user could tell the difference between a 2GHz and a 3GHz machine if all other parts were the same. The Mac would be a better choice *IF* you're using it for work since there are some killer programs out there for sound editing/mixing that you can't get on a PC. Other than that, buy a mid level PC and save your money for more important stuff.

Troy

[Silver R/T]

my cousin builds computers and he says AMD's are better choice

[azraelck]

I habitually use AMDs myself. But I also play some games (though generally not high end) Depending on your use, either will do just as fine. If your going for an all out, $10,000 gaming machine; then I'd go AMD.

[Khyron]

I know I'll catch crap fpr this, but Intel all the way. For the years I've been working on computers I find a smaller failure rate with an INTEL based chip.
   AMD can be a faster chipset, but for Power and muscle, The Pentium is where it's at. Now the diehard AMD people are going to show numbers and reports. But there is a reason server class machines are built with INTEL chipsets. Yes there are a few AMD servers out there. But by far. Intel is the most reliable.
   AMD had a bad start with the Athlon. Recalls, power issues, heat issues, and instruction problems. At first they couldn't even run XP. Hence the AthlonXP chip.

Yes I am a gamer, I program, and I crunch numbers. My Pentium4 has never let me down.

This is being typed on a dual core laptop

[Drache]

On my gaming PC I run an AMD and I've never have problems with it....

Course I'm typing this right now using a dual core laptop with Intel Centino Technology 

[SirNik73]

AMD is the Hot Rod of the PC world.

I love my new Dual Core 4800+ i can burn and use the compuer... it is really like having 2 computers. plus my new Geforce 7600GT with dual 21" monitors... even if they are CRTs

PS i'm watching a DVD in one screen and browsing the internet in the other... no slow downs.

[Drache]

the movie "Over The Hedge" was made with HP computers with AMD Opteron Processors! 

[BLAM]

Here is a comment I copied from a fellow Gaming Clan Member who works at MS on the subject of building a new computer and what components to use if you want the best compatability MS Vista operating sytem that will replace XP soon.

Well, I'll pitch in $.02, since I've been up to my eye balls in hardware lately with our Vista launch (assuming this new PC will run Vista at one point in future)

1. Get an ATI card. Much as I like nVidia, ATI seems to run Vista better then any nVidia card we've tested. Even internally at MS, we're switching to units with ATI over nVidia.

2. Whole AMD/Intel argument. Both work well, in our labs, the new Intel Core2 Duo however is faster then latest AMD X2 boxes. Processor still seems to be personal preferance. I'm running Core2D on my desktop, and AMD x2 on the laptop. Guess processor is more budget dependent. Can't really miss with both. Intel has made leaps of progress with Core2D though, AMD was smoking Intel's ass with their processors of late.

Only other advise, get a system with 2GB memory, and 256MB video card. You'll be miserable gaming on a 1GB box, especially with new DX10 games coming out.

[SirNik73]

At Home

I'm running Vista Beta... it is a horrible operating system. I know its a beta... but if the release is anything like the beta I'll be going back to XP pro. in XP it would take me about 3 min to copy 1GB off the network. in vista... it takes about 7-10 min for the same file... whats with that... i copy a file of the network it takes 10 min, then i burn it onto a DVD... that only takes 5 min... before in XP it was about 3 min across the network and 5 min to burn... what is the deal with that?

oh, as if thats not bed enough i can't network withthe XP people... i can only network with my one friend running Linux. we put a folder on his shared drive and call it the trading post, because i can't get to the guy on XP. they have to upload the the trading post, and i have to download from there... HORRIBLE!!!!!

At Work

I'm the IT guy (in an office with 8 people I double up as IT guy and Draftsmen) I haven't found an OS that is better for the work computer then 2000 pro. the guys with XP seem to have more issues... no real problems, but i have to "fix" something more offten then i do on the 2000 people. and i only gave XP to the guys who were doing good on 2000. so its not an operator problem. I fear the day then we are forced by Microsoft to go Vista in the office. it will make my life hell.

I hate Microsoft. I hate how they are the only company with a user friendly OS... i like sitting down at a computer and knowing how to use it. I hate how MS is the standard, but they are also patterned so no one else can make anything similar. I mean how would you like your charger if GM had the paten on the steering wheel so Chrysler was using rudder pedals.... screw that.

I also hate how they are cutting off support for 2000... i can still get charger parts at the Dodge dealer... why can't i get drivers for 2000 from Microsoft...

Bill Gates has the world by the Balls and is tightening his grip... not for money... just for fun!

[volk68]

Do yourself a favor and save a little more for your Mac.  It IS worth it.  Apple is using the latest Intel Core 2 duo processors in all their mid-level machines, and their pro line is quad core Intel Xeons.  In the recent past, AMD had a clear performance edge, but that has changed with the release of the Core Duo processors by Intel.  These new chips are screaming fast, and when you are using them with Mac OS X, they are really utilized to their fullest.  I can honestly say that Mac OS X seems much faster on the same hardware than XP does.  Of course, the ace in the hole for the Mac is that you can install Windows XP on the same Mac.  You can then have a dual boot setup, or you can run Windows inside of the Mac OS via virtualization software called parallels.  Now the Mac is not only the best operating system, but it offers full PC speed equivalency and is the most flexible computer platform out there.  Pricing has come way down, and Apple is usually competitive within a $100 or so of similarly configured home built systems...in fact, the Mac Pro comes in significantly cheaper than its Dell equivalent.  Many of my PC devoted friends are jumping to the Mac now...there just aren't any solid objections left.

Here is my current system:

24" Flat panel display iMac
2.16Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
2 Gigs RAM
500 Gig SATA HD
NVidea GeForce 7600GT 256
802.11n Wireless
Bluetooth

This is a fantastic machine...more than capable of even the most demanding uses.  I have been editing video on it, and it continues to amaze me.  Seriously, save an extra hundred bucks and buy the Mac. 

[is_it_EVER_done?]

I go with AMD due mainly to the fact that Intel embedded their processors with a unique address to identify the computer, physical location of machine and user, and identify any output from a particular machine. AMD would not equip their processors with similar provisions.

Of course this was many years ago, and I'm certain that current processors are 100% locatable regardless of the manufacturer, but the fact that AMD refused to implement this provision as long as they could, enders them to me, so I will reward them with my purchasing dollars.

I really have nothing to hide, but I resent the fact that Intel would cave in to Governmental demands for an easy way to spy on everyone, and applauder AMD's refusal.

[Khyron]

I go with AMD due mainly to the fact that Intel embedded their processors with a unique address to identify the computer, physical location of machine and user, and identify any output from a particular machine. AMD would not equip their processors with similar provisions.

Of course this was many years ago, and I'm certain that current processors are 100% locatable regardless of the manufacturer, but the fact that AMD refused to implement this provision as long as they could, enders them to me, so I will reward them with my purchasing dollars.

I really have nothing to hide, but I resent the fact that Intel would cave in to Governmental demands for an easy way to spy on everyone, and applauder AMD's refusal.

you know, you can turn that off in the bios.

[Nacho-RT74]

Do yourself a favor and save a little more for your Mac.  It IS worth it.

Trust me I wish, but trust me, I can't afford it.

I'l keep the monitor and external devices... in fact also Hard Disc, CD Romd etc... Change will be Case ( just for the power source changes ), motherboard, Processor and Ram.

[Todd Wilson]

I know I'll catch crap fpr this, but Intel all the way. For the years I've been working on computers I find a smaller failure rate with an INTEL based chip.
   AMD can be a faster chipset, but for Power and muscle, The Pentium is where it's at. Now the diehard AMD people are going to show numbers and reports. But there is a reason server class machines are built with INTEL chipsets. Yes there are a few AMD servers out there. But by far. Intel is the most reliable.
   AMD had a bad start with the Athlon. Recalls, power issues, heat issues, and instruction problems. At first they couldn't even run XP. Hence the AthlonXP chip.

Yes I am a gamer, I program, and I crunch numbers. My Pentium4 has never let me down.

This is being typed on a dual core laptop

I agree!  I remember the old old days with odd ball amd processors and some things wouldnt run unless it was an Intel cpu.  I wish Motorola would have moved along. I liked the old 68000 series cpu's in my Amiga's.


Todd

[volk68]

Do yourself a favor and save a little more for your Mac.  It IS worth it.

Trust me I wish, but trust me, I can't afford it.

I'l keep the monitor and external devices... in fact also Hard Disc, CD Romd etc... Change will be Case ( just for the power source changes ), motherboard, Processor and Ram.

How demanding are your applications?  If you don't do any gaming or 3D rendering, then you might look into the Mac mini.  It is very small, has Core Duo processors, and will allow you to use your PC keyboard, mouse, and monitor.  You are already planning to upgrade the most expensive parts of your PC, so your savings on the HD, CD, et all. aren't all that great.  You can get a new mini for $600 or a refurb for even less.  The low end iMac 17" flat panel is also available as a refurb for under $900.