AMD or INTEL?

[zao77]

so in your professional opinions who is better AMD or INTEL? which company is more innovative and why?

i am particular to AMD cause they are starting our societies much need conversion to 64 bit interfacing. apple has been there for years but now we are reaching the point to where we can't go much faster with our current 32 bit based processing capabilities. tell me what you guys think.

 

[doofus125]

Well, I can't speak for the 32/64 bit issue, I haven't kept that up to date with processors, but They say that AMD processors clock faster than Intel processors....but Intel processors are built to last longer.....so it's all a toss up in the air, personally I use and used to build systems with Intel processors just because of the known quality, plus I was able to use the same board for either a Celeron or a Pentium when I ordered (some people I built for went with Celeron processors because they cost less, others wanted Pentium processors because they wanted the best).....

 

[LadyLamond]

I really like my AMD, but find it tends to run a bit hotter than the intell....

 

[Godzman]

umm....AMD.....did I get it right

 

[SirKenin]

This post was brought to you by your friends at

 

[SAPguy]

From personal experience, I'll stick with Intel. I have had far less problems with them than with AMD. Just because AMD is pushing ahead to 64 bit doesn't mean that Intel won't be right behind.

 

[-=Burnt Toast=-]

AMD run hotter and in my experiance tend to be less stable than intel. As well as this, there "XP+" marketing package, is very reminiscent of Cyrix (i think) who did the same "We wont tell you the real clock speed but well tell you our "equivalent"" excercise.

 

[Grommit]

AMD run hotter and in my experiance tend to be less stable than intel. As well as this, there "XP+" marketing package, is very reminiscent of Cyrix (i think) who did the same "We wont tell you the real clock speed but well tell you our "equivalent"" excercise.

HEAT: You are ignorant. Get up to date with the current facts.

XP+: People who base everything off clock speed are totally clueless and deserve to get ripped off by Intel. Enjoy parting with your money.

Oh, as for stability. Hey, when was the last time you heard of a major intel bug? Remember when AMD had one? Wait. what? You don't? Hmm...

 

[Grommit]

From personal experience, I'll stick with Intel. I have had far less problems with them than with AMD. Just because AMD is pushing ahead to 64 bit doesn't mean that Intel won't be right behind.

No, they will be on the bottom. "Itanic" is a pipe dream for failed VLIW dreamers...

 

[SirKenin]

From personal experience, I'll stick with Intel. I have had far less problems with them than with AMD. Just because AMD is pushing ahead to 64 bit doesn't mean that Intel won't be right behind.

Intel is far ahead of AMD in the 64 bit market. They've had Itanium out and running for a long time with a 64 bit Windows. The difference with AMD is the "32 bit processor with 64 bit instructions".

I'm with you on the problems. I've sold quite a few of both, and used both in my own machines, and I think I'll stick with Intel too. On the other hand, a friend of mine says that all he's ever sold is AMD with hardly a problem to speak of. Maybe it's just my luck. lol.

 

[jko]

In all of my experience Intel has performed and lasted the longest. I have always had some sort of quirk with an AMD board/CPU.

 

[YaeSu]

I've been with AMD since K6-2 300 MHZ!

I plan on sticking with them too. AMD outclocks Intels in gaming, and that's what I use my machines for.

I ran Jedi Outcast on my 650mhz Athlon. And I bought that in 1999 and didn't have to upgrade till 2003. Intels are overpriced, they need to stop being so cocky.

More times then not I love the underdog. Espically when he is cheaper and offers a great product.

 

[Knight]

I've had no problems with either. Though I tend to trust Intel a little more. Still, I had an AMD for awhile (still have it actually just not using it) and it worked fine for me.

 

[My Higher Self]

Let me add a little twist, I think that Intel is probably a better quality chip, slightly faster and longer lasting....but the question I find myself asking is how much better?! $$$

Not enough for me to pay that much more, and because of that I have been buying AMD since the K6-2 and will probably continue to do so, so long as I can get more for my money. I've had no reliability issues and longevity is far more determined by the advancement of technology then it is physical function, so most likely I will be replacing my AMD for a more updated processor long before it bites the bullet.

 

[jko]

I'd rather spend more $$ for more stability and quality.

 

[doofus125]

I'd rather spend more $$ for more stability and quality.

<-----doofus giggles like a little school girl at the thought and anticipation of buying an Intel Processor, hehehehe

Intel will be the only processor I will ever use and it's the only processor that I put in systems when I was builing them and if I ever build systems again on my own Intel will be my first and only choice......

 

[My Higher Self]

I'd rather spend more $$ for more stability and quality.

Must be nice to have money.

I've never had any stabilty or quality problems with AMD.

 

[YaeSu]

I've never had any stabilty or quality problems with AMD.

Me either. Though many of my intel friends can't seem to stop having issues. With the money I save off the chip I get to spend more on a nicer motherboard and high quality ram.

 

[mistertee49]

I have had a AMD for almost 4 years now and I have not had any problem. So, I think I will just stick with AMD.

 

[Jet Black]

AMD chips are made in sweatshops by child labourers in places like North Korea. Buy AMD and you are buying COMMUNISM.