AMD vs Intel

[pr0klobster]

AMD has historically had more "enthusiast" motherboards from a variety of 3rd party vendors and has been slightly cheaper. Has always had an on-die memory controller since the Athlons, where Intel just did it with the i7.

Intel overclocks reasonably well and in recent years (IMHO) has taken the "easy" overclocking crown. AMD still oc's just not overall quite as well. That'll vary depending on the processor.

Intel's mobo's have been slightly more expensive, but that too varies. OTOH, some of AMD's vendor boards have been sub-par and generated more problems causing their market image to suffer (even though it wasn't AMD's problem).

For the most part, if you prefer a stable system with a large R&D behind it I suggest Intel to my customers who do NOT overclock. Less to screw up. AMD has been more enthusiast with more range of variables and I like them for oc'ing or my gaming PC's.

Very broad range here, but there's no cut-and-dried overall "better" processor, as you have to consider the motherboard in addition to noting the end-of-life on certain sockets (like when Socket 939 went away, replaced by AM2).

[DumboDii]

I have AMD in my desktop and laptop so I would say AMD

[Nixie]

I use Intel myself right now, but if I shall buy any new computer/processor I'll buy an AMD for sure. A friend of mine just opened my eyes. Why do you think there are no super computers, which have Intel (or are extremely rare)? It's because Intel processors have their bugs. I've had to do with 2 different Intel processors so far and both were a little bugged, each in it's own way.

[pr0klobster]

I use Intel myself right now, but if I shall buy any new computer/processor I'll buy an AMD for sure. A friend of mine just opened my eyes. Why do you think there are no super computers, which have Intel (or are extremely rare)? It's because Intel processors have their bugs. I've had to do with 2 different Intel processors so far and both were a little bugged, each in it's own way.

What?

AMD and Intel both have bugs. AMD basically reverse-engineered the original Pentium...plus Intel has info-share agreements, so processors are going to be similar in design. L1, L2, L3 cache execution and design varies too, but there's only so many things you can do or change with an x86-based processor. The design is still similar to the very first 8088 processor (which, BTW, was introduced over 30 years ago). Pipelines, cache, mem controller, FPU's, etc

Boot up an old PC and I bet you'll be surprised at the speed of loading of the OS (if you use something like static RAM).

AMD have just as many bugs as Intel.

BTW, the main reason you don't see many "supercomputers" with Intel's is because that type of computer is better off with a RISC-based processor, not a CISC-based like a x86 processor. Sure, it varies, but I think Intel have just decided not to devote much resources to that segment of the market, as it's small compared to the business/home PC market. Cray and DEC have a good chunk of that. (info might have changed since I last checked, though)

[StealMySoda]

Order an AMD Phenom II X4 920 last night for my new desktop build. Same price as a q6600 and the mobo I'm getting will support AM3 socket cpu's when they come out. If I got a q6600 I would need to upgrade mobo in the future.

The 920 has a 10-20% performance increase on the q6600 before overclock. And I went for the black edition so when I'm ready/need to, I can overclock the 920.

Comparison between the q6600 and II X4 920
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-pheno ... ew-test/12