[Debate] Intel vs AMD

[Simon]

Obviously people have been debating about this for YEARS. Each clearly has it's ups and downs. But what do you prefer? And why?


I personally have used both with good results, although I do prefer intel since it's good quality, ok prices, and the i7's are just nice.

On the downside, their stock cooling sucks so bad.


So, what do you think?

 

[Ph?bus]

Eh, I'm neutral.
Intel has better *at a higher price* processors, but their stock HSF suck
AMD is good for it's price range, and the stock HSF aren't half bad.
It depends on your budget, really.

 

[reflex99]

I remain neutral as to not to start a flame

 

[Cut Chem!st]

Never owned AMD proccesor wise, not sure why.

 

[Bravo Company]

AMD, I've always used AMD and just never really wanted to software transfer to a Intel, plus they fit my budget.

 

[shadows5631]

Can't really compare for me.

The last Intel I've owned is a Pentium 4. But, I've overclocked an E8400 in computer class junior year, still didn't get to test the speeds much.

 

[R3D S3RPENT55]

Honestly theres no way for me to judge. Love them both. i know some people who are like "Intel definetely" And I know other people who swear by AMD.

~R3D

 

[Maj.Emish]

I go AMD usually just in my price range

 

[Typhus]

Im fairly neutral. I've used both brands with good results

 

[GBear]

In terms of MOSFET transistor technology with processors, Intel's on top. So I'll side with them.

 

[Saeten]

Intel.

 

[FreakingHell]

Intel. I'm usually not on to strict of a budget so I can afford Intel rigs. Fact of the matter is, Intel is ahead of AMD except the low end (but they're even catching up there with i3 and i5).

 

[JunK]

here is the battle. intel is all about performance no matter what the cost, so its suited to people without a budget that want the best and fastest.
amd is all about price/performance and makes great processors for great prices but will not be the top of the line.

with that point i prefer amd...i just don't need the best of the best for what i do especially in the processor department, so i have no problem saving a whack load of money to drop performance on things i don't do

 

[dbee]

Using comparable notebook cpu's from AMD and Intel with similar hardware, i just feel like the Intel is more responsive.

Yes AMD is great for building on a budget in the desktop area, but nothing goes like an i7

 

[Two Listen]

AMD.

Because 90% of all computers your average consumer purchases has an Intel board and an onboard Intel video chipset which doesn't support even DirectX 9.

Which results in me, as a tech support employee, having to tell tons of people every single day that they cannot run our games. Because even though their computer might be a mighty 2 days old. Their crappy onboard chipset doesn't support DirectX 9 in any capacity, and so they cannot effectively play any of the crap they want to play.

Granted, this is mostly the consumers fault for not knowing jack about their computers. But the fact that Intel is sweeping the market with their crap that can't hardly do more than surf the web makes 4 out of 7 days a week REALLY annoying.

 

[Bravo Company]

AMD.

Because 90% of all computers your average consumer purchases has an Intel board and an onboard Intel video chipset which doesn't support even DirectX 9.

Which results in me, as a tech support employee, having to tell tons of people every single day that they cannot run our games. Because even though their computer might be a mighty 2 days old. Their crappy onboard chipset doesn't support DirectX 9 in any capacity, and so they cannot effectively play any of the crap they want to play.

Granted, this is mostly the consumers fault for not knowing jack about their computers. But the fact that Intel is sweeping the market with their crap that can't hardly do more than surf the web makes 4 out of 7 days a week REALLY annoying.

+1

Forgot to mention price/perf for AMD is a huge win for me.

 

[Thereven]

Used both, I prefer Intel though. Always seem to have more problems with AMD.

 

[PewPewBangBang]

Don't really need to upgrade as much with intel........for instance. The core 2 quad are still just as fast as the Phenom II x4 if not faster in some cases. They are also faster clock for clock.

 

[GbrilliantQ]

Intel. I never had a problem paying a premium, plus i7's can just overclock like crazy.

 

[FreakingHell]

AMD.

Because 90% of all computers your average consumer purchases has an Intel board and an onboard Intel video chipset which doesn't support even DirectX 9.

Which results in me, as a tech support employee, having to tell tons of people every single day that they cannot run our games. Because even though their computer might be a mighty 2 days old. Their crappy onboard chipset doesn't support DirectX 9 in any capacity, and so they cannot effectively play any of the crap they want to play.

Granted, this is mostly the consumers fault for not knowing jack about their computers. But the fact that Intel is sweeping the market with their crap that can't hardly do more than surf the web makes 4 out of 7 days a week REALLY annoying.

This just makes no sense. It is 100% the purchasers fault. They need to research what they're buying. Some people don't need more than onboard graphics, that's why intel makes it.