Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/6/2002 3:58:59 PM EDT
OK. What do you use/prefer for a processor and why? I just ordered a new computer and stuck with AMD.I liked it in my first 'puter. Do Pentium's have some trackable code? Computer guys, step up to the plate. BP
Link Posted: 8/6/2002 4:04:18 PM EDT
I've always used AMD because of the cost savings. Not that I have a lot of experience, but I have built a few systems.
Link Posted: 8/6/2002 4:17:12 PM EDT
I use Intel chips in all my production machines, AMD in my personal stuff. The AMD's seem to be a little flakier and less stable than the Intel for me. When you are supporting users in a work enviroment, the less that can go wrong the better. I am not sure if it is the AMD chip itself or the el-cheapo motherboards I usually set them in that cause the problems. In my current AMD motherboard combo the USB seems flaky and sometimes forgets what is attached. Sometimes I just get spontanious lockup with no related cause. I haven't felt the need to really investigate as a reboot usually solves it. Some of the worst machines I have ever had were the old AMD K63D and others in that era. Nasty. I am currently rolling out P4 2GHz on generic motherboards with 266 memory and they are stable as can be. Not nasty [:)] YMMV
Link Posted: 8/6/2002 4:25:42 PM EDT
One of my busines partners is a gamer. He builds AMD boxes for gaming and has six server'ed together at his home to play. He's BAD NEWS. At the office all his machines are Intel powered. Go figure.
Link Posted: 8/6/2002 7:15:00 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/6/2002 7:25:24 PM EDT
AMD in PC Intel in laptop
Link Posted: 8/6/2002 7:26:54 PM EDT
AMD is definitely the way to go. You simply get better performance for less money. What's not to love about that?? BTW, I have an Athlon 900MHz and an Athlon 1.4 GHz. They are both extremely stable and reliable. NO complaints. And I just recently retired a K6-2 450 MHZ that was a solid machine as well. IMHO, the only thing you get when you buy an Intel chip is the name.
Link Posted: 8/6/2002 7:51:37 PM EDT
Intel: More money True 512 on board cache memory 533 front bus speed Runs on less power Runs cooler More Overclockability AMD: Less money (not cheap) 256 on board cache memory 266 front bus speed Needs more power Runs hotter Less Overclockability Less Money (not cheap) I myself have had no problems with the Intel stuff, and my friends who are die-hard AMD users never have any problems with their stuff. If money is a concern go with the AMD. If you "have to have" the latest and greatest then go with the Intel. Of course by the time this gets posted AMD will have come out with it's next generation chip that will re-spank Intel!
Link Posted: 8/6/2002 8:01:34 PM EDT
Not a "Computer guy", but I have a 1.2 Athlon in a system that I put together with parts bought at the local electronics market here in Korea. No problems so far, other than the chip running hotter than I'd like, which bugs the hell out of me but like I said, no problems. Went with the AMD because of cost. Chris
Link Posted: 8/6/2002 8:02:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By USNJoe: Of course by the time this gets posted AMD will have come out with it's next generation chip that will re-spank Intel!
View Quote
Heh yup...also seems like AMD has less problems when releasing their product as opposed to Intel where it takes a couple tries before they get all the bugs out...
Link Posted: 8/6/2002 8:05:37 PM EDT
AMD. I had the old K6/2 and the 3s. The new XPs rock. I have had PII and pIII. Did good but my AMD systems always performed better. I have an XP1800+ in my system and have zero stability/performance problems.
Link Posted: 8/6/2002 8:06:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/6/2002 8:07:53 PM EDT by NOVA5]
AMD = better performer in most areas. now the new 2.4Ghz intels beat out(but 2-10%) the 1.7 Ghz AMDs. AMD is now moving up to a 333Mhz FSB. and is set to jump over intel again and hold the lead on performance for a few more years. although Intels have a higher speed that doesnt always mean the perform better. [url]www.tomshardware.com[/url] is a good place to go for hardware reviews. as is [url]www.anandtech.com[/url] and a few others. the strange thing is you will see certian games prefer intels and others prefer AMDs here are 2 old games that shows prefence. Duke3D = AMD lover. Quake = Intel lover. they bot ran good on the other chip just ran better on the prefered.although now its passed that point for games. its the vid cards that matter for games. i run all AMDs in my systems the only crashes are related to software im forcing to run when its not really happy running on that OS. 1900+ in my server (1.6Ghz) 2000+ in my main (1.664Ghz)
Link Posted: 8/6/2002 8:08:02 PM EDT
I have used both quite alot and the only difference I can see, not read on the stats section of the box, is the packaging. They both run great in my opinion but the AMD is faster and much cheaper. Keving67
Link Posted: 8/6/2002 8:08:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/6/2002 8:09:31 PM EDT by colinjay]
as someone who builds computers for fun... USN JOE hit the nail on the head for this one... things will have changed though by the time i finally finsh this sentence! Intel is [b]currently[/b] whupping up in the enthusiast market by virtue of AMD hitting a slowdown in agressive stepping, overhead for overclocking, smaller on die cache, and lower fsb. The Thoroughbred, the new AMD processor is due to hit the market soon and who knows what the future may hold for AMD. Initial reprts were not optimistic on overclocking, but it looks as though is may have the larger cache of the Intel. my guess is that AMD will once again be nearly matching Intel performace for roughly 1/2 to 1/3 the price. Money well spent on cooling solutions for the AMD's as well as some kick butt software to put the GHz to good use. Here are some sites to peruse: [url]www.anandtech.com[/url] [url]www.hardocp.com[/url] < I swear this one is family/work safe :)
Link Posted: 8/6/2002 8:13:02 PM EDT
AMD for personal use, its a better made processor, doesn't have as extensive instructions, but that is a good thing. Instruction cycles are shorter, thus leading to more performance for the given clock-rate. Intel processors are just the opposite. They have extensive instructions that do a lot of operations in one cycle. These instructions WOULD make the chip a lot better/faster for some applications IF the instructions were used by programmers and built into compiler optimizations. The only problem is that they are processor dependant, and thus non-standard and so they are not used often. The biggest advantage for the consumer is that Intel processors have built in over-heating protection. This is the ONLY reason that I recommend my clients use Intel processors. I personally will stick with AMD for the cost savings, but I keep a watch on my machine for dust build-up and other problems. Jonathan
Top Top