next »

[dlewis87]

Which do you prefer? Intel or AMD

Personally I Prefer Intel. I have had a few AMD systems and they have been good, but I just seem to come back to intel every time.

[.s1]

I really cannot vote one or the other. Basically because the fact of the matter is ;

AMD : Gaming / Small time business

INTEL : Larger business applications / Gaming

But if i had to choose id go Intel.

[starT]

Its gotta be intel for me. The core 2 duo kicks ass

[mike]

Intel as Well

[Coknuck]

I've had both but prefer Intel

[catman]

AMD for me

[bretwoodasdfg]

AMD all the way! I have many AMD Computers ranging anywhere from my 2400+ Athlon XP, my 3500+ Athlon 64, my 4400+ or 6000+ Athlon 64 X2 Dual Cores or my 9600+ Phenom Quad core!

[bretwoodasdfg]

And the most I spent was 176 dollars for my quadcore a week ago!

[Coknuck]

Should have bought an Intel and been a head of the game!

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/12/pentium_dual_core/

[justinlay]

And the most I spent was 176 dollars for my quadcore a week ago!

What quad core did you get? I just spent 270 dollars on mine, but it also came with a copy of vista, and a intel board

[.s1]

Funny part about the quad-cores and dual-cores for that matter , is that most people dont ..um.. for lack of better terms.. " use " them to its potential. If you edit video or MAJOR multi-task using severe resource programs, you just wasted 200 bucks on a top of the line processor just top say you have it. In things like gaming and normal use, the threading will still only be consumed by one of the cores. :shrug:

[dlewis87]

Funny part about the quad-cores and dual-cores for that matter , is that most people dont ..um.. for lack of better terms.. " use " them to its potential. If you edit video or MAJOR multi-task using severe resource programs, you just wasted 200 bucks on a top of the line processor just top say you have it. In things like gaming and normal use, the threading will still only be consumed by one of the cores. :shrug:

Not really any more. Most programs today are threaded too take advantage of more then 1 core. Or with vista for example its threaded too balance non threaded apps across all available cores.

There really isnt a reason anymore too not get a dual core if not a quad core processor for even the average user.

[lainmaster]

From what I have read, Intel used to be better than AMD, but then something happened at the company, they got delayed and AMD took advantage of this. They then developped a new technology, which now owns Intel. Basically, if an AMD says 3000 of whatever or whatever, and Intel says 3000, AMD will go faster. That's a fact. And then, AMD is a little bit cheaper. I always use AMD.

[dlewis87]

From what I have read, Intel used to be better than AMD, but then something happened at the company, they got delayed and AMD took advantage of this. They then developped a new technology, which now owns Intel. Basically, if an AMD says 3000 of whatever or whatever, and Intel says 3000, AMD will go faster. That's a fact. And then, AMD is a little bit cheaper. I always use AMD.

The Intel Core Series Processors are far better and faster then any AMD Processor. AMD was faster then intel for about 3 years, But now Intel is kicking AMD's ass. And AMD has nothing that can even challenge Intel coming around any time soon.

[lainmaster]

Oh well the info I had was out of date after all... I guess Intel is good again xD Is it cheaper too? Not like I  need a new comp, but it'd be good to know.