AMD or Intel

Hi all,
I feel AMD is good for only Games and small desk top applications..
Intel is very good for both higher end software or server application as well as small applications,I feel Intel is little bit better than AMD but I agree AMD price rates are very good than Intel.
Regards
 
joshua77 said:
Hi all,
I feel AMD is good for only Games and small desk top applications..
Intel is very good for both higher end software or server application as well as small applications,I feel Intel is little bit better than AMD but I agree AMD price rates are very good than Intel.
Regards
Have you ever heard of the Intel Core 2 Duo? It beats AMD in all current applications, gaming or not. For an AMD with the same performance of a Core 2 Duo, it would cost twice the price, Intel's Core 2 Duo prices are very cheap.
 
freestyler105 said:
Have you ever heard of the Intel Core 2 Duo? It beats AMD in all current applications, gaming or not. For an AMD with the same performance of a Core 2 Duo, it would cost twice the price, Intel's Core 2 Duo prices are very cheap.
yeah i agree that core duo pwns the amd dual core chips , but for a standard home user (internet , word processing , listening to music ,email ,other basic tasks)the lower end amd dual core chips are much better value and offer good enough perofmance for theese tasks , obviously you could use a single core chip for theese tasks but at less performance
 
muz379 said:
yeah i agree that core duo pwns the amd dual core chips , but for a standard home user (internet , word processing , listening to music ,email ,other basic tasks)the lower end amd dual core chips are much better value and offer good enough perofmance for theese tasks , obviously you could use a single core chip for theese tasks but at less performance
True, AMD has a better low-end for dual cores, the X2 3800+ is an excellent processor for only ~$100.
 
muz379 said:
yeah i agree that core duo pwns the amd dual core chips , but for a standard home user (internet , word processing , listening to music ,email ,other basic tasks)the lower end amd dual core chips are much better value and offer good enough perofmance for theese tasks , obviously you could use a single core chip for theese tasks but at less performance

not entirly. I use an AMD Athlon64 3200+, I run all my games at max settings, i can multitask, rip, burn, defrag, VERY fast. I'm not to sure if dual-core will have as much of an impact as i'm making it out to be or not. Because right now, this is the absolute fastest system I've ever had. The fastest system I'v ever been on had an Athlon64 X2 4400+, 2GBs RAM, SATA II hdd, screamin fast DVD drive, ABIT motherboard, the best one at the time, 7800GT OC. Was extremly fast. But between that and my PC, I don't notice any difference since I upgraded to AMD and SATA II and a better video card.

Is dual core worth it right now? Not to sure, I'm waiting for more 4000 series Core 2 Duos to come out. Until then, IDK.
 
I love dual core. I find there's a big difference between my computers and the school computers (mostly Pentium 4's). You're 3200+ might be fast, but a Core 2 Duo is much faster.

My X2 3800+ is blown away by the E6600. I get 18 seconds stock settings in the 1M SuperPi, 12 when it's OCed. The X2 3800+, I get over 40. In folding, 200,000 steps takes about an hour on this computer. E6600 - 15 minutes tops at stock settings. Haven't ripped any DVDs lately, so I can't really say.

Anyway, it's kind of a preference thing. If you multitask a lot (e-mail and IM and music and browse the internet type of thing) it does make a large difference. If you're content with what you have though, there's no reason to upgrade, wait a bit.

And didn't you love the upgrade to SATA II?? I thought it made a pretty big difference.
 
It's all in the architecture, buddy. :) Something that took Intel almost 2-3 years to realize. :p
 
AMD 157 50.00%
Intel 157 50.00%
Voters: 314. You have already voted on this poll

thats insane to be 50-50 like that after 314 votes
 
Back
Top Bottom