AMD or Intel

[TRDCorolla1]

I have some roadmaps floating around here somewhere between both Intel and AMD through 2009-2010. Man, from the looks of things, don't count out AMD just yet. THey have some good stuff up their sleeves that Intel need to watch out for. Or they'll get smoked like the time when the first Athlon 64 came out.

 

[Rudster8161]

Until recently i used have always had one of each platform.

Intel has always been my main machine (for last 5 years anyway). They have always been a little more reliable and multi tasked MUCH better.

While earlier AMD gave good value they dont really have that market anymore thanks to the easily overclocked and now aggresivily priced Intels.

C2D's are overpriced IMO, they can pop 1000 C2D's for like 300$ now, the research and equipment cost must have been HUGE to have to sell them that high.

 

[jlm7315]

Well AMD has the only true quad-core right? But from what I understand it kinda sucks even compared to Intel's "Quad Core" which, isn't just 2 core 2 duos?

 

[freestyler105]

Well AMD has the only true quad-core right? But from what I understand it kinda sucks even compared to Intel's "Quad Core" which, isn't just 2 core 2 duos?

Correct. Unfortunately, even the lower end Intel Q6600 blows the AMD out of the water.

 

[jlm7315]

Well does AMD have any plans to release a better product, cause as I understand it Intel is looking at releasing a line of mid year 2008 that includes 45nm technology.

 

[freestyler105]

This article has some good info:
http://xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/displa...ocessor_Phenom_FX_May_Face_Further_Delay.html

 

[Rudster8161]

i want a black edition CPU SO BAD!!!!

 

[jlm7315]

I certainly would not mind one myself, but it really sounds like Intel has the leg up on AMD still.

 

[bobert1]

intel ,not sure y .just allways have

 

[MooseMan1]

At this rate, intel is going to have to start paying AMD to keep them alive so they don't have monopoly issues...