AMD or Intel

[ownage]

2007 is too early to tell if its going to be AMD's year. K8L might not even do that well. Now that kentsfield is out, who knows what AMD is going to do. There will also be a release of new Intel chipsets in 2007 too. So all we can do is wait and see.

[alvino]

Originally Posted by rakedog

Oh the AM2 will come back as the next revolution in CPU's as far as memory control. But first memory has to become fast enough to utilize it. And 2007 will probably be AMD's home turf again. But this year looks like Intel made the better improvements.

And yeah, the polls are interesting. I'm an AMD-fan of course, as always, but a year ago AMD had about 2/3 of the votes.. now it's half and half. Interesting.

Well techically, the AM2 socket already has way higher memory bandwidth compared to Core 2 Duo, but it's purely theoretical and in real-life apps would never be used. It's too early to see who will rule 2007, because both companies hold very interesting cards, so we will see when the time comes.

[Computer Head]

Right now I am liking Intel because they have the conroe that will give them an advantage, but any other day, I would have selected AMD.

[ISOwner]

Right now, AMD as well but looks like Intel is coming on strong. The Core Duo's are very energy friendly when it comes to mobile processing. My Turion system drains the battery dry in less than an hour.

[ownage]

Intel has always been the top in mobile computing with their Pentium Ms. Now, they take that concept, apply it with Netburst's clock speeds, and they are dominating.

[alvino]

Originally Posted by TRDCorolla

Right now, AMD as well but looks like Intel is coming on strong. The Core Duo's are very energy friendly when it comes to mobile processing. My Turion system drains the battery dry in less than an hour.

Yup. Intel has released a new Core Duo variant. I think it's the ULV (Ultra Low Voltage) T2400. It has a TDP of 9W and usually never surpasses 1W in real use.

[Sytheious]

I prefer Intel for many many reasons. They offer a lot more processors within a rather large price range, such as a dual core for roughly $100, and then an Extreme for well over a $1000. They consistenly bring out new technologies, which is always good. They also have a lot of CPUs in stock at retailers and e-tailers. So supply is virtually never out.

Second, the company makes roughly 10 times more then AMD does. So in terms of money, Intel hands down. Not only that though, but Intel offers a very good price-to-performance ratio. Peopel to often say, "yeah well an FX-60 is better!" Really? Is somethign $1000 that good if it can be beaten by a $100 dollar CPu then a $100 water cooling kit to overclcok then outright beat it? I think Intel offers a better price-to-performance ratio simply because of their capability.

I may come across as a fan boy, but I kid you not when I'm totally open to either company's products. Seeing as how either CPu still processes the same data, it's all I/O so it doesn't matter to me, but whe it comes to which is better in MY opinion, then I think with these very reasons I choose Intel.

[ownage]

Personally, when the prescotts came out and the venices and sandiegos were out, AMD was the king. They had the best performance/price. Intel was just lagging too far behind to be worth the money to buy. but now that Conroe, Allendale, Woodcrest, and Merom are coming out with extremely competitive prices, Intel will take the lead.

[alvino]

Definately. There's news that AMD's lowest dual-core CPU, the X2 3600+ will cost about $139 to $159. Intel's lowest-bin Core 2 Duo will cost $183 and their lowest-bin Netburst based Pentium D will cost $93. So even with the upcoming budget dual-core, Intel still beats AMD out in terms of price and performance. Sure, the Pentium D 805 sucks when stock, but overclock that baby and watch it fly, for only $93!

[ArrizX]

This is now the official thread.