Hey guys, I am building a new computer this up coming weekend. Whats your guys's opinions of Intel and Amd? I have been getting mixed comments about them, just curious what you guys think!

 

When I built my computer last year I went with Intel. Mainly because I am more familiar with their processors. You might want to check out the forums at www.pcmech.com for some good info.

 

I have always used AMD, never had any problems. I usually can buy a faster AMD processor for less cash then an Intel...

Really though, they are both excellent, and you won't go wrong either way.

 

Only bad thing I have heard about intel is that they run warmer. Not that they run hot, just warmer then an Amd.

 

10 years ago it was the other way around.
I've always loved AMD and avoid Intel. (But both will do an adequate job)
I'd say just buy the one that gives you the most bang for the buck.

I've just always avoided Intel because the old saying was that they had more lawyers than engineers on their payroll. Not sure of the accuracy of that statement.

 

Oh boy, I came back just in time. I'm a heavy, heavy www.tech-forums.net user. I can't stand there liberalness, so I decided to leave it behind...

I'm an amd user, and proud. Here's the GENERAL summary. Feel free to drop me an e- mail if you feel like you want more information

AMD:
Athlon 64 Series:
Efficient, cool architecture. Look for "Venice, San Diego" cores, assuming you're going with the single core solution
Opteron Series:
Server CPUs for AMD, found to be almost identical to the Athlon series. They use higher quality processes and silicon, allowing for more overclocking room

Intel:
Pentium 4: Hot, inefficient, bad news altogether.
Pentium M: Runs cool, more effiecient. It's a basic form of what's on the horizon.

Overall, current CPU market is going to get butt-whipped by AMD, all around.
This summer, both companies are releasing new processors. Intel is making a Conroe core that looks to be unbelievable, only available in dual core. AMD is launching the AM2 core, lookign like it's falling a little short of Conroe. It's highly similar to socket 939, but slightly more efficient, and includes DDR2 support.

Ryan

 

I used to work in Dallas, Texas and I lived in Plano, Texas. On the way to and from work I would always pass the Cyrix/IBM factory. Too bad they didn't stay around and give them all a little more competition, but it's SOOOOO hard to stay competitive when you are on the outside looking in.

The Cyrix processors were okay for a second computer.

 

AMD for me. That's all I put in to my computers and I steer others to AMD also. Cheaper, more processing power. Check out Tom's Hardware Guide CPU charts http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html. Intel will beat AMD in certain areas but it's up to you.

 

amd = faster for cheaper

 

I've always like AMD chips for one reason. They really aren't optimized for microsoft products. There is the Athlon XP line, that was designed to boost the performance of windows XP, but they really are great chips even for a linux machine. I've always used AMD, I have a few intels that I inherited from my uncle, but I dislike them. They tend to be less than stable.

 

You also have to throw in that the AMD Athlon 64 series has an integrated memory controller, offering buckets of bandwidth to the ram. Which is WHY AMD didn't have to go to DDR2 memory till now. (Actually, I think they're going to DDR2 from pressure from the memory companies.) They offer more bandwidth, and more work per cycle, hence the lower clock speed. I have my Athlon 64 3000+ originally at 1.8ghz upped to 2.4, and will overclock it further when I get a more stable power supply. They go a LONG way on stock air cooling!

Ryan

 

This is yet another topic in an verrrryyyy long list of eternal debates.

My suggestion is to find both an Intel and an AMD processor that fits your budget & needs. Then do as close of a feature by feature comparison as you can. The devil is in the details.

Both manufacturers will fudge numbers or use relatively invalid test results in order to give the illusion that they are the better performer. To be brutally honest, if one was so much better than the other, the other would be driven out of business by now.

 

For your parts go to newegg.com. You can get everything from them at a lower price than going the different vendors route and with less hassle. My son and I build a dozen or so systems a year from them and have for ~5 years. Go with Fedex shipping tho. Never had a problem with Fedex. Last system came UPS and was damaged. Cost me money, hassle, and time!!!

As for processor, go AMD 64 bit. We have built several Intel systems tho and use Intel 32 bit processors for them. AMD made a mistake giving the 32 bit market back to Intel. -just my 2¢

Hardware info here: http://www.nvmax.com/

 

Been using AMD for quite a while now, can't go wrong. Can't support a company (intel) that profits 8 Billion clear / year and has to use bully techniques to keep the underdog down. Celeron 266 was the last Intel chip I bought, 4 or 5 AMD's later...

 

AMD by all means. You can over clock a AMD CPU like crazy. Intel has faster clocking speeds, but they are actually SLOWER, they can't functionally process as much as a AMD.

Intel was passed by AMD in performance with the PIII. After that, I wouldn't buy a Intel chip.

Intel has good marketing, and AMD mainly uses word of mouth in the tech world, and the word is getting out.

All that said, get a AMD athlon 64.