I've always been an AMD guy, ever since my first AMD K6-2. Here is my list of AMD processors:
K6-2 333mhz
Thunderbird 1.2ghz
XP 2800+
64 3200+
Mobile 64 3700+

These are my personal machines, I've built a number of other AMDs for my family and work.

I haven't kept up on the latest processors though so I can't really speak for newer ones. A dual core machine would be awesome for me though.

 

I have used both and have had no problems with either. I now have 2 computers that are identical (Motherboards not the same but same Mfg.) but one had Intel and the other the = AMD. The both run all apps the same and without any glitches.

 

it also depends on what you use your pc for.if you are a gamer then its got to be (AMD)if you do office work then intel my 2 cents

 

Thats an old saying with very little to support it.

 

I thought it was the other way around, cause the intels had better FPU... a requirement for fast graphics.

 

I have been on computers For a very long time. I started with the 80X86 Than the 80X286, 386, 486, 586, etc. Long before the first GUI interface. I can't even begin ta count how many I have built. Most for friends that pay for the components. I can say from experience that the AMD is more stable and less prone to crash under heavy graphics and gaming than Intel. Celeron need not even be mentioned cuz it has no wright back cache and has to do all it's work in the Ram. Pentium is a fine chip. Sometimes it is ahead of AMD for a shot time. But It won't take the heat. If ya research the net the consensus is that AMD is the better buy. Because it is more stable. Intel is more prone to put a chip on the market that is not been tested enough. Just to stay ahead of AMD. But AMD will wait until they have it right before shipping. Yes they sent some bad ones out in the beginning and almost lost there shirt over it. So AMD make sure there chip is ready. Intel as you know is backed by Microsoft so Bill Gates team builds there OS around the Intel chip set. This means that most of the of the shelf name brand systems come with an Intel or celeron chip set for less than an AMD based system.

 

The main reason big box computers with intel chips are cheaper is that intel heavily subsidizes the advertising/promotion of those brand names and back in the day, would penalize companies if they even looked at AMD.

 

Boy ya got that right Furball. It's all about money and power.

 

You know, AMD does have a deal with Dell. So they are working on that front. Also, AMD now has their own chipset, probably resulting from the ATI acquisition. I never was an ATI fan. Started out as a 3DFX fan back in the day, then switched to Nvidia when 3DFX went under. Now I guess I'll probably go to ATI, against my better judgement. Used to be ATI's drivers were absolutely horrid, whereas Nvidia had the nice unified Detonator driver. I sincerely hope ATI's drivers have become better since then. I run Linux too; I hope their driver support for that has become better.

Oh, and on the stability/testing thing. Remember the Netburst Pentiums (Prescott etc.)? HOT! You want stability? Buy an Opteron. It costs a little more, but IMHO it's entirely worth it.

AMD seems to have the better platform at the moment, with the memory controller integrated on the processor, hyper transport, etc.

 

i work for dell and yes we deal with amd now. its mainly open to business but home users are starting to be able to purchase amd. i have a core 2 duo intel at work and ill have to say that its kickin serious butt because its folding faster than most of the pc's on there.

i also have 3 amd computers of my own.

amd 3000+ newcastle overclocked and watercooled
1gb ram, 9800 pro256 and 2 250gb hard drives raid 0

pc2
hp zv5000 laptop, amd 3000+ 512mb ram

pc3 - NEW
dell 1501 amd turion 64 x2 1gb ram and 256mb video

i also have 2 p3's at my house that are dells. they were free and thats about the only way i will by an intel for myself

Matt

 

The four dell's we just got at the office are all AMD and they work fine, and my Acer w/AMD also works fine. I always used to build my own but for what I need to do and the price of a big box cpu, it was a better deal for me to buy a box.

Dell wouldn't have been my personal choice and I REALLY disliked the fact that they called us and tried to upsale us a bunch of stuff because "the computers won't run Vista unless you upgrade them". Good thing I answered that call. I guess they get enough suckers on the line that buy everything they say. I really hate that kind of thing.

 

I still build my own, both for myself, relatives and customers. They all use AMD, and I firmly believe the advantages of building my own outweigh the disadvantages.

 

hehe, If I can say one thing about the box, it that this is my first legit copy of an OS since '91... so that's one advantage of buying a box, I guess.

 

I do tech support for A&M, on the Maintenance Side, and we are running Windows 2000 Workstations and Novell Servers, we are considering upgrading to XP...lol...

 

dam the man bill gates the riches man in the world and cant make a stable operating system and we still buy the lol