I like AMD personally. I have heard the Intel Core2 Duo 2 is quick too.

 

I voted Intel because that’s all I have, but when I’m in the market I look at both before I decide. They’re always jockeying for position so I go with what’s better at the time, so far it’s always been Intel.

 

Right now, Intel. The Core 2 Duo runs circles around the AMD. AMD's quad core is going to be tough though.

 

i've always ran intel

 

I haven't run intel since the celeron 266 (aka celeron 400) I think this is the sixth or seventh cpu since then... all AMD.

 

Who cares who has the fasest "super chip" on the market at the time? AMD offers better bang for your buck, hands down, undisputed.

 

AMD Forever. ARHRR AHRRR

 

most benchmarks show intel (Core 2) either running very very close or outperforming the amd (FXs and X2s)...i know in another post we were discussing RAID 0 and 1...so if it is performance you are going after, I defintely say go for the intel...and just to prove I am not an intel hack, i am not typing this post on an AMD or an Intel...I personally like the PowerPCs...

 

Intel. They are always simple and straight forward to set up and overclock if that is your thing.

I have a Prescott 3.0 D0 that will run 4.2 with the right RAM. As it sits with 2x1gb Corsair XMS RAM, it can only do 3.75ish but with very little voltage.

But when you get right down to it, either work just fine and you can only tell the difference in benchmarks and in multi threading back when Intel had HT tech and AMD only had single core.

Mike

 

Over the years, since the first CPU AMD made, they have been pretty quick little buggers.

Generally, a 2:1 speed over Intel. As in, an AMD and an Intel of the same speed, the AMD would do twice as much in the same time.

For real production type stuff, I never use AMD, or haven't so far, anyway.

I recently bought a laptop with an AMD x64 dual-core, and at 1.6Ghz, it's at least as fast as my 3.0Ghz Intel desktop... and being a dual core vs. "hyperthread" CPU, it should really sing multithreading...

"Back in the day" I wouldn't suggest AMD, because I witnessed way too many glitches with certain things that should never have been an issue.

Today? I wouldn't be afraid of them.

Or not too much for home use, anyway.

PS: Don't get me wrong, I'm not downing AMD - so no flames please

 

I've always had good luck with both. AMD actually promotes open source development (mainly in linux by supporting companies that opt to pre-install) where Intel tends to be more supportive of the Microsoft crap. So I vote for AMD. Chip for Chip the AMD runs coolers, uses less power, and often has a slower clock speed, yet it does the same amount of work or more than it's intel counterpart. The dual core Intel is a joke, AMD has plenty of Dual core chips out as well and they will run circles around the intels. The quad core chips should really make intel go "What the !?"...

 

Right now Intel is number one. The Core Two Duo is faster then any of AMD's processors. They are number one on the market at the moment. I have the Core Two Duo and it is not slow...

 

I voted AMD. I dont agree with some of the corporate policies of Intel, which I will not get into.

As much as I hate to admit it, Intel has the faster processor right now, the C2D. They also have a quad core version of this, the QX6700. Before that, AMD's K8 was thoroughly faster than anything Intel had... Wait 'till K8L comes out though, AMD will have it again. It goes back and forth. I'm sure when AMD is back on the performance throne, Intel will cut prices. Same story played out over and over again.

I personally like to buy processors from their server line, namely the Opterons. More thorough testing usually equals better overclocking. Also, and you wont hear this elsewhere, when you buy a higher level Opteron, like 185 vs. 165, you not only get more multipliers, you're very likely to get a better stepping than the lower level processor.

Of course, AMD's been releasing new sockets every time someone sneezes, and that's getting kind of annoying.

 

I've had good luck and bad luck with both Intel and AMD. I've also use the Cyrix (sp???) processors, in the past. (486 DX2-80. What a blazingly fast machine!?! )

As long as the machine is stable and will do what I need it to do. . . that is all that matters. (O.K., I lied. Price matters, too!)

My laptop is Intel. My desktop is AMD. Both do what I need them to do.

 

Like I even know the difference!
Nuts and bolts and belts and gears I can talk about.
The invisible comings and goings of gajillions of electrons through nearly atomic-sized circuits is not something I care to know about in any depth.
If it do what I ask it to do, I am fine with it.