AMD vs Intel

[Ultima]

Please share with us why you like one versus the other. If you do not care or prefer ARM chips, choose "other."

[Guest]

Uhm. I voted other - I like Intel because they tend to benchmark better / perform better for gaming. But, I usually choose AMD because the quality to price ratio is better with them, you can get an affordable build with a pretty good processor for a lot cheaper.

So, I like them both for different reasons. And I am asexual. :D

[Ultima]

Uhm. I voted other - I like Intel because they tend to benchmark better / perform better for gaming. But, I usually choose AMD because the quality to price ratio is better with them, you can get an affordable build with a pretty good processor for a lot cheaper.

So, I like them both for different reasons. And I am asexual. :D

Yeah, I have never said to others who ask me for advice, that Intel isn't better, but when you consider price, AMD starts looking a lot better. Especially, because when you consider Intel's and AMD's top processors the differences are really program specific because when you look at general computing for example: AMD's FX8350 is a close second to many of Intel's socket 2011 processors. And other factors in your system affect overall performance as well (i.e. graphics card, memory, and disk performance) when looking at the best processors available.

[5_♦♣]

No preference and I'm Asexual.

[butterflydreams]

Me 10 years ago would hate present me for saying this, but I'm sorry, the 22nm quad core i7s just rock my proverbial socks off.

[Guest]

Asexual, and I used to prefer AMD (both my current computers run on AMD Phenoms), because for a very long time, they consistently had the edge in the price-to-power comparison. (Intel usually was somewhat more powerful, but a lot more expensive.)

They've recently lost that advantage (the price difference remained the same, but the power gap has grown...), so the next computer I'll be getting (I'm planning on retiring one for an upgrade end of the year, because due to an inheritance coming in, I will for once have excess cash to spend) will be the first Intel chip for me in over a decade. :)

[Ultima]

Asexual, and I used to prefer AMD (both my current computers run on AMD Phenoms), because for a very long time, they consistently had the edge in the price-to-power comparison. (Intel usually was somewhat more powerful, but a lot more expensive.)

They've recently lost that advantage (the price difference remained the same, but the power gap has grown...), so the next computer I'll be getting (I'm planning on retiring one for an upgrade end of the year, because due to an inheritance coming in, I will for once have excess cash to spend) will be the first Intel chip for me in over a decade. :)

Are you talking about the new socket 2011-3 processors that use DDR4?

[Guest]

Asexual, and I used to prefer AMD (both my current computers run on AMD Phenoms), because for a very long time, they consistently had the edge in the price-to-power comparison. (Intel usually was somewhat more powerful, but a lot more expensive.)

They've recently lost that advantage (the price difference remained the same, but the power gap has grown...), so the next computer I'll be getting (I'm planning on retiring one for an upgrade end of the year, because due to an inheritance coming in, I will for once have excess cash to spend) will be the first Intel chip for me in over a decade. :)

Are you talking about the new socket 2011-3 processors that use DDR4?

Nope, I' never going for new and SOTA (that segment is always too pricey for me, even with cash to burn). But currently, there simply isn't much anything by AMD in the "upper middle class" segment that I shoot for when buying a new system, let alone above it.

[Chewy]

Did Intel buy McAfee? I drove pass the McAfee office in Plano TX and now says Intel Security.

[Ultima]

Did Intel buy McAfee? I drove pass the McAfee office in Plano TX and now says Intel Security.

http://www.mcafee.com/us/about/intel-mcafee.aspx

Looks like it.

And that would explain the new security features found in the Haswell series processors.

[noparlpf]

I don't have much preference either way. As stated, cheaper AMD processors are better than cheaper Intel processors, but expensive Intel processors are better than expensive AMD processors. I don't game much so I might go for an AMD that could handle occasional gaming without being super-expensive.

[Kelly]

GlobalFoundries (of Abu Dhabi) purchased the Dresden AMD Fab (I visited them many times before and after) and are about to purchase the IBM Fab in Vermont. Intel is closing its Massachusetts Fab.

I work in the semiconductor business. I liked AMD but have not yet visited an Intel Fab.

[Xavy]

Asexual and prefer Intel, but I have nothing against amd, it's just that most of my laptops over the years have been Intel powered, and I have never had a complaint.

[Guest]

Uhm. I voted other - I like Intel because they tend to benchmark better / perform better for gaming. But, I usually choose AMD because the quality to price ratio is better with them, you can get an affordable build with a pretty good processor for a lot cheaper.

So, I like them both for different reasons. And I am asexual. :D

Yeah, I have never said to others who ask me for advice, that Intel isn't better, but when you consider price, AMD starts looking a lot better. Especially, because when you consider Intel's and AMD's top processors the differences are really program specific because when you look at general computing for example: AMD's FX8350 is a close second to many of Intel's socket 2011 processors. And other factors in your system affect overall performance as well (i.e. graphics card, memory, and disk performance) when looking at the best processors available.

Last computer I built was a FX8350 setup. The i7 was better, but $200 higher on the price. Will probably go i7 for next build, since I will have more money to put into it.

[Ultima]

Asexual and prefer Intel, but I have nothing against amd, it's just that most of my laptops over the years have been Intel powered, and I have never had a complaint.

Actually, all my laptops had Intel as well. And all my desktops have been AMD.

[Skycaptain]

I'm asexual, and voted "other" because I cannot tell any difference between them.

[Guest]

Asexual and a fan of Intel. Many years ago I used to be a AMD boy though. After I switched to Intel, I've not wanted to go back since.

[Guest Cairne Bloodhoof]

I am ace and I am not fan of either. I had AMD CPUs in the past, but now I have Intel i3 CPU. I just buy things that suits my needs- low price, low power comsuption and a bit of performance. I don't need to have the newest and most powerfull things in my PC :-)

[Ultima]

I am ace and I am not fan of either. I had AMD CPUs in the past, but now I have Intel i3 CPU. I just buy things that suits my needs- low price, low power comsuption and a bit of performance. I don't need to have the newest and most powerfull things in my PC :-)

This is really the best way to buy a computer unless you have a need for high performance.

[Guest]

I am ace and I am not fan of either. I had AMD CPUs in the past, but now I have Intel i3 CPU. I just buy things that suits my needs- low price, low power comsuption and a bit of performance. I don't need to have the newest and most powerfull things in my PC :-)

CPU's usually come with their own fans. :P

[Guest]

CPU's usually come with their own fans. :P

And they're so insecure that without their own fans, they tend to quickly go full meltdown and never recover.

[Guest]

Other I am using a power pc lol

[Guest]

CPU's usually come with their own fans. :P

And they're so insecure that without their own fans, they tend to quickly go full meltdown and never recover.

That sounds like Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

[Mioav]

I've up until recently always been an AMD person, but recently the chips they offer have been very substandard, so I'll likely give Intel a try for my next chip and go from there.

[Tercy]

In threads like this, sooner or later someone usually comes along throwing around technical terms that they know no one will understand, but it at least impresses everyone. I hate those people.

With that said, AMD once had stronger FPU performance which is why it was favoured amongst gamers (and once the gamers started hyping it, everyone else got on board even though they didn't really know why). Then Intel closed the gap and also made other architectural improvements* - so for the time being, Intel generally offers the best performance for most people's needs and budgets.

* This post originally contained far more technical jargon in the name of comic effect, but I was concerned that the humour element might be overlooked and I would just come off as pompous

[Ultima]

In threads like this, sooner or later someone usually comes along throwing around technical terms that they know no one will understand, but it at least impresses everyone. I hate those people.

With that said, AMD once had stronger FPU performance which is why it was favoured amongst gamers (and once the gamers started hyping it, everyone else got on board even though they didn't really know why). Then Intel closed the gap and also made other architectural improvements* - so for the time being, Intel generally offers the best performance for most people's needs and budgets.

* This post originally contained far more technical jargon in the name of comic effect, but I was concerned that the humour element might be overlooked and I would just come off as pompous

You know, people keep talking FPU performance, but as I understand it, FPUs are meant to handle astronomically high numbers which only really matters for certain simulator games. So unless you are really heavy into simulator, the FPU performance is not really that significant.

[Tercy]

You know, people keep talking FPU performance, but as I understand it, FPUs are meant to handle astronomically high numbers which only really matters for certain simulator games. So unless you are really heavy into simulator, the FPU performance is not really that significant.

FPUs operate on floating point numbers which are used by pretty much every graphics library and game engine. There's no direct relationship between an FPU and "astronomically high numbers." If anything, so-called "bignum arithmetic" is usually calculated in software by a math library rather than anything built into the processor itself.

[Guest]

In threads like this, sooner or later someone usually comes along throwing around technical terms that they know no one will understand, but it at least impresses everyone. I hate those people.

With that said, AMD once had stronger FPU performance which is why it was favoured amongst gamers (and once the gamers started hyping it, everyone else got on board even though they didn't really know why). Then Intel closed the gap and also made other architectural improvements* - so for the time being, Intel generally offers the best performance for most people's needs and budgets.

* This post originally contained far more technical jargon in the name of comic effect, but I was concerned that the humour element might be overlooked and I would just come off as pompous

Funny, I thought FL performance was measured in FLOPS. :P It's the Floating Point Operations Per Second and the FLOPS per watt which matters. However, graphic cards are supposed to handle FLO's better than CPU's now and all other graphic related work. Lately (at least with Intel) it's more about increasing the core count, increasing the amount of work done per clock cycle, increasing the cache and making chips more energy efficient. For low profile users, the integrated graphics is enough.

[boxed toast]

They both serve a purpose. Intel is a much better company, and they have a solid model down and are just improving it from release to release. AMD is still struggling to produce a solid model that can compete with an i7. However, AMD makes good cheap stuff.

[Tercy]

Funny, I thought FL performance was measured in FLOPS. :P It's the Floating Point Operations Per Second and the FLOPS per watt which matters. However, graphic cards are supposed to handle FLO's better than CPU's now and all other graphic related work. Lately (at least with Intel) it's more about increasing the core count, increasing the amount of work done per clock cycle, increasing the cache and making chips more energy efficient. For low profile users, the integrated graphics is enough.

FLOPS is used to "measure" (estimate, technically) performance. ;) AMD started to win favour with the gamers back in the days when CUDA and its ilk were either non-existent, clumsy to use and/or not especially powerful (~5 years ago). The CPU was and can still be used for and to assist the GPU with a number of things e.g. in the PS3 one of the SPEs would sometimes be used for tessellation in the absence of hardware tessellation like what the 360 had.

Just to clarify: I'm not saying that Intel currently dominates because of FPU performance.