Amd Or Intel

#1 Intel & NVIDIA, without a doubt. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't know their hardware.

#2 Intel i have an amd it isnt that good as intel.My friend has an intel

#3 The intel core 2 duo is better than the AMD, but both are "good enough". Deciding factor - is one setup so much cheaper that you can buy a better video card? My suspicion: Prolly not so go with the Intel/NVIDIA rig.

#4 :Intel & NVIDIA, without a doubt. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't know their hardware.

I would have to disagree with this startment. I would go AMD and GeForce. AMD is a better gaming processor then the intel and I have had good experance with Nivida. If you do more video/audio encoding go with the intel.

#5 I have more luck with AMD in performance.

#6

Quote:Intel & NVIDIA, without a doubt. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't know their hardware.

This is probably the most unintelligent and incorrect statement I've ever seen on these forums. I build computers almost 1 after the other and I am a senior software and web programmer as well as an Indie game programmer. I work with and on both AMD and Intel every day. AMD outperforms and outlasts any Intel processor I've ever owned ever since the days of the original AMD Athlon processor.

To say that Intel is blanket better than AMD and that we are uneducated in hardware if we disagree is a completely ignorant stance on the subject.

AMD is KNOWN in the industry as a better gaming processor and multimedia processor. When Intel launched dual core, it wasn't even true dual core (2 processors on 1 chip) it was 2 chips on 1 silicon 'wafer'.

I'll put any of my AMD pimp boxes against anyone's Intel pimp box any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Sometimes Intel will put out a proc that beats all the current AMD procs, but most of the time, AMD is in the lead as far as gamers and game developers are concerned.

#7 ::This is probably the most unintelligent and incorrect statement I've ever seen on these forums. I build computers almost 1 after the other and I am a senior software and web programmer as well as an Indie game programmer. I work with and on both AMD and Intel every day. AMD outperforms and outlasts any Intel processor I've ever owned ever since the days of the original AMD Athlon processor.

To say that Intel is blanket better than AMD and that we are uneducated in hardware if we disagree is a completely ignorant stance on the subject.

AMD is KNOWN in the industry as a better gaming processor and multimedia processor. When Intel launched dual core, it wasn't even true dual core (2 processors on 1 chip) it was 2 chips on 1 silicon 'wafer'.

I'll put any of my AMD pimp boxes against anyone's Intel pimp box any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Sometimes Intel will put out a proc that beats all the current AMD procs, but most of the time, AMD is in the lead as far as gamers and game developers are concerned.

Word

#8 .65 nm...

I hate telling stories like 3-4 times. When I worked for Motorola Austin I had a friend who was at AMD in Austin. They where cutting 486 chips with diamond wet saw, photographing then having meetings to figure out how they work. AMD is using a very old X86 production license that a Fed Judge ruled they could keep on using after the contract expired.

I think it's great that AMD is there. Great competition but they make emulators for the most part. Nvidia ate up 3dfx, which was the grandfather 3dfx add on card for GPU acceleration for the masses.

ATI has been on the heels trying to keep up with Nvidia / 3dfx line of cards every since. And as I have post in the TGEA private forum ATI has made hardware decisions to cut costs and is still not 100% SM 3.0 hardware compliant. They are running 2 gen's behind now with SM4.0 on the Nvidia 8000 series GPU's.

Not to mention Nvidia also has a line of OpenGL accelerators used for motion picture and tv rendering etc.

Intel has mastered .65nm first.. so for now they have the lead.. if they can pull off .45 they will have another crazy impossible leap on Moores law.

I am biased as I have administrated over 20,000 Intel based CPU's from Zenith Z100, Tempests, 286, PCIII contract blah blah (military buys for whole bases). AMD is good but I like Coke not Pepsi

Seriously without AMD intel would drag feet and we would be years and $$$ behind. Same with ATI.

But that's just my biased point of view (I own intel stock too ** disclaimer).

#9 You see.. that's the sad part of threads like this one. People who 'prefer' one over the other will get old data from the one they don't like and as new of data as possible from the one they do. Vashner, you may have seen a lot of Intel boxes or own stock or whatever, but that doesn't make your statements correct.

If Intel is so much better and always has been, why then do they keep declining AMD's challenges?

Quote:the full page ad, featured in today's editions of the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury News, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal, has AMD challenging Intel to a dual-core server-chip benchmarking head-to-head.

Of course, Intel said 'hell no' as usual (this isn't the first time AMD has challenged Intel to a challenge of their technologies).

Instead of boasting opinions, how about shooting out some actual tests that have been run? Tests by major companies and not someone saying "yea, I ran this and it showed that in my garage." (unless you have screenies to prove it of course).

How about: reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html a comparison of Intel vs AMD processors. A quick replay of what was found in those tests by Cnet (don't even act like intel doesn't pay them a buttload of money in advertising) and the top 5 chips.

Quote:
Round 1 - BAPCo's SysMark 2004 benchmark (gauges how well each chip handles the day-to-day rigors of standard office-productivity apps in addition to creating content for the Internet.)

1st Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+
2nd Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+
3rd Place - Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 840
4th Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
5th Place - Intel Pentium D 840

Note: It's funny how a processor of around 2.4Gigs (the 4800+) can outperform one that's around 3.2 gigs (the Extreme 840)

Quote:
CPU limited custom Half-Life 2 demo (in fps) (turns off all of the advanced graphics features, as to minimize the calls to the onboard graphics chip)

1st Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+
2nd Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
3rd Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+
4th Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+
5th Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+

Note: The 5th place AMD chip still had nearly 10 FPS on the 6th place Intel chip.

Quote:
Multitasking test (employ McAfee's VirusScan to inspect 40GB worth of files, while simultaneously encoding an 85MB video file using a program called Dr. Divx. We then time how long it takes each chip to complete both tasks)

1st Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+
2nd Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+
3rd Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
4th Place - Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 840
5th Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+

Quote:
Photo editing test (converting large-size images to Web-appropriate file sizes.)

1st Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+
2nd Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+
3rd Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
4th Place - Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 840
5th Place - Intel Pentium D 840

Quote:
MP3 encoding test

1st Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+
2nd Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+
3rd Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
4th Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+
5th Place - Intel Pentium D 840

Quote:
Video-encoding test

1st Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+
2nd Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+
3rd Place - Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 840
4th Place - Intel Pentium D 840
5th Place - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+

The final test was on price vs performance, and obviously AMD wins this on every proc they make considering they are often times HALF the cost of their intel "equivalents" (if you can call them that)

edit: this comes off very "attacking" it seems to you Vash, don't take it personally, I was just using you as an example because you were the last poster. Sorry if I sounded harsh.

#10 None of your test data includes the Core 2 Duo procs, only the older intel pentium D's processors which are still Netburst architecture I believe. During the time of your test data, AMD was superior.

From the reviews and tests I've seen the newer Intel Core 2's beat the newer AMD procs. Whether the reviews are biased or not, I'm not sure. Before Core 2 everything I saw would agree that AMD was superior for gaming, and thats what I have owned for my last several desktops, but I recently bought a core2 for my laptop and it blows my desktop's amd64 out of the water.

I like this site for some of their reviews: www.tomshardware.com

But, for a gaming rig, you are pretty much fine with either intel or amd. I would base the decision on other components and what you can afford.

#11 I think i will go with The AMD and for the graphic card i'm still not sure , but probably with The Nvidia and thanks for all the answer

#12 Nvidia is hands down the better graphics card maker. I think everyone can agree on that. ATI does step ahead once in a blue moon, but it's usually Nvidia who holds the reigns.

That comparison isn't of the equivelent AMD processors either. It's of the older Athlon 64s which are NOT what AMD is making to compete with the Core 2's.

Considering that the Athlon 64s perform _nearly_ as good as the latest and greatest (and more expensive) Intel processors should tell you something.

Again, Intel might come out with something faster, but that doesn't mean when AMD puts out the competing line, that it doesn't kick Intel's ass in the process

And before you call me a fanboi, I used to be a die-hard Intel fan and wouldn't touch AMD with a 10 foot pole, until the Athlon XP came out. The Intel rep tried to show a demonstration of how the Athlon compared with the Pentium and ended up showing that the Athlon outperformed it (at a much lower clock speed).

#13

Quote:
This is probably the most unintelligent and incorrect statement I've ever seen on these forums.

Hardly, Intel currently offers a superior line of processors. My statement isn't biased in any way; I don't have a soft spot for either company. The truth of the matter is that Intel CPU's outperform AMD's in a greater range of tasks, run cooler and are more stable (especially when over-clocked). AMD's are a good and cheaper alternative however if money is no objective and you want to use your PC for a wide range of tasks Intel is the wisest choice. There's a reason why AMD's are drastically cheaper when compared to an equivalent Intel CPU.

The reason for my bold statement is that I'm aware of the "I own & work with this CPU brand so they're better" mentality, the "I hate Microsoft" mentality and the myth about AMD's offering a superior gaming CPU.

#14 Do you even read benchmarks Tim? You make statements with no proof of what you say. AMD when matched processor to processor outperforms ALL Intel with the exception of the newest Intel chips (the Core 2) which AMD hasn't released their line for yet (AM2's I think they are called, but will have to double-check).

Your statement might not be biased, but it certainly isn't intelligent. Learn the facts before you post and say everyone else who disagrees is a moron.

If you think you are so right, then post some proof of your statements.

I don't like AMD because it's mostly what I use (I have some Intel stuff to test products which have heavy multithreading in), I like AMD because it simply outperforms and is much less expensive. I mean use your head. If a processor that has nearly 1 gig less in clock speed than it's comparison processor of another brand costs less, what sense would it make to go with the more expensive one?

Not to mention, AMD usually makes better choices in what works with it as far as memory (using RDRAM was stupid as hell, yet Intel still went for it. Would you like a fan with that memory?) and other areas are concerned.

#15 Everybody is getting into arguments about which company is better, they fluctuate and excel in different areas. For the longest time AMD was better, but between AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor or the Intel Core 2 Duo Processor E6300 the E6300 would take it. It is faster and more power efficient.

here are some benchmarks comparing the E6300 to the Athlon 64 X2 3800+

www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6300.html

essentially the E6300 wins out in every test including gaming benchmarks. There is about a $60 price gap though. Around 135 for the 3800 and around 200 for the E6300 so that might sway the buyer.

Personally my E6600 is overclocked to 3.0 ghz which is fairly liberal and it is running 26 C right now it goes up to about 40 C when I put it on stress test. The Core 2 chips are at this point in time the way to go.

I don't have a bias towards either company but between those two chips, right now the Intel wins.

#16 Comparing E6300 to the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is really a mismatch concerning both of the processors price.

The processor they should be comparing is really the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ VS Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 , which both price range are similar.


Aun.

#17 Okay I looked around a little more the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ is about the same price as the E6300.

here are some anandtech reviews, I always like there reviews as they are in depth. These reviews compare many more processors than Xbitlabs did.

www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=14

heres some results

Quake 4 v1.2

4600:  129.5

E6300: 124.3

BF2 v1.22

4600:  92.6

E6300: 97.2

HL2 Ep. 1

4600:  151.6

E6300: 154.9

AnandTech wasn't wowed by the E6300 compared to the rest of the core 2's, not as much bang for the buck. but it does outperform the 4600 in all but Quake though not by much. In rise of legends and FEAR the E6300 pulls barely above the 4600 again. And in Oblivion the 4600 is barely above the E6300. The E6300 is barely a winner here.

They also benchmarked with SYSmark, for the most part 4600 and E6300 were relatively close but I'll give you some outliers.

Office Productivity score

E6300: +23 points

3D content Creation Score

4600: +17 points

Document Creation Score

E6300: +17 points

Data Analysis Score

E6300: +42 points



The E6300 does overall better but not by much. The AMD's did terrible in the Data Analysis Score Section with even the 5000+ falling behind all the Pentium D Processors, but that doesn't matter too much.

Overall the E6300 is only slightly better than the 4600 but it is cooler and more overclockable. AMD has established a lot of very good motherboards though so it would be debatable, I personally would chose the E6300 for the temperature and overclocking. If you don't care to overclock then these are almost equal, chose whichever you feel comfortable with. The rest of the Core 2's blow away the competition so if you feel like laying 100 more dollars down you could get a E6600.

hope that helps

#18 @Master - Now that is a good review. I will give you that at this point in time, Intel has a faster proc out there, but I still can't divy to the comment "Intel hands down and if you disagree you don't know hardware." statement.

The review Master points to actually proves AMD is a better processor overall than Intel in the fact that the X2's have been out quite a bit longer than the Core 2's and AMD has procs coming up for release in the not too distant future which they consider the true competition for the Core 2's.

Give it a few more months and then get the fair comparison mano y mano.

#19 Yeap. Core 2 duo is the first Intel i've bought.

Before that it was always AMD.

Aun.

#20 From the original post:

Quote:
but i don't know wich one is better, AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor or Intel Core 2 Duo Processor E6300

I'm sorry that my statement rubbed you the wrong way, and that it has inadvertently lead your argument in the wrong direction. I wasn't debating the general pros and cons of Intel & AMD, I was commenting between two specific processors from each company, as per the original question.

You are acting in a contradictory manner, the only person who's insulting anyone here is you. I never said "anyone who disagrees is a moron", I was simply stating a true, indisputable well known fact.

Granted I could have worded my opinion more tactfully however I hardly feel it deserves the response you have given it. I really don't appreciate your tone, it is highly unnecessary.

My statement IS true, which you now seem to concede to Jonathon Stevens. I don't need to provide "proof", or link to a URL with benchmark results as they are seldom accurate nor fairly conducted. I can find just as many sites that state AMD are better as ones that say the opposite. I shouldn't need to tell you that information found on the internet isn't always accurate.

So I apologize for upsetting you and hope we can both learn from where we went wrong to avoid a future mishap.