AMD or Intel

[shiyutang]

In China, the people who don't have enough computer knowledge use Intel, and the people who can use computers well all use AMD. Now AMD Athlon XP 2500+ is well sold in China. Even HP has some products using this type of CPU, which come with TurboLinux.

[aRTee]

For the high end:  Intel does not really have 64 bit based cpu ready to go.  AMD 64 and Linux is the way to go for sure.

Ehmmm, you may want to check the SPECFP benchmarks, Intel has the Itanium2 64bit cpu, which incidentally beats the pants of any AMD offering. But I guess you were talking about x86 cpu's...

 

That said, I vote AMD, have never bought an Intel system new (got some secondhand systems). More value for money, better upgradability (on the systems that I got).

 

On a side note, I really like the idea of Transmeta's Crusoe (by the company that Linus worked for before moving to the OSDL), sadly they don't come cheap and are not popular enough to come cheap any time soon.

 

Since the latest VIA cpu incarnations are more or less up to speed for divx/xvid and dvd decoding, those are actually very nice since the power consumption is very low, they work well even with just passive cooling. Great for home cinema pc's - silent and low power consumption so it makes less of a dent in the energy budget.

 

Lastly, the best designed desktop cpu at the moment IMHO is the IBM PowerPC 970, 64bit, based on the Power4 design; of all high performance cpu's (Opteron, Itanium2 / Itanic, PPC970) the highest performance per Watt. Too bad there are no non-apple desktop systems with those, so you always pay a tremendous overhead...

 

 

On a side note, AMD64 is really a great hit in the corporate spheres it seems, at least where I work. Combined with Linux it is the EDA (electronic design automation - software to make microelectronic chips) platform of choice, very high performance for a really low price.

Note that with 50.000 to 250.000 USDollars for a single software licence, it really matters if your hardware can finish the job in 1/3rd of the time (comparing HP-UX on HP with Linux on Opteron, this is about the speed ratio) - you may just be able to get by with a couple of those expensive licences less, or you may just be so much more productive without needing more licences...

Imagine that: save the cost of 1 licence, and buy 10 dual cpu race horse rackservers in return, and still have money left....

[DragonMage]

AMD for me except for laptops (not a lot of choice in laptop cpus anyway). The AMD I built are faster than equivalent Intel and cheaper too. My next computer is going to be A64 for sure.

[ral]

Have used both:

 

AMD K6-2 350MHz; AMD Duron 1.0 (@1.4GHz), AMD XP1700+ Palomino, AMD 1700+ T-Bred (@2.083MHz) and XP2100+ (@2170MHz).

 

Intel P166, Intel PIII 500 (Katmai), Intel PIII 550E (@754MHz).

 

Don't really like one better than the other. I just got more AMD's because they are cheaper, so I voted AMD.

[RadioEar]

After reading through this thread, I find the word is, AMD. Generally like so many here price and performance makes the final decision... Why pay more for Intel when you can get AMD for less money with same performance or in some cases better. For example, AMD's cooler operation and over clocking capabilities over the Intel processor.

 

But price says it all. so far I'll stick with AMD. Generally speaking of course.

[xanas3712]

AMD since athlon. I hated AMD with a passion in the K6/2/3 years since at the time I'd seen p2s and p3s blow past them in terms of performance regardless of mhz comparisons. But nowadays it's the intels getting swiped on the mhz comparisons so ehh.. what comes around goes around I guess, lol.

 

Celeron is such crap now.. I really think intel should have cut that line as it's totally false advertising to throw that chip up as a 2.4 ghz performer.. talk about something that runs a couple generations old.... for that reason alone intel deserves flak..

Edited May 5, 2004 by xanas3712