AMD VS Intel

edited December 2015 in Hardware
My favorite is AMD. I have the A8 Black edition.

Comments

  • Favourite for what? Logo? Name? Location of HQ? CEO's hairstyle?
  • I like Intel's CEO hairstyle better than AMD's CEO.
  • These topics are kind of senseless these days.

    If you want performance and/or efficiency (depending on the usage scenario) and are willing to pay for it, you go with Intel.

    If you want to build an inexpensive rig that doesn't have as much CPU power and don't mind the power consumption, go with AMD.
  • I can't believe I actually googled the CEOs of both companies. My vote goes to AMD.
  • Duff wrote:
    These topics are kind of senseless these days.

    If you want performance and/or efficiency (depending on the usage scenario) and are willing to pay for it, you go with Intel.

    If you want to build an inexpensive rig that doesn't have as much CPU power and don't mind the power consumption, go with AMD.
    Some AMD's are cheaper and have equal or more power
  • Ok time to toss in my two cents.

    I was a AMD fan boy since the AMD 386DX was supreme.
    What boils down to it is AMD is a great brand for cheap power hungry CPUs while Intel is the fast power sipping power house.

    In other words AMD is Acer and Intel is Apple. You get what you pay for.
  • TCPMeta wrote:
    AMD is Acer and Intel is Apple. You get what you pay for.
    LOL!
  • DallasCHVN wrote:
    Duff wrote:
    These topics are kind of senseless these days.

    If you want performance and/or efficiency (depending on the usage scenario) and are willing to pay for it, you go with Intel.

    If you want to build an inexpensive rig that doesn't have as much CPU power and don't mind the power consumption, go with AMD.
    Some AMD's are cheaper and have equal or more power
    Yes, some of the FX-series processors can trade blows with some of the older (Sandy Bridge i7-2600K stock) Intel chips, doing as good or better in heavily-threaded benchmarks and applications like x264 encoding. The problem is, aside from power, per-core/IPC performance is shit compared to Intel. Therefore you end up with overall poorer performance in programs only utilizing one or two threads. I even ran into this issue when I had hyperthreading enabled on my i7; in certain games there's enough of a performance hit I disabled it. To be fair some of the games I play are older, but the issue I'm described occurred in Battlefield 3; which scaled fine across four cores but didn't seem to play nice with eight virtual cores.

    Also it's worth noting AMD's most recently released chipset for AM3/AM3+ was the 990FX if I recall correctly, which still lacks support for PCI-Express 3.0 and integrated USB 3.0, not to mention the newer tech like NVMe/mSATA/SATA Express etc.

    Not saying they make bad hardware, but anyone trying to argue AMD has something that actually competes with Intel's enthusiast offerings on all levels is out to lunch. I am awaiting Zen, hoping AMD learned from the mistakes they made designing Bulldozer.

    I don't consider myself a fanboy; when it comes to technology my dollars go to the company which makes the better product. If Zen came out tomorrow and mopped the floor with Intel's latest Broadwell chips I'd be impressed and go buy one, but that's not bloody likely.
  • Duff wrote:
    I don't consider myself a fanboy; when it comes to technology my dollars go to the company which makes the better product. If Zen came out tomorrow and mopped the floor with Intel's latest Broadwell chips I'd be impressed and go buy one, but that's not bloody likely.

    This is the correct approach. I choose the best shit for my money. Nothing else matters, 99% of the time.
Sign In or Register to comment.