AMD 64 or Intel 64 processor???

[Jingguo]

hi which processor would u guys choose???

[Canopus Lim]

If I do not intend to use it for gaming, I will choose which ever that is cheaper. I rather spend the money on scope and accessories instead since they are better investments than computers which just gets out of date in months.

[Airconvent]

intel chips used to have an edge because they excel in mathematical calculations (good for compiling programmes) and their chips run cooler but they also cost much more than AMD chips.
recently, AMD's chips run cooler, are more efficient (lower clock rate beats intel chips at much higher clock rate) and still much cheaper.
however, many people still choose intel due to branding and ignorance..
go for amd64!

[carlogambino]

AMD generally beats Intel hands down (for the same range of processors) in benchmarks and is competitive in pricing too. AMD always! I absolutely agree with the statement that many pple choose intel due to branding and ignorance.

[Tachyon]

I use Intel-based computers for compatibility with most software, but my powerhouse computer where I run analysis software is AMD64-based.

Cheers!

[QuantumGravity]

I would say it depends on what type of computer work you're gonna do.

If gaming, multimedia and graphics, AMD would be the ideal choice.

Althought being an Intel user myself, I would say that Intel usually excels in encoding stuffs, like audio and video compressions, and non-graphical stuffs (calculations) only.

But overall, AMD is much cheaper and produce less heat (in comparison to Intel's prescott cores).

[Canopus Lim]

AMD chip with motherboard is very much cheaper than Intel's. The cheapest component in my computer is actually the processor which cost 70 bucks! However for that price, it performs well enough to run any applications and it is unnecessary to spend so much money on Intel if you just use the computer for doing word processing ,surfing net or watching movies. Playing game is a different issue and it depends more heavily on the graphics card, more than the processor itself. AMD has grown over the years and is getting better; my father used to work in AMD.

[zong]

I used to support Intel when you make computers, because AMD generated alot of excess heat which requires you to buy a better heat sink. Prices of AMD + motherboard + heatsink usually becomes higher than Intel + motherboard (using their default heat sink will do).

But recently, i heard AMD invited Intel to some hotel in singapore (think Raffles) to a dualcore war. If my sources are correct, AMD won. Although I long time no visit Sim Lim Square to keep up with the prices already, I think AMD no longer needs to buy extra better heat sink which means it's now a better buy than Intel. And correct, Intel's strong point is mathematics, while AMD fares better in games and graphics.

But i still hate AMD's new (now old) naming system that says 3000+ instead of 2.6GHz. Can't compare fairly now with Intel unless I know how to convert..

[carlogambino]

Intel's naming system is equally bad, if not worse now (They use a 3 number system (e.g 840) for naming of the processors according to their family. Similarly, it doesnt name the clock speed in its name.

[Airconvent]

the amd naming convention is quite. they denote equivalent performance to a comparable intel chip. for example, my 2600+ runs at 1.9 Ghz but on benchmark, exceeds the performance of a 2.6Ghz intel Pentium 4.

I think intel is taking a beating and is seriously losing market share that is why they will drop the pentium name and use stupid numbers for their chips in future. by doing this, amd is unable to make a comparison and people won't know how good or bad an amd chip is compared with an intel chip but the bad thing is people won't know how good the intel chips are either..