211 replies to this topic

[Chiri Kitsu]

Both companies have their good sides.AMD systems are really competitive in terms of price for performance.Intel's systems are most oftenly more performant than AMD's, but they cost somewhat more.From my experience on many system installations in store, there are some recommendations for notebooks.On AMD's side, the current lineups of processors for mobile systems: AMD Athlon X2, AMD Turion 64 X2 Ultra.At all costs stay away from an Athlon X2, as all systems having that processor suffer from a lag spike under heavy load. The Turion 64 is a good choice though.On Intel's side, the current processors are for mobile systems: Celeron D, Pentium D, Core 2 Duo.A Celeron D is in fact much worse than an Athlon X2, so it's not even worth it to invest into it in my own opinion.The Pentium D is a good starter for basic use. Though many systems tend to be slightly hotter with this processor, it shouldn't pose a problem.The Core 2 Duo are the far superior choice. There's actually 3 choices often seen nowadays to the general public. The Core 2 Duo advertised with their Centrino techonology, all running at 667mhz FSB, then the Core 2 Duo of the newer generation, marketed standalone at 800mhz FSB, and their latest high end consumer line, the Intel Centrino 2 with the processor running at 1066mhz FSB.Obviously the faster the FSB, the more performance you can pull out a system, but with that comes a big price also.The 4 common levels of computer usage and recommendations versus their notebook processor counterparts:- Basic use, Internet, Email, Simple word processing: AMD Athlon X2, Intel Celeron D.- Entertainment use, videos, multimedia: AMD Turion 64 X2 Ultra, Intel Pentium D.- Business use, company work, databases, and other: AMD Turion 64 X2 Ultra, Intel Core 2 Duo.- Advanced usage, multimedia production, 3d graphing, advanced gaming: Intel Core 2 Duo.In terms of desktop computers, once again, there are several levels of processors offered to the consumer.For AMD, their lineups: AMD Athlon 64 X2, AMD Phenom X3, AMD Phenom X4.For Intel, their lineups: Intel Celeron D, Intel Pentium D, Intel Core 2 Duo, Intel Core 2 Quad.A misconception over the amount of cores on a computer is really current. More cores does not automatically mean faster computer!!! Depending on what you are doing, having more cores can sometimes have things running slower than what it should.Intel Celeron D, in other words, dual-core celerons are not often seen on the market, due to its lack of performance. Once again, very very basic usage with this.The AMD Athlon 64 X2 and Intel Pentium D are pretty much comparable on the scale. A good value for price/performance.The AMD Phenom X3 is in between the other processors in terms of performance. Not as good as its competition, the Core 2 Duo, even though it has 3 cores. Good for a start for gaming though.The AMD Phenom X4 and Intel Core 2 Duo fair quite well for advanced gaming. The Core 2 Duo is just slightly underperformant over the Phenom X4, although the Phenom has 4 cores, it's far from being capable of competing against the Intel Core 2 Quad.Lastly, the Core 2 Quad, Intel's top of the line, is mostly suited for the more advanced usage. Performance wise for video encoding, advanced gaming.I could go on and on, and there are multiple processors that I haven't mentioned due to the fact that it's not usually seen or readily available for the regular consumer, but available for PC enthusiasts and companies also.The company I always root for is AMD, but I've recently defected from my trend to go on Intel's side for the time being.You have to keep in mind that AMD's innovations on the processor designs in the time also pushed Intel to reshape their design into what we see today.

[Chiri Kitsu]

Of course, the Core 2 Extreme processors outclass even them if you find them worth your money.

The Core 2 Extremes are usually not readily available to consumers, thus why I didn't list them.Actually, Intel has taken out a new generation of processors that walk all over the Core 2 Extreme.Make a little search for the Intel Core i7, the new gen of quad-core processors, totally dominating the Core 2 Quads at an affordable price for the processor... but then, you'd require a motherboard that has Intel's X58 chipset along with triple channel DDR3 ram, which basically still costs an arm.

[Spelroth]

Well I'm kinda used to AMD my first pc was with and AMD K6-4 with a 400 Mhz clock then AMD Athlon 64 3000+@1,8Ghz now AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+@ 2,6Ghz My friends are a Pentium users i use AMD well it depend's what do you want to do on the pc and depends how much money you want to put on a PC, Ofc there are people that think that one is better than another you can buy yourself the best pc like quad cores etc but when you will use 100% of it the price of your pc set will be in a half or less then you were buying it (I'm not talking bout graphic companies etc only the personal users).AMD's are cheaper so more people will buy them because they will look at the performance/cost's chart's on the magazines. For me i will stick with AMD

[wiredbomb0]

Here is a bit of expirence from my life:The new Intel computer my dad has bought, cost him around 800$, and is a Intel E7400. Copying a 2gb file to a usb, takes around 10 minutes (9-10 minutes). On my old PC (2-3 years), with an AMD Athlon 64x, it only takes about 4-5 minutes. I don't not understand why, but my 2-3 year old PC is faster then a PC that is supposedly better, and is only a month old. The only thing though, it doesn't like it when a program crashes lol.