What keeps you going to Intel?

Nasgul said:
I keep buying Intel because I don't want my level of incoherence nor ignorance to drop dramactically if I were to get another CPU brand........

this is an Intel forum and if you want to glorify the other CPU brand, fine!.......but do it in the other side of the forum, otherwise it's just way too much SPAMING to come here and recommend or tell others not to get an Intel based system.

Respect the decision making of others, by now we know the difference between GREEN and BLUE. So quit SPAMING.

If anyone is going to think Green is faster than Blue, how come the FutureMark benchmarks are so iconsistent? Why I keep seing several Green systems being slower than my Blue? If all Green systems are created equal, what can possible explain the reason why there are a lot slower than mine?

What keeps me going with Intel is like.......why go out for milk when you have a cow at home? ***** 15 builds = Zero problems.

And if the rummors are true, then I'm not loosing any sleep over 10fps less. Seeing my system run overclocked (showing no crappy CPU-Z shot, anyone can do that) at 4.02ghz @ 34c idle and 52c-53c loaded with stock voltage +PLUS+ RAM @ 976mhz and fan running wishper quiet makes my 1hr. and 30 min. of computing usage, day!!!

Even better days are yet to come.......Presler @ 4.2ghz on Stock cooling and low voltage + 4MB of L2 Cache?
satanteeth.gif
Can't wait to get a 950.
Click to expand...

You sound like poet ranting. And futuremark is useless btw. And I'm not glorifying anything, just stating the obvious facts. Remind me, where did I tell others not to buy Intel?
 
Well, as far as 478 vs 939 goes, I prefer a P4 with hyperthreading. My brother's A64 3000 has troubles when you multitask, whereas you can multitask quite nicely with a P4.

With dual cores avaliable now, I couldn't say, because I haven't tried any... but we'll see. I'll pick whatever works best.
 
slowbiz said:
Well, as far as 478 vs 939 goes, I prefer a P4 with hyperthreading. My brother's A64 3000 has troubles when you multitask, whereas you can multitask quite nicely with a P4.

With dual cores avaliable now, I couldn't say, because I haven't tried any... but we'll see. I'll pick whatever works best.
Click to expand...

A P4 w/HT multitasks better than a single core A64, but lacks in gaming against that same cpu. Dual core x2's/Operton's beat the P4 D's in almost everything ive seen.
 
wee96 said:
A P4 w/HT multitasks better than a single core A64, but lacks in gaming against that same cpu. Dual core x2's/Operton's beat the P4 D's in almost everything ive seen.
Click to expand...
That pretty much sums it up.
 
I keep going back to Intel because back when i first started building machines during the 486 and PI days, the systems were good and stable, but AMD had cores that sucked. AMD chips ran hot and had lots of issues and were generally regarded as "bargain" systems. This continued up until pretty much the A64 days which was relatively _recent_. The only reason I see why AMD is getting a lot of positive press lately is not because of A64's pro's, but because of Prescotts flaws.

Look back on the past 5 pages. All of the positive aspects of AMD chips can be summarized by saying: "It's more efficient than prescott." Well fine, it's nice to recognize it when a company gets something right for the first time, but Intel has a much longer track record than AMD, and has shown consistent innovations and improvement. Prescott was a poor decision, but Intel will make something better. That is not speculation, it is a promise. Intel WILL come out with better chips, and Intel WILL be around for a very long time. AMD's future on the other hand is not as secure. A64 and A X2's are great, but can you honestly say that AMD will consistently improve? No one knows what's coming out next, and no one knows if they will get better. AMD will have to consitently be better than Intel for many many years before the market swings their way, and that is a very difficult task.

The bottom line is that more people have faith in Intel because they have proven themselves in the past and even relatively recently. AMD had only so far shown one chip generation to be good, and only in light of the Intel Preschott. They have yet to shine on their own merits rather than in comparison to their compeditor's poor product.
 
Furcifer said:
I keep going back to Intel because back when i first started building machines during the 486 and PI days, the systems were good and stable, but AMD had cores that sucked. AMD chips ran hot and had lots of issues and were generally regarded as "bargain" systems. This continued up until pretty much the A64 days which was relatively _recent_. The only reason I see why AMD is getting a lot of positive press lately is not because of A64's pro's, but because of Prescotts flaws.

Look back on the past 5 pages. All of the positive aspects of AMD chips can be summarized by saying: "It's more efficient than prescott." Well fine, it's nice to recognize it when a company gets something right for the first time, but Intel has a much longer track record than AMD, and has shown consistent innovations and improvement. Prescott was a poor decision, but Intel will make something better. That is not speculation, it is a promise. Intel WILL come out with better chips, and Intel WILL be around for a very long time. AMD's future on the other hand is not as secure. A64 and A X2's are great, but can you honestly say that AMD will consistently improve? No one knows what's coming out next, and no one knows if they will get better. AMD will have to consitently be better than Intel for many many years before the market swings their way, and that is a very difficult task.

The bottom line is that more people have faith in Intel because they have proven themselves in the past and even relatively recently. AMD had only so far shown one chip generation to be good, and only in light of the Intel Preschott. They have yet to shine on their own merits rather than in comparison to their compeditor's poor product.
Click to expand...

How can you say that Intel has a consistant track record of good products right after saying that they produced a dog of a chip in the prescott. AMD has always been the underdog in the industry but they are growing, because they have had two generations of good chips running. Also lets not forget that intel made slot processors without all the cache on the processor, granted, AMD followed intel down that dead end, but both companies have made missteps, but no one pays attention to the things that the juggernaut of the industry does wrong outside of these forums and computer magazines.

Also, how can you say that all the good things about AMD are really just problems with prescott? There are two main companies in the CPU industry. How can you talk about why you chose one over another without comparing the two? A64 processors are more effecient than intel processors. And Intel processors tend to have heat problems in and of themselves, but when you compare those to the relatively cool running AMD processors, the winner in that category is easy to see.

Asside from pentium-m, intel has been resting on their laurels in the cpu market. They haven't done anything but apply bandages to their processors to bring them up to speed. Sure, they introduced ddr2 and PCIe and blahblahblah, but cranking up the clockspeed on a practically the same architecture, and adding huge caches and absorbing the cost of the extra silicon is not innovation. Also, putting two cores on the same piece of silicon and EXTERNALLY LINKING THEM does not make a true well integrated dual core processor.

As far as BTX, it isn't necessary for AMD's. BTX was created by intel to take care of *their heat problems*. BTX is more thermally efficients, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 
Man, stop trying to convince people who like Intel, that AMD is better because you're barking up the wrong tree!

Its always the same... AMD is good now, its stable and beats the pants off Intel for gaming. Who cares. I dont I dont care if I get 70fps vs 100fps. 90% of the time, people are not running timedemos anyway so for current games, both platforms are fine.

As for multitasking, single core AMDs suck *SS and always have, even against non hyperthreading P4's. Its what I've noticed while building AMD systems or using them at work and what my friend noticed when he had his socket 939 3500+ (he could barely use his system when encoding. Had to set priority to lower to regain functionality). Its always the same thing.

If you remember, for the longest time, AMD was the one that ran super hot and sucked back lots of juice.... Thunderbird anyone?? Its a cycle. One moment intel is technologically ahead and the other AMD... Its possible 1 year down the road, tides will turn but since I've dealt with AMD from the 386 DX-40 to the DX4' to the K6's to the classics, Tbirds, and all the XP series and now the A64s, I can say this. Yes they are probably a little cheaper to run, but I've never and I mean NEVER found a case where I set up two systems and the intel was more quirky or unstable. Its always been the other way around. This doesnt mean it had lots of probs, but its always something. Something needs to be updated to work with something or other.

AMD is great... how about all the easy to crack cores through all the socket A times... Ya that was great too. How about trying to pass all that heat through the tiny contact. area. Had to be intel to come out with a heat spreader and then AMD follows.

Lastly, is it just me or its gamers and people willing to save a few pennies who go for AMD platforms? Look at anything mission critical. I doubt you'll find any pushers of amd over intel. Its not always about raw speed or raw power. Its the entire package and amd has never had it. Its like comparing a mustang cobra to an M3. One may be faster on paper and on a dyno and heck even at the drag strip, but damn you put real world situations where there are curves and brakes involved (multitasking LOL) and surprise, the more balaced package wins. Not sure how this applies but I wanted to bring cars into the picuture :)

Oh my buddy with the 3500+.. well he just upgraded to a 4800+ with a gig of DDR 400 on some super duper ASUS SLI board, and he asked me to do a few benchmarks on my older dual 3Ghz Xeon box and sure enough, his system is fast. Beat me on most synthetic benchmarks. Asked me to try some Adobe Photoshop CS2 rotate test and I tried that too. 41 seconds for him vs 29.6 seconds for me. Heck I should be putting dual 3.6Ghz Xeons up against his box, not my one year old setup. He did manage to overclock the snot out of system and got his time to 33 seconds. I thought that was impressive....then he launched Doom3 and it crashed because his system was probably overclocked a bit much. Oh an maybe photoshop is extra strong on intel but just remember this, intel has other stuff other than P4's and dual core P4's... its not that expensive to go dual xeon. Heck his setup cost way more than my setup! His one CPU is much more $$ than my dual xeons even when I purchased them almost a year back.

Oh and I can manage to keep my dual xeons nice and cool with 80mm fans running at 1600rpm passing through a pair of coolermaster heatpipe coolers - so its pretty much silent. With proper planning, intels can be kept cool even the ones that use super hot prescott cores (like my xeons - noconas).

Also maybe things would improve if AMD decided to make their own chipsets again - but since they gave up after the first time, I suspect they wont try again...

My rant is over now.
 
^^^ Many people use faulty logic to justify their valid arguments. Your argument used sound logic based on experience (though i'm sure you don't need my approval) ;) . Many many people say I stick to Intel because AMD sucks, or I stick to intel because AMD sucked in the past (for the life of me, I have no idea how that is relevant).

I believe that you are not telling the whole story for mission critical/enterprise applications. AMD's market share in this area (as well as the whole market) is growing. When you consider that Intel has the lion's share of the CPU market purely based on their prior track record, it says something that a company with a less sterling record is gaining on them.
 
i just assembled a 3200+ system and its ok (other than a few stability issues but i suspect thats from the 60$ mobo)

i went with amd because of the extra gaming power, but it was really my only option... theres nothing worthy from intel in the same price range other than some *gag*Celeron or 533mhz FSB prescott

i probably wouldve gotten an intel if they had a viable similar priced chip becuz my last 3 systems (p1, p3, p4) were all from intel and all were very good
 
I never owned an intel cpu, so let me tell you this .

"Intel Sucks because Bill Gates favorite color is green. Ha, I win

J/K

I would like to build an Intel Rig that matches my current AMD setup. But from what I've read, I can't because there isn't any.
 
Hey thetman, well all I can say is this, nowhere have I worked (and I work in I.T) where any server or workstation (higher end) had ever been an AMD. Even the consideration of such a thing would cause the person's mouth who suggested it to be washed out with soap. *IF* AMD did not have probs in the past with stability, then how come I have experienced the above?
 
J32P... I'll go head to head with your machine if you'd like ;) All I've got is an outdated dual xeon box.
 
contoursvt said:
J32P... I'll go head to head with your machine if you'd like ;) All I've got is an outdated dual xeon box.
Click to expand...

Let me hook up the vapochill just incase. ;)
 
TheTMan said:
no one pays attention to the things that the juggernaut of the industry does wrong outside of these forums and computer magazines.
Click to expand...

People do, you of course are one.

TheTMan said:
Also, how can you say that all the good things about AMD are really just problems with prescott? There are two main companies in the CPU industry. How can you talk about why you chose one over another without comparing the two? A64 processors are more effecient than intel processors. And Intel processors tend to have heat problems in and of themselves, but when you compare those to the relatively cool running AMD processors, the winner in that category is easy to see.
Click to expand...

You just summed up my point. You're only comparing it to the prescott. Northwoods were comparable in heat to the a64's. The issue with heat only came up when the prescotts arrived.

TheTMan said:
Asside from pentium-m, intel has been resting on their laurels in the cpu market. They haven't done anything but apply bandages to their processors to bring them up to speed. Sure, they introduced ddr2 and PCIe and blahblahblah, but cranking up the clockspeed on a practically the same architecture, and adding huge caches and absorbing the cost of the extra silicon is not innovation. Also, putting two cores on the same piece of silicon and EXTERNALLY LINKING THEM does not make a true well integrated dual core processor.
Click to expand...

Sure, their current generation of cpu's suck, which is why im still using a northwood 3.2C. But i do plan on buying another intel once their 2nd gen 65 nm comes out. I believe that wont be until 2007.

TheTMan said:
As far as BTX, it isn't necessary for AMD's. BTX was created by intel to take care of *their heat problems*. BTX is more thermally efficients, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Click to expand...

I never talked about BTX.
 
J32P2006 said:
Let me hook up the vapochill just incase. ;)
Click to expand...

LOL well I'm ready with my coolermaster heatpipes and delta case fans. Dont make me set the fan speed to 100% or it will fly... no really the case will fly ;) LOL

http://powerthings.com/pics/mydual.jpg
http://powerthings.com/pics/coolers.jpg
http://powerthings.com/pics/side.jpg

Me loves my coolermasters :) ... I'll definitly be limited by my memory when overclocking. Highest I've gone so far is 225Mhz FSB without raising voltage or relaxing timings. Cheapo PQI running at 3-3-3-6 at 2.6v. The local seller let me try about 12 pieces. I tested the matching set of four that would allow for running at that timing (the ram was super cheap and rated at 3-4-4-8!!) After choosing that RAM that worked at the lower timing, I did memtest for 24 hours and removed any suspect DIMMS. In the end I ended up with cheap ram that runs as good as good ram :) Lots of work but it outperforms my OCZ platinums in memory bandwidth tests!
 
Nice setup, contoursvt! I have always liked those heatsinks. Kinda similar to the coolers that we put into HP XW6000 dual cpu systems a while back. I'll bet money that your system has waaaay better airflow, though.
 
The problem with this kind of debate is people will say one is more responsive than the other, yes this one may be faster than that one in this app, but the overal feel is better here.. most of these people have not sat and used both system side by side to know what one is actually better than the other. People are biased, and some are really biased. My guess is if you sat me down in front of the latest and greatest intel and amd machines, did not tell me what was what and had me just use them doing random tasks/apps, I would not know the difference. Until you start benchmarking them with particular applications to see the difference. From what I have read, yeah the amd's are faster overal across the board right now over intel's.. but I do not have personal experience with all these cpu's built on stable platforms (mb's/ram/ps's etc) to give an honest recommendationas to what is 'better'. I agree amd used to be not as stable as intel, but i feel since the xp line that has come a long long way. If you pick the right mb that is not an issue really I have found.

I have had both amd and intels, just like I go back and forth from ati to nvidia. I am happy as hell with my current amd/nvidia system, and was happy as hell with my previous p4/ati system. My co-worker used to be HUGE intel idiot (idiot meaning only intel, intel rules amd, its the best, I will never get anything else but intel). That kind of closemindedness really irritates me.. its just flat out stupid to close the door to something that could be equaly as good and possibly cheaper, or maybe it sucks and costs more.. problem is they would ever know because they chose to look the other way because of a name.
 
TheTMan said:
... or I stick to intel because AMD sucked in the past (for the life of me, I have no idea how that is relevant).
Click to expand...

I think it's relevant when you start including the consumer in the picture rather than just comapring hardware specs and usage. People are not going to purchase from a company that they have been dissatisfied with in the past. I think that the best example of this is probably the "What brand hard drive should I get?" threads.

This is why Quality Assurance is so important (next is probably customer support). Just as everywhere else, you only get one chance to make a first impression.
 
My old currect 2.6C is the longest I've held onto ANY one system since the days of the $5,000 computer of 1990 or my $3,600 Packard Smells LOL! That's even after my 9800 Pro died and I had to use an ATI 9700 Pro. Next card will be another nVidia since all of my old nVidias are still alive. Most of my old ATI cards have bitten the dust, just like my Athlon TBirds and XPs that weren't overclocked or overvolted, they (3 out of 5) just died without warning. AMD didn't replace any of them. I killed one from overclocking, was too scared to overclock the others that died.

I'll buy a Hammer for the same reasons I bought P3 and P4's, they protect themselves. I've been building computers for more than 10 years and never had an Intel processor die.

i820 didn't have any problems, MTH for SDRAM support controller did.

Prescott was Hot, other follow-on steppings brought most of these heat problems under control and Intel haters pretend to not see them improvements made LOL!

I like having both AMD and Intel platforms. If given the choice of only one, I'm going Intel without a doubt. I see to many quirks with I/O bugs, 2T memory timming with 4 slots, nVidia Craptacular IDE and etc. Drivers and yada. It's worth playing with as a Gaming rig but there's NO WAY in hell I'd be sadistic to completely depend on AMD as a single system.

Donnie27
 
Frobozz said:
I think it's relevant when you start including the consumer in the picture rather than just comapring hardware specs and usage. People are not going to purchase from a company that they have been dissatisfied with in the past. I think that the best example of this is probably the "What brand hard drive should I get?" threads.

This is why Quality Assurance is so important (next is probably customer support). Just as everywhere else, you only get one chance to make a first impression.
Click to expand...

Market trends happen that way, but on an individual basis an intelligent person would simply look at what other people are saying about that particular product, and analyze the cost/performance and choose the best product for you. The ignorant masses hear pentium and thats all they know about computers so they buy one. People who know about computers should do more.

If you buy Intel because you are more comfortable with them, so be it, but performance of past products is a horrible way to evaluate current hardware. What you are saying is the equivalent of a hardware review site setting out to do a review of the newest hardware on the market and setting that asside and testing a model from two years ago. If you are actually going to make an educated choice between two competing products, evaluate the actual products. Companies change.

You can debate which product is actually better until the cows come home, but judging a current product by the quality of its predecessors is just not smart.

Furcifier: I wasn't talking about you with the BTX comments.

And to all the people that have mentioned it. I don't care if the stodgy old people in the IT department shun AMD for whatever reason. When I buy a computer, or recommend a computer for someone else, I will recommend the best products for them no matter what brand it is. If they are so unaccepting of AMD computers they obviously haven't given them a chance.
 
Yeah, the rig in my sig is 2 1/2 years old now, with the only upgrade being a video card. The reason I went with Intel at the time? A64 wasn't out yet and it dominated the barton and a Springdale/Northwood 800fsb was a great platform (and still is, as far as I'm concerned). Throw in the chipset issues and it was simply the right choice at the time. Certainly, if I were to get a new rig tomorrow it would be AMD (probably one of the opterons everybody has me lusting over), but I am in college and a new computer would dig into my ramen noodle budget pretty badly..lol.
My first real "baby" was an AMD rig. Athlon classic, slot a, 750. Chosen because it was better than the PIII's of the time. Godawful KT133 chipset and epox motherboard though. Ye gods. I've also spent the better part of 3 grand an a Dell Inspiron 8100 with a PIII 1.2 and it is absolute GARBAGE. So bad its gonna end up at the wrong end of some 000 buck one of these days.
Likewise, this rig originally had a 9800 pro which most will agree blew the pants of most anything in the FX line. Next upgrade was nVidia, cuz the 6800's are a great line. Likewise, back in the day, went with a GF2 GTS (lol, going way back there, but not as far back as my voodoo2!). Moral of my story, if there is one, being a fairweather fan with computer hardware is probably a GOOD thing.
 
TheTMan said:
You can debate which product is actually better until the cows come home, but judging a current product by the quality of its predecessors is just not smart.
Click to expand...
...so one should dismiss a great track record of stability and reliability....?? One should ignore the converse (an unreliable, unstable product)..?? I disagree on that; past products establish what the manufacturer feels is an "acceptable" product, and are a good indication of what's to come. Sure, things change, but to say you should ignore past quality levels seems pretty nearsighted, IMHO.

Actually, we agree more than we disagree. My system (sigged) clearly isn't the fastest system on the block, but it's 104% stable and has been completely reliable. I've stuck with Intel because I know them best. When my current system fails to run the apps in the manner I want, you bet I'll do some looking and will buy the best answer at the time.

Regards - B.B.S.
 
Its the same reason I sold my X2 setup for the setup in my Sig.

For whatever reason, it was just easier to build, get working, stay working and even overclock. I am Super Stable and the system is Hella Fast. It may not be the fastest. But it is fast.

I hate people saying well Intels Dual Core CPUs are slow.

Since when?

They just arent as fast as some other CPUs. So if this is what we have come to now, then we are sorry people.
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
I hate people saying well Intels Dual Core CPUs are slow.

Since when?

They just arent as fast as some other CPUs. So if this is what we have come to now, then we are sorry people.
Click to expand...

Much of the Intel Dual-Core CPUs' bad reputation came from the lower-end models, which lack HyperThreading. (And those lower-end Intel dual-core CPUs are priced at or below that of AMD's least expensive dual-core CPU.) Among dual-core Intel CPUs, only the expensive Extreme Edition has HyperThreading support. If you want a more moderately priced Intel CPU, you'll have to settle for single-core if you want HT support.

In other words, you get what you pay for in Dual-Core CPUs.
 
I'm sticking with intel right because it's what I own. It wasn't until recently where AMD started actually being a real rival for Intel (last 3 years). If I were to build a new system right now, it would more than likly be an AMD system, other than that I would say reputation would be in Intel's favor, as I have had quite bad luck with AMD systems and reliability as oppossed to Intel.
 
Stupid answer: I own Intel stock :eek:

Short answer: Xeons are still faster, at most (if not all) price points for the apps I use v. Opterons :cool:

Medium answer: I invested a sizable amount of money in a high end board a couple years back and have recently upgraded it to the endgame-spec 3.2/533 Gallatin Xeons and a 6800 Ultra (fastest CPUs and Video card it'll ever support). It's still damn fast and I'm not looking for a platform change any time soon.

Longer answer: Platform for platform, Intel still has an edge IMO...I see too many quirky issues with VERY expensive Opteron setups IMO. Xeons aren't immune, granted..but they are still a more mature platform than the Opteron, and this clinches it for some people. My Supermicro/Xeon rig redefined stability for me, even compared with Tyan/Opteron boxes friends & coworkers run. It's a world apart from my MSI/A-MP box I ran for my last main workstation. For the record, though, I love that box and still have it. All performance aside, and there is plenty from either platform in MOST cases, I've never owned, operated, maintained or supported a system that handles the abuse mine does as gracefully.

Huge answer: Been covered and/or flamebait, see thread :eek:

As a footnote, if I were looking into a new platform ATM, which I'm not, Opteron would be super tough to ignore, in spite of what I said...it has a better future than the current Xeon, no question about it.

As far as the basic end user, there's something to be said about track record (as a whole, Intel's is superior), marketing (Duh, this isn't even close). That said, all Intel has to do to stay locked on the market, as a whole, is to keep somewhat competitive in both price and performance...just somewhat. If they do, and don't make any catastrophic blunders (and as one of the most beautifully run companies I've ever seen, in any market, this isn't too likely), people won't see any reason to switch. In their mind, AMD is less of a risk than was perceived years ago, but it's still a small one. In a world where either setup is WAY more powerful than they need, and both are similarly priced, why not stick with what's worked?

I could go on for days, but the rest of my points have pretty much been covered already.
 
eighteen_psi said:
Stupid answer: I own Intel stock :eek:

Short answer: Xeons are still faster, at most (if not all) price points for the apps I use v. Opterons :cool:

Medium answer: I invested a sizable amount of money in a high end board a couple years back and have recently upgraded it to the endgame-spec 3.2/533 Gallatin Xeons and a 6800 Ultra (fastest CPUs and Video card it'll ever support). ................................... AMD is less of a risk than was perceived years ago, but it's still a small one. In a world where either setup is WAY more powerful than they need, and both are similarly priced, why not stick with what's worked?

I could go on for days, but the rest of my points have pretty much been covered already.
Click to expand...

One of the better posts in this thread and please post more! When customers complain about these companies' Screwups, they normally correct them. The reason I don't like Fans? Not only do they accept subpar crap from their beloved company (any company BTW), they get in the way (normally flames wars are started to hide something) of others with legit complaints. This takes longer for the Problems to be corrected/Fixed.

Donnie27
 
It really depends on the best bang for the buck for me.

I went with intel because i could get the chip for 50 bucks and overclock the hell outta it.

I will go AMD on my next upgrade unless intel comes out with something better. I just can't afford the opterons right now.
 
I used to go Intel because of the platform stability and the VIA drivers sucked. Over the years though, the AMD platform got alot better. Now, the nVidia chipsets have really turned things around. I now on my second AMD box and I couldn't be happier with the performance and stability of the platform.

The bang for the buck can't be beaten either. Although, AMD's dual core CPU's and some of the Opterons are hardly cheaper than the Intel's, in those cases the performance keeps me with AMD.
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
Its the same reason I sold my X2 setup for the setup in my Sig.

For whatever reason, it was just easier to build, get working, stay working and even overclock. I am Super Stable and the system is Hella Fast. It may not be the fastest. But it is fast.

I hate people saying well Intels Dual Core CPUs are slow.

Since when?

They just arent as fast as some other CPUs. So if this is what we have come to now, then we are sorry people.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why someone would sell a perfectly good X2 setup they already had. How is the intel easier to build, does they cpu install itself? Get working, does the AMD power button not work? Stay working, does the AMD system randomly shut down or something when not overclocked? If you are overclocking, you should know that it's about luck, so some AMDs and Intels OC easy, some AMDs and Intels don't. And an X2 system can also be super stable and hella faster.

I just don't understand where you are coming from.
 
I feel that stability with either platform is largely attributed to chipset/motherboard brand. Would anyone in their right mind run a gaming rig with either AMD or intel sporting a VIA chipset? No, certainly not!

In my experience, the best chipsets out there are intel and nVidia. Either is rock solid and stable.... if it's contained on a motherboard from a reputable company.

For me, the biggest decision making factor for which brand cpu to choose is what will fit my needs best. Will having that intel 840EE oc'd to 4GHz be nice? Of course it would. Would having an X2 4800+ oc'd to 2.8GHz be better from a performance/price/heat standpoint? Of course it would. But this is only my personal preference for a multitasking and gaming setup.

I wish I could afford an X2 at this point, but I get around perfectly fine with my Venice 3000+ oc'd to 2.4GHz on a Gigabyte SLI board. I can honestly state that I have had no stability issues whatsoever and leave my system running for weeks on end. Aside from the chipset/board brand, there is also another factor that people tend to forget about or overlook: the power supply. I was running my setup with a Thermaltake Purepower 560W unit with a paltry 22A max on the +12V rail. Now I am running a PC P&C 510SLI and couldn't have dreamed for more stability over the past 3 months I've owned it. Stability from either brand platform comes with a price, and you definitely get what you pay for.

For a mobile setup, I run a P-M 1.6Ghz in an HP nc6000. Perfectly stable and very efficient for what I do with it (lots of apps open at once: my career depends on it!).

For my backup system (still used daily by my brother for both logging into work remotely and everything else he does), I have an aging dual PIII-1000 system that's still runs as great as it did the day all the parts were new. I have it coupled to an Antec 420W TruPower psu, and I'm thankful I spend the extra money on that alone.
 
TheTMan said:
...Many many people say I stick to Intel because AMD sucks, or I stick to intel because AMD sucked in the past (for the life of me, I have no idea how that is relevant)...
Click to expand...
I stick with Intel because it works, and works very well. I've never built an AMD machine. When something works as good as Intel, why switch?

On a side note, the topic of this thread is "What keeps you going to Intel?"
It is kind of sad that so many people have come here trying to convince people they're wrong for reasoning differently.
 
I use both, it just depends on what deals I find on Ebay.. 2months ago I had more AMD systems than Intel, now its the other way around.. Both companies make great products, and you really cant go wrong with either. I don't recall seeing either side have a problem like the first P90's, and neither have ever failed any task I've ever put them to. I can say that the latest P4's (prescotts and up) seem to run alot hotter than the AMD's. I have a 2.8 prescott that I bought to be a basic workstation that ran too hot for the stock heatsink and had to be liquid cooled.. so now under liquid it runs at 3.55ghz stock voltage, So I'm happy with it. Actually I prefer all the Diehard AMD ppl keep bashing the P4's.. it makes them cheaper for me to snag up and build my farm on the cheap. A64's prices are still too high because they are doing so well, besides I'll probably always stay a generation behind to keep the costs down. I just built an A64 3000 socket 754 @2.2 as a backup to my main p4 640 rig, Both work great. To Answer the question though.. What keeps me going back to Intel? Same thing that keeps me going back to AMD.. They are solid reliable products at reasonable prices.
 
Bao01 said:
The OP question was what keeps you going intel not what makes you an AMD fan.
Click to expand...

Good point. While this is a "discussion forum"... things like less heat, faster in games and so on is really why the thread was started in the first place. The OP looks at what he sees as clear AMD advantages, and wants to know why someone would still choose Intel anyways. I'm interested, I've sometimes wondered the same lately. The reason that came to me most apparently was that some people have just had a good ride on Intel chips, and if it ain't broke don't fix it so to speak. I've had a good ride with AMD, so I can't think I'd switch until at the earliest conroe.
 
I think to sum it up from everything being said...

-people still feel that intel might be more stable overall (myself included)
-people can admit that gaming is going to be stronger / faster on AMD
-multitasking *might* still be better on intel - hard to say
-prescott cores run hot so you need adequate cooling.


So if you're a gamer and an overclocker you might be more suited towards an AMD, if you can sacrifice multimedia speeds and possible speeds gained from overclocking but want the most assurance that you have a stable and mature platform, you can go intel.

I personally dont game that much and even when I do, all I care about is the minimum FPS. If the minimum FPS on both platforms is around the same, then thats good enough for me. Max FPS might be more a benchmark thing that I might not notice during gameplay.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top