What keeps you going to Intel?

[Chris_Morley]

not one damn thing, Intel sucks in my book

they are hotter than crap, the P-D's blow when compared to the X2's, and DDR2 gives no performance gains with the high latencies.

oh and intel is just all around crappy.

I am not an AMD fan-boy, I am just a fair weather computer user and i will use which ever is better and that is AMD for the moment. If intel comes out with something worth buying i will get one, but for the moment AMD is better.

Repeat after me:

Cheap dual core and BTX.

 

[robberbaron]

Repeat after me:

Cheap dual core and BTX.

Well, the $290 Opty 165 with PowerNow! do just fine for me. Buuut, I guess that is a tad more than the $250 820.

 

[wee96]

The processors aren't, but Intel chipset based boards sure beat out alot of the cheap ass AMD compatible chipsets that are out there. The nForce series being the one exception to that rule.

I can agree with that

 

[1c3d0g]

Nvm

 

[JetUsafMech]

Intel sucks in my book

hotter than crap the P-D's blow DDR2 gives no performance Oh and Intel is just all around crappy

Why do you choose Intel again? Also, when AMD starts using DDR2 next year, will it all of a sudden be "freakin' awesome?" I'm going to go out on a limb and say when Intel was spearheading PCI-E, you were all "Intel's stupid, what a bunch of stupid stupids, it will never work, no one will use it, because it's from Intel, therefore, it's....stupid."

 

[Donnie27]

not one damn thing, Intel sucks in my book

they are hotter than crap, the P-D's blow when compared to the X2's, and DDR2 gives no performance gains with the high latencies.

oh and intel is just all around crappy.

I am not an AMD fan-boy, I am just a fair weather computer user and i will use which ever is better and that is AMD for the moment. If intel comes out with something worth buying i will get one, but for the moment AMD is better.

ROTMFLMFAO!

Donnie27

 

[E4g1e]

not one damn thing, Intel sucks in my book

they are hotter than crap, the P-D's blow when compared to the X2's, and DDR2 gives no performance gains with the high latencies.

oh and intel is just all around crappy.

I am not an AMD fan-boy, I am just a fair weather computer user and i will use which ever is better and that is AMD for the moment. If intel comes out with something worth buying i will get one, but for the moment AMD is better.

That is the most f4nb0y-ish statement to come from anyone in quite some time in the AMD versus Intel battle.

However, it should be noted that the most expensive non-EE P-D processor still costs less than most of the Athlon 64 X2 processors. The "hotter than crap" statement about (recent) Intel processors is the biggest reason why Intel is pushing the BTX form factor.

And the high latencies of DDR2 memory only partially offset any speed gains from clockspeed alone. Thus, Intel platforms do gain some performance from the higher bandwidth of DDR2 alone - up to a certain extent.

And Intel is not the only company that has ever made a processor that's "hotter than crap". Remember the pre-Thoroughbred cores of the AMD Athlon and Athlon XP processors? Now they ran hotter than crap!

 

[D4hPr0]

For me its simple. I go Intel because of the multitasking abilities and stabillity of their chipsets. Intel did screw up on their Dual Core chips IMO and thats why an X2 might find its way into my box........unless Intel comes out with something better....I doubt it though.

 

[Empyrean]

The brainwashing is now complete. I guess you shouldn't post in the Intel area of the board with anything anti-Intel, but I don't care.

Intel processors are overpriced, and they do not deliver on their promises... hyper-threading?

My AMD 3000 can multitask much more efficiently than my Pentium 3.2GHz. Actually, my AMD can do everything better than my Pentium, including audio encoding.

 

[KaptainBlaZzed]

I've spent $500 on a 148 and 144 opteron. After almost a month and a half waiting for the 144, I jumped for the 148. Well, now I hope to sell my retail 148 cabye 0528gpmw that does 2.8 on Neo4 Plat at 1.4v for like $250. That probably won't happen though.

I would have been so much happier with another prescott for my second comp than this crappy 144 at 2.6 that at the end of it all, would have cost me more than 1.5 times what a precott could have done. And that is why I'm sticking with Intel and hoping for a painless cpu upgrade to cedar mill - one for me and one for my brother whom I gave my celeron D system to.

That, and the fact that the venice 3000+ system I gave my little sister who is in medical school has been spontaneously rebooting(lots of lost work and frustration there), or so she tells me, so now that AMD system is going to eat up more of my free time.

So, fuck you very much AMD! Umm, I mean the AMD-Nvidia Axis. I hate you too, ATI.

And God Bless Intel and their wonderful bug-free chipsets!

if you would learn how to properly set up a computer you would not have any problems. I have a "venice" 3000+ @ 2.8 running folding@home with NO stability problems.

 

[Chris_Morley]

For me its simple. I go Intel because of the multitasking abilities and stabillity of their chipsets. Intel did screw up on their Dual Core chips IMO and thats why an X2 might find its way into my box........unless Intel comes out with something better....I doubt it though.

The Pentium D's are pretty quick at video encoding and are better at multitasking than the P4, other than that, you're getting a lower clocked Pentium 4.

 

[chrisf6969]

not one damn thing, Intel sucks in my book

they are hotter than crap, the P-D's blow when compared to the X2's, and DDR2 gives no performance gains with the high latencies.

oh and intel is just all around crappy.

I am not an AMD fan-boy, I am just a fair weather computer user and i will use which ever is better and that is AMD for the moment. If intel comes out with something worth buying i will get one, but for the moment AMD is better.

Sure you're not!! LOL

Ok Intel's latency is b/c of not having an on-chip memory controller, like A64's have.

The actual latency of DDR2 is very similar to DDR, now that more manufacturers are making low latency timing dimms. Initially, the first release of something they have high timings, then with time they release faster stuff. (like 5-5-5 DDR2-533 at first, then they release stuff like 3-2-2)

 

[Pr3z]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/28cpu-games.html

That is all... AMD>Intel for the time being.

It's like the ATI vs Nvidia war. One is on top, then the other re-claims it. It's a cycle. I prefer to spend my money on things that will provide the best experiance for what I will be using the machine for.

My home rig in the sig gets gaming and graphic design work and rules at it.

At work I just built 15 P4 Prescott systems. Why did I choose P4 for work machines? They tend to run a little better in the hands of your average PC user who knows nothing about pcs, and people see the P4 Label and their head thinks its better which means less complaints I have to deal with when the machine slows down. I can just say it's a P4 must be the application and get the user off my back.

Different strokes for different folks. Intel is definatlly not in the gamin market right now, and if your building a rig for primary gaming use you would be ignorant to say AMD is weaker.

And the DDR2 thing. Doesn't intel need DDR2? Since it is quad pumped vs AMD which is double pumped?

CPU manufacturers have found ways to increase the effective speed of the FSB of a CPU. They simply send more instructions in every clock cycle. So instead of sending one instruction every one clock cycle, CPU manufacturers have found ways to send two instructions per clock cycle (AMD CPUs) or even four instructions per clock cycle (Intel CPUs). So, when you look at a CPU and see it's FSB speed, you must realize that it is not really running at that speed. Intel CPUs are "quad pumped", meaning they send 4 instructions per clock cycle. This means that if you see an FSB of 800MHz, the underlying FSB speed is really only 200MHz, but it is sending 4 instructions per clock cycle so it achieves an effective speed of 800MHz. The same logic can be applied to AMD CPUs, but they are only "double pumped", meaning they only send 2 instructions per clock cycle. So an FSB of 400MHz on an AMD CPU is comprised of an underlying 200MHz FSB sending 2 instructions per clock cycle.

Think of it as a pick-up vs. semi. Some rigs can hit 100MPH with 40 tons, while a pick-up could hit about 150MPH with 1 ton. The pickup is able to make more runs back and forth because it is faster than the rig, but it hauls less each time around.

 

[KaptainBlaZzed]

Sure you're not!! LOL

Ok Intel's latency is b/c of not having an on-chip memory controller, like A64's have.

The actual latency of DDR2 is very similar to DDR, now that more manufacturers are making low latency timing dimms. Initially, the first release of something they have high timings, then with time they release faster stuff. (like 5-5-5 DDR2-533 at first, then they release stuff like 3-2-2)

i have 5 Intel's and 4 AMD's and all are running D2OL on them. and for what i do AMD is better, but i got 3 or the Intel's for free so i can't complain about that.

Clear and simple.

oh and i never used the T-bird CPU because they were toooo hot. intel had its time in the lime light but for right now it is AMD's time becaues they have a better product.

 

[D4hPr0]

The brainwashing is now complete. I guess you shouldn't post in the Intel area of the board with anything anti-Intel, but I don't care.

Intel processors are overpriced, and they do not deliver on their promises... hyper-threading?

My AMD 3000 can multitask much more efficiently than my Pentium 3.2GHz. Actually, my AMD can do everything better than my Pentium, including audio encoding.

AMD does have a better product with their X2 line right now. I did the research and I do like what I see as far as multitasking goes, but please dont tell me that your 3000 can keep up with a HT 3.2 P4 because it cant. Maybe for what you do.....it sure isnt for what I do. Try running MasterCam V9(which is a real resource hog), SmartCam, AutoCad, Illustrator, Viz4, Winamp(streaming digitally imported) all @ the same time.....you cant.... I have a 3000 in my office which I tried to do my work on........guess what I use it for. Plotting drawings and sometimes some in office lan action. Thats it!!!!

The X2 chips look very promising and I will give one a try after new years for sure, but please dont tell me a 3000 can multitask as well as a 3.2HT P4 when it cant. The X2 can, but not the 3000.

I think even Kyle pointed it out a while back that the he uses a HT P4 for his main box because it multitasks alot better than AMD....well until the X2 chips came out.


Correction. I actually have a 3200 in the other system.

 

[demografik]

I would still use an Intel setup for 2 things.

1. Extreme stability. For example, a CCTV system that absolutely has to be up 24/7 for months at a time. I use AMD for almost everything, but I still don't quite trust them with this.

2. Budget multi-tasking. I built my grandma a system not too long ago. X2 is a bit much for her, but she doesn't like bogging when she is trying to burn a CD and use AOL at the same time.

 

[Pr3z]

2. Budget multi-tasking. I built my grandma a system not too long ago. X2 is a bit much for her, but she doesn't like bogging when she is trying to burn a CD and use AOL at the same time.

One huge flaw in this system. Starts with an A and ends with an L.

I just can't understand why people even use AOL anymore. I have people here at work that think you can't get to the internet without it.

 

[Donnie27]

The brainwashing is now complete. I guess you shouldn't post in the Intel area of the board with anything anti-Intel, but I don't care.

Intel processors are overpriced, and they do not deliver on their promises... hyper-threading?

My AMD 3000 can multitask much more efficiently than my Pentium 3.2GHz. Actually, my AMD can do everything better than my Pentium, including audio encoding.

That's not Anti-Intel stuff you posted, it's just Anti-Correct LOL! I will not call it BS but it is just silly! I'll ad my name to the X2 Fan club but not at all the 3000+ that my bud had to buy 4 to get one that would overclock to 2.7GHz and not throttle.

3.2GHzx kicks the crap out of the 3000+ Multi-Tasking.

Donnie27

 

[J32P2006]

Posted by Steve 9:00 AM (CST)
Intel Presler Has Stability Issues?
According to DigiTimes, motherboard makers over seas are saying that there are stability issues with Intel’s 2.8GHz 920 and 3.0GHz 930 series processors. Here is a quote:

Sampling Intel’s 65nm dual-core Presler processors has revealed some stability problems, according to unspecified motherboard makers, adding that the problematic CPUs include the 2.8GHz 920 and 3.0GHz 930 series. Launch of end products based on the Intel Presler core may be pushed back from the January 2006 date originally scheduled by system vendors, the makers noted.

Looks like everyone can have instability problems, then it gets fixed and then the fight starts again. Right now, AMD is the better Product, Ya never know. Cyrix might come out on top.

 

[chrisf6969]

And the DDR2 thing. Doesn't intel need DDR2? Since it is quad pumped vs AMD which is double pumped?

No not at all. Both use dual-channel ram which actually saturates the FSB, thats why using ratios where the ram runs faster than 1:1 doesn't really yield much higher bandwidth. It does lower the latency some which helps the bandwidth SOME and overall performance a little. But in general the dual-channel ram on both sides of the fence saturates the FSB easily.

AMD > Intel for gaming
Intel > AMD for stability (arguable by many lately as things are getting better for AMD chipsets)
Intel >= AMD for encoding (depending on app, etc.)
Intel > AMD for cheap multi-tasking (general use)

Now if AMD released some more X2's to fill in the lower price slots down to $150 or so, then that would be NICE. Right now the min price to get multitasking smoothness on an X2 3800+ is still too high. They need an X2 3500+ and maybe even an X2 3200+.

 

[Donnie27]

Now if AMD released some more X2's to fill in the lower price slots down to $150 or so, then that would be NICE. Right now the min price to get multitasking smoothness on an X2 3800+ is still too high. They need an X2 3500+ and maybe even an X2 3200+.

Everything you said is true but this one stands out. It's a dead on view that's pushed asside by folks thinking with their hearts and not their Brains.

Donnie27

 

[mlbruehlly]

Intel employee discounts on processors. And a free "processor home loan" program if you upgrade somewhat frequently.

 

[DocFaustus]

I think everyone saying AMD is unstable is still referring back to the days when Via was essentially the only chipset maker you could pick.

Today, I don't believe that AMD is any less stable that Intel. In the world of Supercomputers Cray is now only using AMD chips to build with. And AMD teamed Sun Microsystems is supplying Tokyo Institute of Technology with cpus to build Japan's largest Supercomputer. I am sure if they were unstable, they would not use them.

 

[D4hPr0]

I think everyone saying AMD is unstable is still referring back to the days when Via was essentially the only chipset maker you could pick.

Today, I don't believe that AMD is any less stable that Intel. In the world of Supercomputers Cray is now only using AMD chips to build with. And AMD teamed Sun Microsystems is supplying Tokyo Institute of Technology with cpus to build Japan's largest Supercomputer. I am sure if they were unstable, they would not use them.

Exactly!!!!! The instabillity was never the fault of AMD as far as I know..it was most of the time VIA's, Ali's and SiS's fault.

I did run into more bad AMD chips than Intel chips in my life though.

I have really not had that much time with nVidia chipsets, but from what I have read they are not too bad. Seeing what Intel has to offer now or next year I will just keep my old trusty S478 3.4EE(@3.83) until I go AMD X2.

I was never a huge Intel fan nor am I an AMD fan now that I will most likely get the X2, but I was always and will be "What works best for me!! " FAN and thats how I base my hardware decisions on.

 

[contoursvt]

Nobody is blaming AMD directly. The question was "What keeps you going to intel". Fact is that the intel chipsets are superior to the AMD offerings. Just less buggy, plain and simple. At work, one of our software developers just retired his AMD XP3000+ and went with a 2.6C system we had because he was getting tired of dealing with mystery issues (not crashing or anything, just unexplainable weirdness according to him). Old system had an ASUS KT400 based board and the new system has an 875p chipset. In anycase, this guy who has an AMD at home told me recently that he likes his machine at work a lot and may build a single cpu 3.2Ghz HT system for home. He has a socket 754 VIA based Athlon64 3000+ right now.

 

[Scotch77]

I simply dont think amd makes a good processor. as a CE I haver respect for the architecture used in amd chips but also my weekend job of fixing pcs, I pretty much always use intels for my clients. The reason, less problems with compatability and general use. I hate when I just build a system and I get a call and somthing is not working correctly. Ive opnly had this on AMD systems. Intel systems have been great and I continue to use them. Less time means more money for me.

In general Intel chips never die, Ive never had one come DOA and have never had one die, even after years of 100% usage in a server enviorment. AMDs are the other way around. Ive had about 6 DOA chips and have had chips just go up in smoke or die. again RMA time and other time setting up the new chip is less money for me, I could be doing another job.

Like othr have said, Intel chipsets are just flat out more compatible than AMD chipsets. so again Its just my preference.


As to the Intel D processors compared to the X2, I suggest yoiu guys read the reviews comparing them. I think theres one on anandtech about the AMD X2 3800+. If you rad it, you will notice that AMD wins 10/15 and intel wins 5/15 tests. * of the tests intel wins are within a 3% margin of performance. On the 5 that Intel clearly wins AMD is greater than a 3% magin on 4 of them. There is really not that much of a difference, yes the X2 is the better chip, but it doenst count the Intel out.


AMD is going to be using DDR2 with the M2 chipset, Intel is always just a early adopter of new technology and formats. Such as PCi-E, BTX. LGA(amd suing it on M2) and others. Intel is not just a Processor company like AMD, they are made for pushing technology in a whole and do everything from Processors to Telecom.

 

[J32P2006]

I simply dont think amd makes a good processor. as a CE I haver respect for the architecture used in amd chips but also my weekend job of fixing pcs, I pretty much always use intels for my clients. The reason, less problems with compatability and general use. I hate when I just build a system and I get a call and somthing is not working correctly. Ive opnly had this on AMD systems. Intel systems have been great and I continue to use them. Less time means more money for me.

In general Intel chips never die, Ive never had one come DOA and have never had one die, even after years of 100% usage in a server enviorment. AMDs are the other way around. Ive had about 6 DOA chips and have had chips just go up in smoke or die. again RMA time and other time setting up the new chip is less money for me, I could be doing another job.

Like othr have said, Intel chipsets are just flat out more compatible than AMD chipsets. so again Its just my preference.


As to the Intel D processors compared to the X2, I suggest yoiu guys read the reviews comparing them. I think theres one on anandtech about the AMD X2 3800+. If you rad it, you will notice that AMD wins 10/15 and intel wins 5/15 tests. * of the tests intel wins are within a 3% margin of performance. On the 5 that Intel clearly wins AMD is greater than a 3% magin on 4 of them. There is really not that much of a difference, yes the X2 is the better chip, but it doenst count the Intel out.


AMD is going to be using DDR2 with the M2 chipset, Intel is always just a early adopter of new technology and formats. Such as PCi-E, BTX. LGA(amd suing it on M2) and others. Intel is not just a Processor company like AMD, they are made for pushing technology in a whole and do everything from Processors to Telecom.

What... Are you saying that AMD CPU's give you incompatibility problems ? Not the chipsets ?

Intel is not just a Processor company like AMD, they are made for pushing technology in a whole and do everything from Processors to Telecom

And if Intel is so great and diverse then why don't they give the user the best CPU for their money ? I know, it's cause they get your money either way.

You see, Amd still has something to prove = Better Product.

 

[Scotch77]

What... Are you saying that AMD CPU's give you incompatibility problems ? Not the chipsets ?



And if Intel is so great and diverse then why don't they give the user the best CPU for their money ? I know, it's cause they get your money either way.

You see, Amd still has something to prove = Better Product.

no its usually the chipset, but the chips have a much greater ratio for failure compared to intel in my experience. I dont really think AMD has the better product.

 

[Chris_Morley]

no its usually the chipset, but the chips have a much greater ratio for failure compared to intel in my experience. I dont really think AMD has the better product.

Hmmm, I've worked with a systems integrator before whos run rate on processors is thousands a month. We never saw that.

 

[Dan_D]

Hmmm, I've worked with a systems integrator before whos run rate on processors is thousands a month. We never saw that.

Back in the T-Bird and earlier days I would have agreed with the posters statement about AMD having a higher failure rate. These days, I would not agree. I've built many A64 based systems, and I have yet to ever see a DOA S754, S939, or S940 chip.

In 9 years of being a tech, I've never seen a DOA Intel processor. Ever. Overall I can not say the same for AMD.

 

[Chris_Morley]

Back in the T-Bird and earlier days I would have agreed with the posters statement about AMD having a higher failure rate. These days, I would not agree. I've built many A64 based systems, and I have yet to ever see a DOA S754, S939, or S940 chip.

In 9 years of being a tech, I've never seen a DOA Intel processor. Ever. Overall I can not say the same for AMD.

I have seen dead procs from both. Everything from Celeron 300A's to Xeon 3.6's...and yes, I have seen a fair amount of Socket A's die as well.

 

[Dan_D]

I have seen dead procs from both. Everything from Celeron 300A's to Xeon 3.6's...and yes, I have seen a fair amount of Socket A's die as well.

I've seen plenty of both die. Even in short periods of time. Just never any Intel chips being dead right out of the box.

 

[demografik]

One huge flaw in this system. Starts with an A and ends with an L.

I just can't understand why people even use AOL anymore. I have people here at work that think you can't get to the internet without it.

I don't like it either, but she does, so what's wrong with that?

Either way, the budget multi-threading is still an advantage of Intel.

 

[santaliqueur]

Intel > AMD for stability (arguable by many lately as things are getting better for AMD chipsets)

people still believe that amd has inferior "stability"? ask my dual opterons, they each have been at 100% cpu for 6 months now (folding @ home), and i've had nothing but stability. the inferior stability of amd is years old, and should be put to rest.

i dont keep going back to intel, i've been an amd guy for a few years now, and i will be in the future, at least until i cant upgrade this dual socket 940 board anymore. a quad core machine and 16 GB memory will get me a long way, when it becomes cheap enough to buy

but i recently bought a laptop, and there was no way i was going to get a turion over the pentium M. i'm glad i did, too. i had no experience with the turion, but this pentium M 750 is fast, quiet, and light.

I hate when I just build a system and I get a call and somthing is not working correctly. Ive opnly had this on AMD systems

i'd be willing to bet that the processor has NOTHING to do with the problems.

dualdrop[H]enia

 

[Mav451]

I live with an Intel employee (or soon to be, after graduation). What an idiot. He still thinks Athlons are in the Palomino age, saying they "run hotter, and are slower."

I'm like, good god. Do they brainwash all their employees to believe that? He doesn't even know what an Athlon64 is. I dunno, but that just scares me. This guy is smart too, CS/Business major with a pretty high GPA. He still trying to offer that damn Intel bunny to me lol.

 

[Bona Fide]

Nothing has made me think about Intel since the days of Northwood.

 

[eighteen_psi]

I live with an Intel employee (or soon to be, after graduation). What an idiot. He still thinks Athlons are in the Palomino age, saying they "run hotter, and are slower."

I'm like, good god. Do they brainwash all their employees to believe that? He doesn't even know what an Athlon64 is. I dunno, but that just scares me. This guy is smart too, CS/Business major with a pretty high GPA. He still trying to offer that damn Intel bunny to me lol.

I'm good friends with a recent CS grad who works for Intel...his last three systems have been a Duron 700, a T-bird 1.33 and an A64.

He would conceed, like anyone with half a business brain though, that Intel is a far better run company than AMD

 

[FlatLine84]

I'm good friends with a recent CS grad who works for Intel...his last three systems have been a Duron 700, a T-bird 1.33 and an A64.

He would conceed, like anyone with half a business brain though, that Intel is a far better run company than AMD

Intel should buy AMD, imagine the pair, good awsome buisness meets great developement.

 

[chrisf6969]

i'd be willing to bet that the processor has NOTHING to do with the problems.

Noone said it was the processor. IT was probably the chipset and/or chipset driver or BIOS.

 

[Josh_B]

I have seen dead procs from both. Everything from Celeron 300A's to Xeon 3.6's...and yes, I have seen a fair amount of Socket A's die as well.

I've had more Intels die than AMDs.

I believe if you were to get some unbiased numbers, you'd see the new chips from both Intel and AMD are both about equal in reliability. Intel has had bad chips and chipsets, too.

No company is perfect. That is the honest truth... everyone fscks up!