Last time I checked like 3 years ago, AMD chips were just as good as Intel chips, compared spec for spec. Is this still true? Are there any quality concerns with AMD chips?

 

apart from sucking? no

 

I think that is a good question. It seems they are pretty equally matched in terms of specs. I haven't heard any hard data or reports about quality though; only vague grumblings about AMD being a bit flaky - not sure what chips or what circumstances are at issue.

 

AMD chips prone to cracking under normal exertion. More prone to heat damage than Intel. Not as much quality control as Intel. Lower uptime than Intel.

Best suggest for long run -> spend little more and get a Intel

 

Performance wise they're are pretty much similar... Intel this time has a slight lead.. but the extra $$$ that you spend for it now a days are just not worth it!!.....

Just go with AMD.... probably in a year or 2 you'll need to upgrade again anyway!... ITz a computer it outdates.... not like a car where you can drive for 10 years if you like....

 

wow.. good thing this is a car forum.. any kind of computer or geek forum and this thread would explode bigger than 'CL-S vs. 328' back in the day.

AMD's come a long way.. surpassing all other competitors like Cyrix... The public's whole view on MHz and GHz has grown a bias to consumers.. Intel's always flashes the numbers as far as clock frequency goes, but performance wise... they're about the same, but AMD sometimes has a hard time proving that. AMD's chips are always going to be cheaper.. but shouldn't be viewed as the 'value' CPU because of it.

If you were to take a vote, i'd say they'd turn out 50/50, but not surprised if Intel takes the edge.

 

i actually like the new 64bit amd chips other than that Intel all the way

 

Ive always been an AMD man since the athlon first came out. Aside form the AMD 64s which are prob the best chips right now, I would get an INtel with hyperthreading technology. I purchased a 2.8 HT and Ive been very happy. From what Ive read the intels with HT happen to be better at mulittaskng than the AMD chips.

 

Chips prone to cracking? No, i don't think so. I've installed probably 50 AMD CPUs and heatsinks, never had one break on me. Neither have any of my AMD-using friends.

Heat damage? Again, no. They have the same thermal protections Intel uses. If you're thinking of that bullshit Tomshardware video - they were using the one current (at the time) motherboard that didn't support AMD's thermal protection. Every motherboard out there does now.

What do you mean by uptime? AMD CPUs crash more often? Yeah, ok.

 

In benchmarks the P4 is slightly faster than the AMD. But AMD chips are quite a bit cheaper.

You really can't go wrong with either. Pay a little more for a little more speed (although the real-world difference won't be noticable unless you do serious cpu-intensive stuff), or save some money.

You can't go wrong with either.

 

Depends on what you are going for.

Building a budget machine, meaning all components from the ground-up mobo, cpu, menory etc for $1000 or under. Go AMD, I built a nice budget system for less than $700 last year and I choose the AMD 2500+ Barton core chip and I am very satisfied with it.

Building a mid-range system, meaning all components for $1400 or under then I would go with a Pentium chip starting at the 2.66ghz chip.

Top range is a toss-up right now, Intel has the history, but AMD has the 64-bit thing going for them too.

 

whats the deal with those? i know they're out now, but when is windows 64-bit coming out? and i haven't really heard of what kind performance i should be expecting, i'm really considering buying a computer with it sometime this summer

 

Let's just say that my mom works as a senior mask engineer for AMD in their Sunnyvale, Ca campus (since '99) and at home, she has always used Intel chips. I think that says a lot.

 

my money's on Intel.

 

Wow that kinda does say something, doesn't it....

I'm quite surprised to hear that actually, I would have thought people working for AMD would be very brand-loyal. hmm..

 

I have never understood the whole AMD sucks arguments. I have owned multiple AMD and Intel chips and I have not had a single problem with any of them.

If you are overclocking, and doing all kinds of crazy shit with your computer then I would think that you could make any chip break. The majority of us here, surf the net, do some picture and video editing, download music, etc... It's not like we are buying servers for NASA here folks.

Bottom line, if you want to save some bucks go with AMD. If money is no object go with Intel. Period.

They are both damn good products and are way more than adequate for the needs of the average computer user.


There is already a Windows 64-bit OS, but it is strictly for Intel's 64-bit Itanium server class chip.

Microsoft currently has a beta version of Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition that supports AMD's version of 64-bit. They also have a version of XP that supports 64-bit that was just made available on their website for a free one-year trial (360 days). Based on all that I would say that a full release of a consumer version of Windows 64-bit is due out sometime late this year.

If 64-bit is something that appeals to you don't let the availability of the OS scare you off. The 64-bit AMD-FX chips will work just fine with the current 32-bit OSes, and at a very comparable level (often surpassing) to Intel chips.

 

your good either way, anyone who tells you either is superior to the other is just touting complete bullshit

for a bit more speed, spend on intel, if you wanna go a bit cheaper, go amd, THATS IT

reliability? cracking? where did you hear this shit cause id like to see your sources

i run amd's in my machines cause im cheap and dont want to spend the extra cash, i wouldn't mind going either way

 

I've never had a problem with my AMD CPU's. None have cracked or become victim to heat damage. In the past, AMD CPU's didn't have the internal thermal protection that Intel offered. AMD CPU's also suffered damage to the core when CPU builders would tighten the heat sink too tight, or apply force when it wasn't seated correctly. To solve this problem, two options came about. Four little foam pads that went on each corner of the CPU, or a CPU spacer. Both seen here:


I agree with Python2121, you’re good either way. I prefer to use AMD because I like the product they offer for the price they charge, but I know my systems have their short-comings like anything in life.

Keeping in mind that almost all AMD chips these days run at slower MHz than their Intel counterpart and yet they perform comparable to Intel with a much higher MHz should say something for their design.

AMD 64-bit CPU's will run 64-bit distributions of Linux and also the Windows XP 64 bit beta that is available for download here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/6...ds/upgrade.asp.

Aside from that, there is no real world benefit for the home user. I'd argue there is no real world advantage even if you were to run a 64-bit OS right now. The benefits will most likely help larger servers in need of more physical RAM since they can address a higher quantity.

64-bit in and by itself doesn't mean an AMD Athlon 64-bit CPU can use the same OS as an Itanium 64-bit CPU. The Athlon 64-bit has it's own 64-bit extensions that need specific software such as the windows XP 64-bit beta I mentioned above.

Intel will be following AMD by implementing 64-bit extensions in their up and coming Prescott revision of the Pentium IV. You might also note that Intel’s Prescott CPU is nothing to write home about. You can read about the underwhelming CPU here:
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000322

People should look past the CPU as the ultimate deciding factor. In many cases it comes down to available chipsets and supported bus speeds for each processor that make or break their reliability and performance. Intel does make a solid chipset and they do offer a faster bus speed, but they are not perfect. They've had a few blunders of their own. On the AMD side, it can also be a bit tricky to choose between the nforce, nforce2, VIA, SiS, and AMD chipsets to name a few.

If AMD CPU's were really that bad, you'd hear about it on every tech new site and no one would be buying them. Do a search in google and you will see they are not as bad as some make them out to be.

 

Intel Corp. on Tuesday said it planned to introduce in the coming months a technology to boost the power of data-serving business computers, a strategic shift expected to shake up its rivalry with Advanced Micro Devices Inc. AMD, Intel's much smaller competitor, introduced a similar technology for its computer chips last year. Executives of AMD have said they believe they will have a head start on Intel of one to two years -- a leap forward for a company known more for building inexpensive Intel clones

Intriguingly, Intel also disclosed that the 64-bit feature already exists in its latest Pentium 4 processor used in the standard PCs that sit on office desks and inside homes. The 64-bit functionality, however, will only be switched on for computers sold as business servers, Intel said

 

It woudln't surprise me if your mom just bought Intel becuase they're the big name for anyone other than computer geeks. My roommate's mom makes bank with her phd in computer science and she is clueless about how to do anything except basic Windows usage.

Why not ask your mom why she buys Intel, instead of spouting FUD?

 

For sure, AMD has always been the best for my buck. I professoinally repair and build computers.

 

Do you repair bent/broken pins on cpus?

 

i didnt hear this shit anywhere. I EXPERIENCED THIS SHIT first-hand. and thats why I will never buy anything AMD again.

 

i have never heard of anything like that, and because of that i can just assume that it was an isolated case

i know people who build and support computers for a living and use amd's trouble free

can you give me some information? i.e. which chip, how old, what exactly happened?

 

CLovis, assuming you had a socket A chip, what brand heat sink/fan did you use when the core cracked? I've heard this happening before on the core, and AMD warns that the HSF must be level before applying pressure during HSF attachment... Did your CPU have the four rubber pads like in the picture I linked above?

Most Intel CPU's don't have this problem because they use large heat spreaders.

 

guys I dont rememba the detaails cuz it was a while ago. I just threw the shit out and fuggedaboutit, and never do AMD again.

never again

 

i had owned 3 AMD CPus and a bunch of Intel. Never had a problem on either brand

 

user error :P

 

i had some of my tech friends look at it, they all agreed it was a POS

 

you dont even remember the speed? k6-2? athlon? athlon xp?

your making a sweeping generalization

 

it was an athlong thunderbird 1.4 with a soyo dragon motherbored

 

i had nightmares about it for some months afterwords.. its something im trying to forget about

 

haha

nice mobo btw

 

complete and utter bullshit. I will agree that with the socketA athlons, you need someone that knows what they are doing to install the chip and heatsink properly. (This would be AthlonXP, Barton, etc). You fucked up, plain and simple. Whether you didnt do your homework and picked a bad heatsink/mobo combo or just didnt put stuff together properly who knows, you fucked it up yourself.

I'm going to completely ignore why this statement and most of the other negative AMD posts are grossly off base for the socketA line, and instead just jump to todays Athlon64's vs P4. Athlon64's now have a IHS like the p4 so idiots such as CLovis cant break their chips when they install them. Furthermore they have VASTLY superior power management that adjusts the chips speed and voltage 30times a second depending on the load to make the chip run as cool as possible (user selectible on any decent mobo).

Athlon64's are the performance leaders right now in basically everything except video encoding. There is no good reason to buy a more exspenive, hotter running, P4, unless you plan on encoding video all day long. Don't even get me started on prescott...


also for anyone thinking of purchasing a new computer soon, wait for the socket 939 platform from AMD with PCI-express, or if you must buy intel wait for the LGA socket mobos (will also have PCI-express)

and finally as for winxp64, its in beta right now, but AMDs Athlon64's are already the fastest cpu's in just 32bit mode. when good 64bit drivers and winxp64 is finished, expect a 10-20% free performance increase

 

AMD Athlon XP

 

a picture is worth a thousand words



:pfawk: :pfawk: :pfawk: :pfawk: :pfawk: :pfawk:

 

gee and who is unequivocally bashing AMD because they couldnt install a heatsink properly what, 2+ years ago? the pics more fitting for you sir

 

yep that's what i got no problems knock on wood.
all the computers I buy have AMD chips in them.

 

when did I ever say I installed the heatsink myself? i didn't. I had a computer shop do it. I had them then build my Intel system, and have had no problems since.

amd sucks, life goes on

 

See my quote earlier in this thread. There was a reason why the Prescott was delayed so long. It has a hidden (turned off) 64-bit instruction set that is compatible with AMD's 64-bit implementation in the Athlon64.

People are bashing the Prescott, but once they turn on those 64-bit instructions and the clock speeds start to ramp up, it will be a tough chip to beat