AMD VS Intel

[Thor.]

Hello here is the poll that will officially end the argument on what is better, Intel or AMD. Let the public decide on whose better,

 

I am the creator of this poll so My opinion shall not change, i agree soley with this picture below http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/whistling.gif

 

http://static.nextwallpapers.com/1920x1200/intel_amd_logo_1920x1200.jpg

Edited November 15, 2012 by Thor.

[Dan3345]

Obviously I voted for Intel. Now let me explain why.

 

Clock for clock, intel wins. Up until the FX series, AMD was not known for overclock capabilities either. The phenom series were terrible overclockers, and before that I can't say because I have no experience with them. I can say almost every single Intel chip can be overclocked to get at least a 15% increase over its base clock speeds. The same cannot be said for AMD.

 

Watt per watt. Intel again wins. Honestly efficiency is not all that important to me. So if the 8350 for example was faster than an Intel chip at higher usage of power I would use the AMD hands down. But here is the problem AMD still has. The 8350 is priced at $220. At this price its a great deal. However, the i5 2500k beats the 8350 flat out at lower clocks for gaming, and the i5 2500k is a better overclocker. Not because the i5 can go higher and remain stable (I believe the 8350 can reach higher speeds) but because the 2500k is simply more efficient with its architecture.

 

AMD says they are no longer competing with Intel on the desktop processor market. PROOF. So what are they doing? What drives the innovation? Share holders? AMD stocks are in the tank and have been dropping constantly for a year now. Intel isn't doing great either, but Intel is still worth about four times more than AMD and Intel has not seen the rapid decline that AMD has. What does this mean? It means AMD's chips are sort of just out there. They have no focus. The i5 2500k and its successor the i5 3550k are hailed as the best deal for gamers for a CPU. Costing no more than the 8350, they out perform it in many scenarios most importantly for someone like me is gaming performance. I'm not a huge gamer, but when I do play something I want it to be smooth. My phenom could not keep up with the shadows in skyrim for example. The game only became playable when I turned shadows down to low. So in my humble opinion the i5 series is a better value then the FX chips in terms of performance for what I expect from my computer. Throw in the fact that any decent board by gigabyte or Asus or even ASRock has a built in overclocking processor and you got a damn good deal. And yes those chips are in fact pretty smart. Years ago I would have advised against using them, but in 2012 they can determine the most stable overclock available to your computer and set it up for you. Pretty nice feature for anyone new to overclocking or someone who wants a little extra speed, but doesn't want to fuss around with it for days.

 

Look, I want AMD to succeed. But the fact of the matter is you can get better performance for the same price as the flagship AMD processor. Benchmark after benchmark shows this.

[Thor.]

Well if AMD does go under the Arm Cortex i can see taking over the market, i mean they are really durable and withstand out door use like in handhelds, so they run quite cool.

 

You never know Nvidia might be the king in the near future.

 

Although looks like amd is working really hard to stay with the cpu market

 

http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/

Edited November 15, 2012 by Thor.

[Dan3345]

Wasn't AMD's CEO ousted a few months ago? It really seems to me like AMD has no clue where they want to go or what they want to be. They have gotten the radeon line back together, they have salvaged what they can from their APU's, but their CPU's are...I don't even know.. They don't want to compete with intel one day, then the next they do. It makes no sense. Also in the same article where they claim they are no longer competing with Intel they say they are focusing on there vision of the future which is apparently some creepy, security failure where everyone's computer is on any computer. The ultimate cloud I guess. Sounds idiotic if you ask me. Personally I love my desktop, and I would never want my data up in the air where it's at risk of getting tampered with, or broken into.

 

Honestly though if they don't want to compete with Intel why do they even bother making an eight core CPU that is upstaged by i5's?! Why don't they make an eight core CPU that can rival the i7's. They must be capable of it, I mean, I don't see why they wouldn't be.. But they just...don't.. Makes no sense.

[bruniss]

I'm with Dan on this one. Intel for me.

[JimboUK]

I think AMD lost the plot a long time ago, one day they're going to do one thing, the next something else. At least the GPU side of things is well run, the last thing anyone wants is an Nvidia monopoly.

[Erik005]

The new a10 processors are very good the igp's of AMD are far superior to the intel ones. AMD has made every gpu under 100 dollar/euro obsolete.

 

The Fusion processors are the only choice for a HTPC

 

AMD is always first to implement new features on their motherboards, they where first with both sata3 and usb3.0. Intel is very slow to implement new chipsets, not to mention the huge blunder with the 6-series.

 

For high-end they have given up hope the first bulldozers weren't any better than the phenom II X6's

 

Now the new processors are finally on par with the Intel but they have a high power-draw, they are basically making the mistake Intel made with the pentium 4's

 

So the question is not as simple as it looks, the best answer I can give is: Low to mid-end AMD, Mid to high-end Intel.

[davycrockett]

they are tools and you use the right tool for the job in hand there is nothing more to it .

[Dan3345]

The new a10 processors are very good the igp's of AMD are far superior to the intel ones. AMD has made every gpu under 100 dollar/euro obsolete.

 

The Fusion processors are the only choice for a HTPC

 

AMD is always first to implement new features on their motherboards, they where first with both sata3 and usb3.0. Intel is very slow to implement new chipsets, not to mention the huge blunder with the 6-series.

 

For high-end they have given up hope the first bulldozers weren't any better than the phenom II X6's

 

Now the new processors are finally on par with the Intel but they have a high power-draw, they are basically making the mistake Intel made with the pentium 4's

 

So the question is not as simple as it looks, the best answer I can give is: Low to mid-end AMD, Mid to high-end Intel.

I think this is the best and most honest answer anyone could give. Especially the last part where you differentiate the necessity of the different chips. My only question is, what blunder are you talking about with Intel and the 6 series? What is the 6 series? GTX cards? Those are Nvidia and I own one, would hardly call it a blunder especially seeing as how I'm about to fork over another $530 for a second one.

 

PS: Yeah price is a blunder on Nvidia, but there are suckers like me who will still buy em, so jokes on me I guess.

[Thor.]

I think this might be what he's talking about?

 

http://www.crn.com/n...idge-recall.htm

 

Even Intel isn't without faults.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Thor.