AMD or Intel?

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 13 Dec 2006, 00:16

Just curious.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 13 Dec 2006, 00:35

I voted for AMD as in the past it used to be pretty much equally good, except AMD was usually cheaper. I believe there was also a period that Intel was less stable than AMD, but I'm not sure ...

But I dont know the current situation, the prices and quality.
I know dual-core is the new thing, and it will improve 3d rendering etc... but AMD will probably also have something likewise...

But judging on my past experiences, I'll go with AMD... but I'm no techie...

Shen · Post by **Shen** » 13 Dec 2006, 15:53

my laptop has AMD Turion, and after using intel on my desktop....AMD is way better. plus cheaper. on our desktop they replaced the processor twice and it still sucks but then its a Celeron too lol

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 13 Dec 2006, 16:06

Well Intel has the edge at the moment it seems with the fancy new chips, but hell I wouldnt go for any really, no name is best, I would go for whats best for my price and whats best for what I need

at the moment I have a Pentuim, but hell it was the best at that time ofr the price etc.. now I would still get one, but a nice Duo as they seem the best at the mo, until AMD pull their fingers out that is.

So no idea what I would vote, but I own a Pentium and will be getting a new power PC in a few month and whatever best at that time will be in my new PC, seems that will be a Pentium at the mo.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 13 Dec 2006, 16:19

Just need to correct the poll (sorry, pedantic mode is active). The Apple MacOS can run on an Intel chip just fine, and has been doing so for most of the past year.

But, as it currently stands, Intel have the best chip out at the moment with the Core 2 Duo. It's all swings and roundabouts anyway: one of the two companies is always playing catch-up.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 13 Dec 2006, 16:20

I'm about to get a new dual-core AMD.
Gave up on Intel when they started selling Celerons back in 2000 (I think).

@Kurgan:
Ah, didn't know about the Intel/Mac thing.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 13 Dec 2006, 16:22

AMD I think..... but I know nothing.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 13 Dec 2006, 16:44

BiscLimpkit wrote:AMD I think..... but I know nothing.

Whats you name?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 13 Dec 2006, 19:22

Neither. I'd pick whichever is the best at the time BUT I've found historically AMDs have been much cheaper at the same speed (i.e - speed being overall) or only slightly slower.

Given a choice I'd probably go AMD again but it would purely be a cost decision. I've not looked for ages though so don't know if this is still true.

I've owned AMDs for a few years now but am well behind what's the latest best. I'd avoid 64-Bit CPUs though for all the troubles I hear with drivers and software support.

As for which I think is overall better? Like AMD vs. Nvidia it's all marketing and both are as good as each other. The time of better compatibility with Intel is LONG since gone.

My current PC is a AMD Athalon XP 2500+ but my laptop will probably be an Intel as that's what Sony seem to only like using (crud software removed I've got a soft spot for Sony Vaios, even if really it's just because they look cool, and have cool screen).

tom2681 wrote:Gave up on Intel when they started selling Celerons back in 2000 (I think).

They didn't just sell Celerons

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 14 Dec 2006, 01:52

bradavon wrote:I'd avoid 64-Bit CPUs though for all the troubles I hear with drivers and software support.

The issues with 64-bit lie with the OS and not the CPUs. A mate of mine has Windows XP64, and has to run batch files to get loads of his old programs and things to work. MacOS X doesn't have those issues, of course

The point is, this is a support issue on the software side of things; it has little, if anything, to do with the CPUs.

Let's put it this way, AMD has had their Athlon64 processor out for donkey's years now, and that didn't have any problems.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 14 Dec 2006, 16:46

Hey god only knows what the hell will happen with Vistas is out in a few months, all chips may not even be compatable with most things, just think of all the games and programmes which wont work for starters, its going to be dire! pathces released every few seconds for everything.

slasher13 · Post by **slasher13** » 14 Dec 2006, 19:09

romerojpg wrote:Hey god only knows what the hell will happen with Vistas is out in a few months, all chips may not even be compatable with most things, just think of all the games and programmes which wont work for starters, its going to be dire! pathces released every few seconds for everything.

Remember there are a group of talent coders, look at freeware programs like Doxbox and ScummVM, who create virtual OS to support old style games, so I think they would include one for Vista.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 14 Dec 2006, 19:20

romerojpg wrote:Hey god only knows what the hell will happen with Vistas is out in a few months, all chips may not even be compatable with most things, just think of all the games and programmes which wont work for starters, its going to be dire! pathces released every few seconds for everything.

No offence but rubbish Vista isn't "that" different to cut XP off.

For example Windows 2000 is the prior OS to XP (NOT 98 or ME) and that's still very much supported.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 14 Dec 2006, 19:22

Kurgan wrote:The issues with 64-bit lie with the OS and not the CPUs.

And what are drivers and software? They're not hardware

. I know but eitherway they're fundamental problems.

Kurgan wrote:A mate of mine has Windows XP64, and has to run batch files to get loads of his old programs and things to work.

Enough said. What does the Batch file do? Any chance you could post it's contents?

AFAIK there is minimal (right now) advantages anyway.

Kurgan wrote:The point is, this is a support issue on the software side of things; it has little, if anything, to do with the CPUs.

I never said it was a hardware problem.

Kurgan wrote:Let's put it this way, AMD has had their Athlon64 processor out for donkey's years now, and that didn't have any problems.

Really? So is it just Intel with problems? If so thanks. So the Turion is okay then?

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 14 Dec 2006, 21:29

bradavon wrote:I never said it was a hardware problem.

Then don't avoid a 64-bit CPU. Just be more prudent in your choice of OS.

bradavon wrote:Really? So is it just Intel with problems? If so thanks. So the Turion is okay then?

As for problems, I've not heard of any from either camp. Again, it's just certain 64-bit OS that have problems. The processors cranked out by AMD and Intel have (certainly on their top end efforts) been pretty good.
The Turion64 is a decent enough budget processor which is quick enough (once it's backed up with enough RAM) to handle most tasks on XP. I haven't seen it running Vista, so couldn't comment on that.

But I'm staying away from Vista for a while. I'm not too keen on Microsoft's first release of any of their OS. I'm not going to pay to be a guinea pig. SP1 I might jump in on, but even then I wouldn't pay for it. It'd have to be pre-installed a on a replacement machine

Comparatively speaking, I will be buying the next release of MacOS X, because it's a hell of a lot more cheaper than Vista (even Vista Basic; which is stripped down and useless for gaming, for instance). Single licence costs £90 and 5 user licences for £140, and I've got 3 (maybe 4 if I decide to get the Mac Mini) machines to install 'em on, so cost wise, it's almost like buying a game, rather than the extortionate £170 odd that XP Home costs for a single licence. (£260 for XP Pro, which is a fucking joke.)

But anyway...

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 14 Dec 2006, 23:48

Is the proper one is just called Athalon 64? Yeah agreed I too avoid the budget models. I don't really see the point when I buy CPUs so rarely.

It'd have to be pre-installed a on a replacement machine

Funny I'm sure you're still paying for it. I'll be getting a laptop in Feb-March that's for sure so is seems really stupid for me to put XP on it.

rather than the extortionate £170 odd that XP Home costs for a single licence. (£260 for XP Pro, which is a fucking joke.)

Those prices are for retail which only silly people pay, and then an expensive retail price £270 that's silly money.

I wish people would stop quoting inaccurate prices (all it does is put people off). It's £60 for Home and £90 or £110 for Pro OEM I forget. I've seen others quote ludicrous prices for Vista, there's no way OEM will cost that much.

Both are perfectly legal and the price XP actually costs, not some inflated price with a fancy box. £60 for an OS which has lasted 5 years is bloody good value for money.

If it really worries people get a data cable with it but you know what I don't believe for a second MS would A: Challenge you in court or B: They'd win regardless. You've got a legal copy, the rest is all marketing bollocks.

How much is MacOS X? Surely it's not less than £60. Doesn't Mac hardware cost more? I can't stand all the Mac closed-in culture. I'd never buy a pre-built PC so I don't see why I'd have to with a Mac.

It actually bugs me you can't build your own laptop (why forever not?).

Kurgan wrote:Then don't avoid a 64-bit CPU. Just be more prudent in your choice of OS.

I'd choice XP or Vista nothing else interests me.

As for problems, I've not heard of any from either camp. Again, it's just certain 64-bit OS that have problems.

So it's specifically XP 64 on Intel and AMD? If so it's a moot point for me and best to avoid 64-bit.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 15 Dec 2006, 00:32

bradavon wrote:Is the proper one is just called Athalon 64? Yeah agreed I too avoid the budget models. I don't really see the point when I buy CPUs so rarely.

Athlon64's have been out for a while; I think AMD are doing their best to try to match Intel at the moment and they brought out the AthlonX2 a little while ago, which is their upgraded chip. But, like I said, it's swings and roundabouts. AMD made large gains earlier this decade, and Intel are now on the attack. They're changing their chip architecture quite quickly to try and keep AMD from settling in as they did before.

Funny I'm sure you're still paying for it. I'll be getting a laptop in Feb-March that's for sure so is seems really stupid for me to put XP on it.

By that time, all you'll be able to get will be Vista. Microsoft are already offering (on certain machines) a free upgrade to Vista when it's launched. I think the CDs will be sent to your address and then you just install and register.
As an aside, I read an article a little while ago about a bloke who bought a Dell (or whatever) and asked for a refund on his OEM licenced version of Windows as he was going to use the machine to run Linux. He gone through an elaborate process of filming himself not accepting the OEM licence that appears when one boots a machine up for the first time, only for Dell to just send a cheque, no questions asked. Might be something to keep in mind

I wish people would stop quoting inaccurate prices (all it does is put people off).

Trouble is, these "inaccurate" prices are Microsoft's own; they're the RRP that Microsoft themselves set. So they have only themselves to blame when people bitch and moan about software prices and go down the piracy route. "£370 for Office? Bollocks to you. £260 for XP Pro. Not bloody likely. I'll just get it for a fiver down at the car boot or something."

How much is MacOS X?

It's all in my original post, but because you've got reading issues (:P) the answer is £90 for a single licence and £140 for 5 licences. Retail.

Surely it's not less than £60.

OEM would be, well, a bit less

Doesn't Mac hardware cost more?

Not especially. They were the first company to put out a Core Duo machine at £500 and the first company to put out a Core 2 Duo desktop at £700 (with the laptop version being £50 more).
They have the rep of being expensive because they used to only do high-end design or video-editing type rigs, which are expensive, but have widened their range after entering the home market proper.

I can't stand all the Mac closed-in culture. I'd never buy a pre-built PC so I don't see why I'd have to with a Mac.

Fair enough. You don't have to. But it's difficult to get the parts that they bang into their machines at the cost that they manage to. Their screens, for example, are phenomenal.

I'd choice XP or Vista nothing else interests me.

You choice it then

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 16 Dec 2006, 16:58

By that time, all you'll be able to get will be Vista. Microsoft are already offering (on certain machines) a free upgrade to Vista when it's launched. I think the CDs will be sent to your address and then you just install and register.

Nice idea but so dumb when installing an OS isn't a 2 minute job. I'd wait now and just go straight to Vista. As for buying XP I'm sure you'll be able to buy XP OEM no problem, not that I would.

As an aside, I read an article a little while ago about a bloke who bought a Dell (or whatever) and asked for a refund on his OEM licenced version of Windows as he was going to use the machine to run Linux. He gone through an elaborate process of filming himself not accepting the OEM licence that appears when one boots a machine up for the first time, only for Dell to just send a cheque, no questions asked. Might be something to keep in mind

I read that too on the BBC website, fair play to him if he wants Linux. The funny part is they asked for the CDs back but didn't say anything about wiping his PC, there's nothing stopping him from carrying on to use it (in theory).

Trouble is, these "inaccurate" prices are Microsoft's own; they're the RRP that Microsoft themselves set. So they have only themselves to blame when people bitch and moan about software prices and go down the piracy route. "£370 for Office? Bollocks to you. £260 for XP Pro. Not bloody likely. I'll just get it for a fiver down at the car boot or something."

Of course but the RRP of DVDs is often £19.99 but who the hell pays that? Samething, look elsewhere get considerably cheaper.

My point was those prices are silly numbers we shouldn't even be thinking about (us the elite

).

It's all in my original post, but because you've got reading issues (Razz) the answer is £90 for a single licence and £140 for 5 licences. Retail.

He he I thought you were talking about some odd XP price. So XP "IS" cheaper for one license then

(but way more for 5, that's a good Mac price).

They have the rep of being expensive because they used to only do high-end design or video-editing type rigs, which are expensive, but have widened their range after entering the home market proper.

Fair enough. It's still hard to upgrade though, right? Sure if Apple can do it cheaper fine but that takes a level of control away. I built my PC exactly how I wanted it, I'd take that level to be taken away from me.

As long as they're doing it proper(ly)

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 16 Dec 2006, 17:01

As for problems, I've not heard of any from either camp. Again, it's just certain 64-bit OS that have problems. The processors cranked out by AMD and Intel have (certainly on their top end efforts) been pretty good.

Okay the CPU's are fine but what about XP 64? That has problems with both Intel and AMD CPUs right?

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 16 Dec 2006, 22:52

bradavon wrote:He he I thought you were talking about some odd XP price. So XP "IS" cheaper for one license then (but way more for 5, that's a good Mac price).

Like I said, that's the retail price. OEM would be cheaper, but I've no idea what it is.

Fair enough. It's still hard to upgrade though, right?

Well, depends on the model. If you've gone for one of the PowerMacs, then they're just a standard (albeit nice-looking) full size chassis. If the iMacs be your game, then you can up the RAM and everything else is done externally.

As long as they're doing it proper(ly)

You've never heard of the expression of doing something 'proper'? Granted it's a colloquialism, but still...

Okay the CPU's are fine but what about XP 64? That has problems with both Intel and AMD CPUs right?

Well, XP64 just has problems

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 Dec 2006, 00:39

Kurgan wrote:You've never heard of the expression of doing something 'proper'? Granted it's a colloquialism, but still...

It's bad grammar I know that much but yes I've heard of the "proper" phrase. Sure I'm no better sometimes but then members like picking up on my typos more than anyone else

Well, XP64 just has problems

If they fix it in Vista 64 then fine but otherwise it's Vista 32 for me. Is there any actual advantage anyway? We have XP 64 (with an Athalon 64) at work and it's no faster at all.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 17 Dec 2006, 07:58

bradavon wrote: Like AMD vs. Nvidia\

It's ATi.

Kurgan wrote:Samething

Those are two separate words, not a compound in anyone's books.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 Dec 2006, 13:17

He he you're right but then technically AMD own ATI so maybe I meant that

I wonder if AMD and ATI will now be better integrated (so work better together) since the merger?

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 03 Jan 2007, 16:51

EvaUnit02 wrote:
Kurgan wrote:Samething
Those are two separate words, not a compound in anyone's books.

No, you're quite correct. I would appreciate it, however, if you would attribute quotes correctly. That's not one of mine.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 11 Jan 2007, 19:17

Talking specifically laptops are Intel Core 2 Duo or AMD's better? I've only ever seen AMD Turion's which aren't the best.

Bullets 'n' Babes

AMD or Intel?

So, which is it?

AMD or Intel?