When I built my pc about a year ago (right when Core 2 Duo came out) anything AMD had that was comparable in quality was about $1000 more. Easy choice.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
AMD or Intel?
- Thread starter i_got_a_mohawk
- Start date
also Intel just came out with 45nm chip technology recently. Wait for that, then get it. It'll be hot. Well not heat hot, it'll probably be really cool in fact heat wise.
Rakie
Let me take you down, 'cause I'm going to...
Im still on the fence about AMD, they haven't been doing as well. Stock their 6000+ 64 is decent.
Their phenoms haven't been doing well yet, and I wonder if they will do well or not. At any rate, im sure AMD will not die as a business, and a few years from now, *This* time will be coined "The dark ages" when AMD was in trouble.
I guess in short, they won't die as a business, but they don't have a real bright Immediate future.
Their phenoms haven't been doing well yet, and I wonder if they will do well or not. At any rate, im sure AMD will not die as a business, and a few years from now, *This* time will be coined "The dark ages" when AMD was in trouble.
I guess in short, they won't die as a business, but they don't have a real bright Immediate future.
Google "nehalem architecture".
I'm not talking about servers and that's not what this thread is about. In the consumer PC market people have, for years, looked at Intel quads and talked about the inferiority of their design. I used to be one of them. However, in real-world practical desktop applications and gaming as well as in artificial benchmarks Intel's Core 2 processors (both the dual cores and quad cores) almost universally crush AMD's best offerings in both performance and efficiency (look at the testing results from any of the highly-respected independent reviewers such as Tom's Hardware or Anandtech). To me and to the majority of computer geeks end-performance speaks louder than design. What you are saying would be like getting smoked in a drag race but then talking about how the car that beat you is poorly designed. So what..it still beat your car and could do it again and will continue to do it again as far ahead as we can see. AMD is losing processor game and has been for a couple of years just like they are losing in the graphics processor market. I sure wish they could get their feet on the ground and give Intel and Nvidia some competition but I think perhaps it's going to take a buyout for that to happen.
In the meantime....look at us..debating about PC procs. What a couple of nerds we are.
bc
LOL, good points. The drag race analogy is a good one but maybe consider a horse race were Intel could be the horse that takes off and then runs out of puff once the wafer is as thin as molecular physics will allow. Their competitor also has that 25nm die but can continue to add cores without memory bus penalties. Of course I could be totally wrong but from what I read at both camps up to the point of two cores intel is supreme but past that AMD made some smart decisions 4+ years ago by foreseeing the quicksand that lay ahead. I guess the real thing that will give AMD a chance is if they can get their manufacturing sorted out and pay that 5 billion dollar debt off. I agree given the context of this thread those factors aren't really relevant at this stage or for even the short future.
Your right about what you said regarding consumer/business markets. In the server market that push at the extreme end is very hard and we can't resort to overclocking cpu's. Home or gaming, sure why not if it works and it's stable. I think for home either of the duals right now offer pretty good gear and very very cheap.
