Intel or AMD?

beyond what you and i can afford! loonys really rich!

 

loony, doesn't your opteron get killed by intels new i7 cpus? intels new i7 cpus are not only quad but has hyper threading [virtual cores] and in total ends up being a computer with 16 cores. with benchmarks of intels i7, there is currently nothing that amd has to compete.

btw, do you overclock your opterons? how do you keep them cool? quads produce a lot of heat and it becomes very difficult to keep them cool.

 

are you forced to use ecc memory? i remember the problems with having servers is that you're often forced to use ecc, which is a good thing but when it comes to cost it is way too much for your average consumer.

the i7 are for desktops but there is an i7 class for the servers. the xeon nehalems are the i7 for the server class. knowing what the i7 perform like for the desktop, i wonder how well it performs on the server class.

 

hi, i have used many Amd cpu and intel cpu before{ since 386, 486, pentium, k5, k6, althon xp, core series and now core 2 duo} and 1 conclusion is that, IF you do not have a air-con system in your room or where-ever your pc is located, don't buy amd processor. amd system always heat up so hard that it increases room temperature which i have never experience it with intel.

i got so fed up with amd that i was actually sweating while playing a game with my fan on. -.- it's not just me who use amd that has heat problems, i believe many of you who used it before have that too. all my friends who use amd have that problem too.
i'm not sure about the instruction set the cpu has, but the higher grade the better it has.

another thing is that if you want to clock your cpu, get amd then, amd can overclock more which i hear but the heat is unbearable which you need a good fan or maybe a peltier cooler and this mean louder noise from your system and also amd comsume more watts then intel, my pc current run on 150watts which is like wow. while my other amd system is using 400watts power supply.

so overall,
AMD need more power to run which will cost you over long-run(faster wear and tear due to heat and higher electricity bills ) but at a cheaper cost when buying the unit.
Intel cost more when first purchase but less heat produce, and pay lesser over long term due to cheaper electricity bills.

 

completely wrong. intels processors are truly the heat mongers. my quad core 9550 overclocked to 3.7ghz can heat a cool room in about 5-10 minutes. we had temperatures at below 30F and i turned it on, closed the door and 5-10 minutes later the room was warmer then before.

 

My Intel PC is my heater for my room. But now that it's getting warmer... damn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgOmMAasqto

 

based from experience with laptops, intels are better than amd, my compaq laptop is amd and well, if i didnt put a cooler or a fan beside it, it would have just ran for like 20-30 mins then turn off. it will not turn on unless i cool it for 10 mins. but my toshiba intel can actually ran until the battery lose its juice and needs to recharge.

as for a desktop, i would buy intel than amd, but because of the cost, i am forced to buy the cheaper amd. but since i assemble it with lots of cooler, its very quiet and it doesnt overheat for hours.

so in conclusion, it depends, if you have funds, buy intel. but if you have low budget, buy amd. but remember to buy lots of coolers for both processors. cause it really heats like hell especially in a tropical country.

 

well, i'm happy with the amd desktop so no complains there. my old intel desktop sucks because as it is stated "old". but somebody already said, it depends on the way you use the desktop. if you are heavy user and dont want to be disturb by the cpu heating up, buy amd. but if you are consious of the way you use and want a fail-safe, then i think intel does that job.

but i'm not a expert, just stating what i know. so pls dont hate me, its my comp and i'm not forcing anyone to buy amd/intel. it all depends when you actually bought those and use them, then you state what you find of the difference between the two.

 

well, you might want to look at this, http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c01642411&cc=sg&dlc=en&lc=en&jumpid=reg_R1002_SGEN

please see the specs thanks look at the psu 180watt. and i didn't mention about having a higher grade gpu therefore comparing yours pc which is high end with mine doesn't tele at all. and i'm saying about a pc that is not even modified in any form for the intel, i only did mention that amd need some modification on the fan.

well, anything float your boat. that is my opinion, i have my rights well you do need to do some research too before you bullshit. well, maybe i'll stop here cause.. debate over internet is like olympic for the disable, even if you won, you are still... haha

 

AMD's top range cannot keep up with Intel's top range, so Intel is better when it comes to performance.

Intel Pentium 4 was a bad processor when it comes to clock speed and architecture (+15 stage pipeline isn't fast).

Power depends on your system, PSU is the max. Look at TDP, that should give some indication on what the max power for the processor will be.

 

Use both. Overall its come along way since duos/triples/quads. problem is that most games/applications if they aren't patched correctly you dont get to use the additional cores anyways.

It's all hype.

 

it isn't hype.
technology is moving faster then what we can accommodate and it's the reason why we end up not doing what we need to do to use that technology or we end up faltering to something else to solve the problem. ask loony for examples of software that will make good use of multi core software [i believe lost planet uses it].

in games i do not see the need for more then 2 cores. if you look at many of the benchmarks, anything that is either dual or more cores have scores that are subtle in comparison when it comes to gaming. however, if you use multicores on programs that do use them, then you'll see a significant change in performance.

it isn't a hype, we just need further experimentation and start thinking outside the box when we build software to accommodate multicore cpus.

 

It's all hype, dual cores in Amd in 2004, Intels Pentium D 2005... 64 bits 1992 by Dec.

it's all hype. Technologies arent moving at speed of light yet, as the mainstream is still struggling with 32 bits/64 bits.

Sure additional cores help some stuffs out, but that is not to say, tech is moving faster than folks can use the applications, the only thing that got better in technologies is the wafer applications in die.

Thats about it.