AMD Processor vs Intel Processor

Status
Not open for further replies.
AMD rocks the ground hardcore....


I don't like companies (intel) that change the name of established cpu technical terms to something their own.

FYI= Intel's L1 Cache = renamed it to Rapid Execution Cache
 
Thats a really bad excuse to hate Intel... And in any case, even if they changed the name, its for ease.

In any case... REC is EXACTLY what the cache is. Its not like they made up some weird stuff.
 
I, personally, don't hate Intel the least bit.

Infact, I DO believe that they WILL catch up with AMD- just not before 2yrs time. AMD is in the lead for K9 AND K10 ( I know, AMD is dropping the "Kx" naming scheme, but I forget what is replacing it). Intel's dual core and "64 bit" technology doesn't CURRENTLY offer the performance GAINS of AMD's.

But thier FUTURE technologies just may. I assume that the P5 (if they will release it, for all we know they may just drop the Pentium line and move onto something else- though I don't see why they'd do that) could put up quite the competition. If not the P5 then I say the P6 for sure.

But all current P4s are hosed, doomed- when considering performance, cooling, and price/performance ratio.

I say the above cause all benches shows AMD taking the lead in areas where Intel used to "own", thanks to the addition to SSE3- and the dual core chips will steal the multi-threaded lead from Intel aswell.

So Intel's current architecture is sunk- the next one may VERY WELL soar- but only time can tell THIS.
 
Guh, stupid argument.

I currently have an AMD 64 setup (see sig) however I used Intel chips for over 8 years (including my original 486SX/33) and I have NEVER had a problem. It's always performed exactly the way I expected it to and the temperature of peripherals were always great.

Now with that being said, comparing my current setup to anything that Intel could put together, they don't come close in terms of performance. Intel has yet to come into the 64-bit market (aside from the feeble attempt with emulated 64-bit technology - EM64T), and until they do, AMD will continue to outperform.

However, when Intel decides to come out with a true 64-bit consumer-based CPU, the hype of it will easily bring sales above and beyond anything AMD has done, solely because it's Intel and Intel has a crazy good reputation amongst PC professionals as well as new PC users.

My example: Dell has, and probably always will, refuse to use AMD CPU's. Possibly due to the "unknown" that is AMD's technology, and how comfortable the public is with the CPU brand Intel.

All in all, it's hard to battle about something so trivial. They're competitors, what does it matter if you hate one or the other? At least it's not a monopoly where the only CPU we can choose is either AMD or Intel, not either or.
 
Also, Intel markets much more aggressively than AMD. If AMD were to have Intel's marketing budget, Dell might be refusing to use Intel's stuff.
 
AMD hardly advertises at all, but they are doing very well against Intel.
just shows that AMD don't necessarily need to advertise all the time, because their products are good and a lot of people know that (but not enough)
 
caseyc said:

Now with that being said, comparing my current setup to anything that Intel could put together, they don't come close in terms of performance. Intel has yet to come into the 64-bit market (aside from the feeble attempt with emulated 64-bit technology - EM64T), and until they do, AMD will continue to outperform.

However, when Intel decides to come out with a true 64-bit consumer-based CPU, the hype of it will easily bring sales above and beyond anything AMD has done, solely because it's Intel and Intel has a crazy good reputation amongst PC professionals as well as new PC users.


Intel came out with truland 2 days ago.. It's their next feeble attempt at a 64bit design.. Almost 800$ for the cheapest chip.
 
are you talking about emt64?? the lowest chip is a 3ghz and is about $200-210.


btw, i'm kinda beginning to regret that i got intel over amd... with xp64 coming out and linux already supporting 64bit, i kinda wish i had gotten at least an emt64 cpu (they came out a week after i ordered my cpu). i'm notediting photos/movies as much as i had previously hoped so it's kind of a waste...

ah well, what's done is done.
 
from what i understand, emt64 runs 32bit natively and emulates 64bit instructions while a64 does exactly the opposite...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom