I remember fondly the Intel-AMD 'war' which took place about 13 years back.
Basically, Intel always had the best performing yet massively higher priced chips compared to AMD. You could actually afford to get a new motherboard and CPU at the same time if you wanted to upgrade your system with AMD. With Intel this often wasn't an option.
Also hindering Intel IIRC was their processor roadmap. Basically, back around 2000/2001 Intel were planning to release higher speed processors at a rate that frustrated consumers so AMD stole a lead and got to the 1Ghz barrier first, and at a much lower price than Intel could manage this. This situation continued with x64 processors as well.
It wasn't until Intel really released the Core series processors in about 2006 that (for the consumer market at least) things began to swing back to Intel's favour. Up until this point I had always been in the AMD camp.
Given that nowadays the power of what you want to do can often be dictated by other hardware such as RAM and GPU even in tasks such as photo and video editing I would say it comes down to your personal budget.
Intel in work for me, AMD at home though, generally AMD suit people on a tigher budget and their stuff is pretty decent overall, I have never been one to worry about things like FPS beyond it being playable, though some friends live for being "bleeding edge" though to me its too much buying and upgrading constantly. All other fancy junk like water textures, lightshafts and effects gets turned off here anyway :P
Ignoring the fishy comments (I was gonna post "King Edwards" - but ya'all beat me to it) -
I love all those benchmarks that show Intel processors massively outperforming AMD. Can't remember the last time I saw even a lowly Celeron or Atom top 50% usage in task manager. I just can't type quick enough
I suppose it depends what you're using it for. I'm sure most tasks these days see bottlenecks elsewhere almost regardless of CPU. I think even gaming top's out somewhere mid-range in the i5's. After that you wasting money for very little gain.
Depends on the budget and the priority.
Intel if you have the cash and its high end.
AMD for the lower end / budget stuff.
If you want office grade this is quite interesting, because AMD has enough grunt to do the job and can come with a AMD/ATI graphics that trounce intels integrated graphics.
Intel at home, but my boss loves AMD so got AMD in work
With regards to graphics cards so GPU's, does it make any difference what processor you have so for example if I got an Intel CPU and a motherboard that supported an intel cpu ( regardless of what Intel CPU so i Core series i3, 5 or 7 or Xeon or whatever ) and then AMD GPU's
Or visa versa an AMD CPU / Relevant Motherboard that supports the AMD CPU and then NVidia GPU's ?
Will that have any bottle necks or does it not make any difference what so ever mixing and matching GPU's with the type of processor
Oh Intel are better - they've massively out-innovated AMD over the last 6 to 7 years with their tick-tock strategy - but AMD are often good enough depending on the situation, and they're certainly cheaper (the motherboard is often cheaper than the equivalent Intel board as well). Depends entirely on what you want to do, though, and where the PC will be, and how much you have to spend.
I'm trying to move everything to AMD at the moment, as their pricing is so much cheaper. My 3 VM Hosts are running dual 16 core opterons at 3GHz. Intel's answer to that is to make each core run 2 threads, which seems silly to me (I know that they have chips that report that they have 24 cores, but they're just hyperthreaded 12 core).
Personally, for the current price difference, I can't warrant the extra cost to go Intel.
Intel, Intel, Intel... For my gaming rig anyway, runs cooler, better performance etc Mainly all personal opinion though. Don't hate on other people rigs when we all share the same love in the end ;D
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)