Intel or AMD

[localzuk]

So, I'm thinking about our current purchasing preference of Intel chipped machines and wondering if we should now consider AMD.

 

Looking at the sort of chips I'd be wanting, (eg Intel i5-2300 or the AMD Phenom II X6 1055T) there is very little between them in terms of power.

 

What are people here preferring?

Edited March 28, 2011 by localzuk

[ZeroHour]

I personally am always down the Intel side. I have seen a couple of reviews which made the X6 equal with i7's but I believe the newer chips are faster then i7's.

[AyatollahPies]

Intel for servers, but even stevens for desktops. Personally go for AMD's for my own use.

[dgsmith]

We've been solely Intel the past 2 years, but mainly out of ignorance regarding AMD's latest offerings. Whilst the AMD you note is a 6 core compared to the 4 core Intel, it seems the Intel still beats the AMD in benchmarks, maybe due to higher clock speed per-core. The Intel is also using the 32nm fabrication (as opposed to the AMD on 45nm) giving the Intel one the usual performance, lower power, cooler operation etc advantages.

 

Benchmark here for the AMD, with the Intel 8 CPUs above it. I think based on the benchmarks the real-world difference would be negligable, but currently (and out of personal preference mainly), i'd choose the Intel.

[Butuz]

Theyre much of a muchness, so IMHO just pick the one that uses the least power.

 

Butuz

[LosOjos]

I use AMD, ATI and Linux at home because I'm a masochist.

 

I've always preferred AMD over Intel, but that's because I always found you could get more bang for your buck with AMD when I first got in to the art of assembling my own machines. These days though, I think it comes down to nothing more than preference in a Windows environment.

 

EDIT: still on the subject of bang for buck, another major deciding factor could be the availability of mobo's; even though the CPU's are roughly on a par, the mobo's for them might still give you more for your money with one or the other chipset...

Edited March 28, 2011 by LosOjos

[Arthur]

Currently Intel, but things may change on 11/06/2011.

 

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/20614

[3s-gtech]

I tend to veer towards AMD in school, purely on bang-for-buck. Our newest server is AMD, my desktop and laptop are AMD, most laptops I buy are AMD. For student workstations we tend to go Intel though, simply for supplier offers and features availability - HP Elite 6000 uSFF was perfectly packaged for what we need, and Intel. Plus, ICT Direct have far more Intel stuff

[sonofsanta]

Performance, Intel are generally a couple of generations ahead at the moment - the Core 2's and Athlon/Phenom IIs were broadly equivalent, and since then Intel have released two generations of Core i's. AMD's answer is due this summer.

 

Cost wise, AMD are better because price is the only thing they can differentiate on. Where processors of equivalent performance may cost about the same, the motherboard will be cheaper with AMD, so overall cost is lower. In general, you get more cores for your money with AMD (good if multi-threaded e.g. video apps) and more single-threaded performance with Intel.

 

I say this as an AMD fanboy as well. I can't help but root for the underdog.

[john]

Intel for us, the later AMD stuff just doesn't perform anything like any Intel kit does now so were happy Intel users

[SYNACK]

Intel here, for power consumption and heat they just own the AMDs at the moment. Speced AMDs for years before as they were the first by miles to go 64bit and performance was good but given the latest generations of stuff its Intel all the way for the time being. vPro is a nice little extra too.

[3s-gtech]

I will say that AMD Llano looks to be an ideal platform for schools though, with good performance, power consumption and still superior integrated graphics performance. If the price point is right, I wouldn't hesitate to consider them.