[m]

I'm going with Intel - better technology.  Almost everything AMD does is a clone of Intel (save for dual-core processors and 64-bit)  I read the Wall St. Journal and every month or so Intel comes out with a new technology, be it 45 nm technology, Hyper-threading or teraflops performance.  AMD almost always follows right after them, almost like: "Oh shoot!  They got something first!  Cobble something together quick!"

People claim AMD is cheaper, but I think you get what you pay for.  They say it's cooler, but that's only if you don't overclock it, which it pretty much what they're for.  And if you say they're faster...  look at this or this or this... I mean, c'mon.

*braces for and from jr2 and other AMDummies* 

-m

[jr2]

AMD FTW!!
- I knew I shouldn't have let him use my Internet.   

You can take your technology, paint it with the contents of your wallet, and shove it up your --EMP--!

  Not a secret anymore, is it? 


Wait!!  I still want to beta test it!! I won't leak anything else, I promise!
^{*Crosses fingers* :drevil:}

[Desert Tyrant]

AMD is pretty good back for the buck IMO(Using a dual-cored 3800IIRC)

[Fury]

Is the original poster on a drug trip or something?

Until Intel came out with Core 2, it had nothing to compete with Athlons. No Pentium 4 or Xeon could face Athlons and Opterons on equal grounds and win. AMD also brought us AMD64 (x86_64) which Intel was forced to later adopt to stay competitive. Even Core 2's are still using stone-age old FSB instead of a dedicated interconnect like AMD's HyperTransport. Their Core 2's, as good CPU's as they are, are nothing more than a new generation of Pentium 3's. So their flagship CPU isn't all that new at all, it's based on Pentium 3 with neat tricks added on top of it.

The only thing Intel is doing better (read: faster) is moving to 65nm production and then to 45nm production. This is a matter of financial resources which Intel has much more than AMD.

The original poster's claim that Intel is always coming up with better CPU technology than AMD is totally ridiculous. This may change in the near future, but ever since AMD debuted Athlons, it has kept ahead of Intel in the CPU tech race. Now that Intel debuted Core 2's, this may change but only time will tell. Both companies have some very exciting technology under development. Personally I'm waiting for their answer and competitor to Cell CPU with integrated GPU units.

[Tamlin]

My old[8yrs] 906 T-birb is still keeping with you guys..Go AMD.

[Descenterace]

Fury is 100% correct.

For gaming machines, I'd say Core 2 is ruling at the moment. The Pentium 3 pipeline was one of the best ever invented. The FSB is a terrible bottleneck, but gaming rigs don't actually have to pump a lot of data in real-time. The bulk of it is stored locally to where it's used (cache or graphics RAM).

For servers, I'd choose AMD every time. No FSB means no nasty bottlenecks caused by pumping all data along one very limited bus. When you're trying to dive multiple cores, 800MHz half-duplex simply isn't enough.

[redsniper]

AMD

more bang for the buck because they advertise less

[Nuke]

well im looking at this for my new rig

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017

unless amd comes out with a better one before i have enough money to buy it. this rig is really gonna rape the power bill.

[Fury]

You are mad to even consider buying a quad-core of any current generation AMD/Intel CPU. Affordable quad-cores are coming with AMD's Agena and Intel's Penryn later this summer.

[Cyker]

Oooh, tricky one.

Until recently, I think we'd ALL have said AMD by far.
I still remember when the first Athlons came out and totally destroyed everything Intel made for years, and the only way Intel could fight back was by forcing their P4's to run at higher clock speeds and higher voltages that they'd normally not run them at.
Heck, at the time, even the old K6 CPUs were slaughtering Intel's CPUs at everything except one thing - Floating Point performance, and that's what forced AMD to make 3DNow! (Because they hadn't found a way round Intel's FPU patents until the Athlons, which was basically a K6-3 with 3(?) of the new FPU cores)

Now things are not so clear.

Overall architecture, I still say AMD - The Hypertransport links are fantastic for multi-CPU stuff, and building the memory controller into the CPU was a smart move.

The Core2's *are* faster at this point (With 32-bit code) however, whereas AMD's DDR2/AM2 platform is kinda suffering. Until they figure out the why, they're gonna have problems competing with Intel.

[Nuke]

You are mad to even consider buying a quad-core of any current generation AMD/Intel CPU. Affordable quad-cores are coming with AMD's Agena and Intel's Penryn later this summer.

later this summer i can deal with. benchmarks should be posted abit before the chips are ready to hit retail, seems to be the usual way of things. i tend to buy the best on the market at the time with the amount of money i currently have. if the new amd cpus pose any major advantage over the one ive already picked, then i could probibly wait a month ot two to buy one.  usually i aim for the medium-high as far as performace goes. this time im shooting for the moon. i already got the vid card and im not too far away from ordering my case and psu. any new power connectors i need to be made aware of?

[Scooby_Doo]

Until Intel came out with Core 2, it had nothing to compete with Athlons. No Pentium 4 or Xeon could face Athlons and Opterons on equal grounds and win. AMD also brought us AMD64 (x86_64) which Intel was forced to later adopt to stay competitive. Even Core 2's are still using stone-age old FSB instead of a dedicated interconnect like AMD's HyperTransport. Their Core 2's, as good CPU's as they are, are nothing more than a new generation of Pentium 3's. So their flagship CPU isn't all that new at all, it's based on Pentium 3 with neat tricks added on top of it.

What about pre-Althons? Don't think amd was anywheres near the winning seat till then.  Course AMD is still using Intels 8086 base instruction set with neat tricks added on top of it 

Course my new computer was going to be a amd till core 2 came out. 

[Ashrak]

AMD has always had the upper hand in preformance on equal clock speeds, intels only saving grace atm is that most of the C2D's can be pushed to 3 GHz with ease while AMD chips own em at default speeds

[Scooby_Doo]

AMD has always had the upper hand in preformance on equal clock speeds, intels only saving grace atm is that most of the C2D's can be pushed to 3 GHz with ease while AMD chips own em at default speeds

Isn't it the other way round now?  AMD is having to ramp up the speeds to keep up with core 2

[Fury]

What about pre-Althons? Don't think amd was anywheres near the winning seat till then.  Course AMD is still using Intels 8086 base instruction set with neat tricks added on top of it 

Pre-Athlon/P3-era hardly has any relevance today. Both Intel and AMD are still using old x86 instruction sets out of necessity. Even if nearly obsolete instruction set is used, it doesn't mean that CPU architecture has to be something from as old as P3, evidenced by how different C2D's and Athlon X2's are.

In the end however, the fact is that we need AMD. Without AMD, Intel wouldn't be in a hurry to develop new technologies and drop prices. The only potent contender besides AMD is IBM, and the world isn't ready for PowerPC yet even though the instruction set is superior to x86. It'll be very interesting to see how IBM's new Cell affects the current state though.

And Scooby is correct in his statement. AMD needs to pump out more Mhz's out of current generation of Athlons to compete with lower clocked Core 2's. We'll see what happens when the next generation hits the streets.

[Col. Fishguts]

[Fury]

Is that the Niagara? It's a beast.

[Ashrak]

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=222099

[Col. Fishguts]

Is that the Niagara? It's a beast.

Don't know the code name, it's a UltraSPARC T1.

[Fury]

It is the Niagara then.