April 3rd, 2006

Filed under:
Technology
9 Comments »

Intel vs. AMD: Does It Frickin’ Matter?

In the coming weeks, I plan to replace my aging Windows desktop. I don’t pay much attention to system specs anymore, but looking around I’ve noticed that AMD has made serious brand awareness headway against Intel. For the non-geeky, I’m referring here to the computer’s processor–the thinking part of its brain.

For example, I wandered around Future Shop the other day, and more than half of the PCs had AMD chips. I’ve read a few deeply boring articles on the subject. Like this one from ZDNet, most seem to conclude that it doesn’t make much difference which you choose.

Do any of you bright lights have an opinion on this? Does it matter? Should I care? And should I bother paying for a dual-core processor? Assume that I’m going to use my PC for everything, from Photoshop to Battlefield 2 to audio and video editing.

Incidentally, I plan to buy as much RAM as I can afford, and get kick ass video and audio cards.

Comments: 9 Responses so far

Johnny Nemo
April 3rd, 2006
6:03 pm

“eWeek” or somesuch trade rag said that Intel dual-core processors are better than AMD at running multiple applications simultaneously, but AMD dual-core processors *far* outstrip Intel when running a single, processor-intensive application.

[Reply]

Ian King
April 3rd, 2006
7:36 pm

I’m in the same boat — looking to replace my somewhat elderly P4 with a dual-core system. Right now, AMD is way out front thanks to having an on-chip memory controller and a much faster front side bus (2000 Mhz versus 800 MHz) than that of a Pentium D. (I’ll assume you’re looking at dual-core chips here.) CNET compared the Athlon64 X2 to the Pentium D a few months ago, and the AMD chips won hands down, both on raw performace and bang-for-buck. This is only one review, but it’s consistent with other ones I’ve seen, pretty broadly based and puts the two firms’ current offerings (as opposed to 2004 kit) head to head. I’d go AMD for the forseeable future.

[Reply]

Jason Kemp
April 3rd, 2006
9:12 pm

I’ve used AMD the whole time I’ve owned a computer, which is to say, since 98. I haven’t had any problems with them. I prefer them just to be perverse, because Intel is more popular :) AMD has historically been significantly cheaper as well. I haven’t paid attention to the prices since I bought my last machine a couple years ago. Scientists prefer them because they are better at floating point calculations. Not sure that’s relevant here, but I just happen to know that :)

Whatever brand you do choose, the more important question to answer is when you’ll upgrade again. If you’re not going to upgrade for a few years, you should probably get a dual core, because it will last longer. (Currently applications aren’t multi-core aware. But wait a year and they will be) If you’re going to upgrade/replace in another year, go with best performance for price.

[Reply]

Joe Drumgoole
April 4th, 2006
12:31 am

Dual core processors (whether AMD or Intel) will considerably extend the lifetime of your machine (dualcore=two processors on one chip).

If you buy a single core processor then AMD is faster and cheaper so its a no brainer. However Dell (who provide the only credible support in Ireland) don’t currently ship AMD based systems (unless you count their latest Alienware acquisition). You experience with support may be different in Canada.

From the sounds of your spec an Alienware AMD system might not be a bad choice as these systems already come preconfigured with kickass graphics and the capability for shedloads of memory.

[Reply]

Darren
April 4th, 2006
10:48 pm

Thanks for the advice. Sounds like a dual-core AMD processor is the way to go for me.

[Reply]

John
April 8th, 2006
8:41 am

I’m planning buying a new laptops. I heard on the market said between AMD and Intel. I ‘m wondering about these two machine the Intel dual-core 1.6 Mhz and AMD Turion 64 2.0 Mhz, what’s your opinion? PLease help…..

Thanks

[Reply]

Larry
May 7th, 2006
3:00 am

What I’ve noticed is comparison tests like the CNET one noted above use older Intel cpu’s like the D840 against the brand new AMD 64 X2 4800, and the results were pretty close. What would happen if they were fair about it and put the newer Intel D950 in the test. I think I know what would happen, Intel would have easily won.

[Reply]

Daniel
July 10th, 2006
11:42 am

When it comes to Computer workstation, like the ones i use for Video Editing, AMD is the only way to go since about 2000, or 2001. When it comes to a business computer like a laptop, I would only choose intel. I run manny apps at the same time (Outlook, Word, Excel, IE, etc.) at it seems to start faster and run quicker when i switch the apps, further Intel uses less power on a laptop at least. When i comes to serious machines, the only way to go is AMD. I Still have 4 year old AMD Dual 2800+ MP System and it kicks my 3.4GHz Intels but when it comes to Photoshop or Premiere Pro. Both are good, they both have a purpose. The only thing I never understood was the Mac. High cost at inferior performance. Maybe it’s the cool looks and childlike OS operation that attract people to buy them. Maybe its just the rotting, once bitten Apple logo?!

[Reply]

s3a
August 25th, 2006
5:01 am

Quote:”“eWeek” or somesuch trade rag said that Intel dual-core processors are better than AMD at running multiple applications simultaneously, but AMD dual-core processors *far* outstrip Intel when running a single, processor-intensive application.”
______
Even if that is true, just buy a dual-core AMD and you’re ok! I have a Intel 630 CPU and I regret this decision!! AMD is better than Intel at almost everything!! Intel has a slightly better multi-tasking ability I’m assuming since, it has more “real” Ghz, but that’s it! I’m gonna try to sell my mo-bo and CPU now. I will sell them for better prices then they are brand new and since I am fussy with things, they are in good condition, not to mention, I never touch the inside of my PC unless I am adding parts to it!

[Reply]

Add a comment