View Full Version : AMD vs Intel
Spastic
04-06-2008, 12:14 PM
I just wanted to see which Explosm liked more, I myself am an AMD man, ever since my old Pentium 4 burnt out on me way back in the day. Go ahead and post which you prefer and why, but please try to leave flaming out of it.
AMD has really gone downhill and isn't presenting much competition for intel right now. In my opinion it has always been "AMD is cheaper but runs hotter, Intel is more expensive and more stable".
Spastic
04-06-2008, 12:20 PM
My AMD runs at 30C idle, and if that is "running hot" than I really would like to see what Intel runs at.
My AMD runs at 30C idle, and if that is "running hot" than I really would like to see what Intel runs at.
You said in the other thread under load you go to about 40-50C, when my air conditioning is working I idle at 25C and under load hit 35 max so I mean it could be the airflow, or the AMD just is a hotter chip under use. Not saying it's a bad chip, I just have found Intel to be more stable since I switched from AMD.
Mirrorman
04-06-2008, 1:28 PM
My AMD runs at like around 30C I think and I only have the 2 shitty fans I got with the computer so I wouldnt say it heats very much.
Also I'm more of an AMD man myself, just gotten used to it and have gotten better reviews about it.
Edit- Checked my dads PC and he has a dual core AMD and it runs at 25C at this moment also with the usual shitty fans and a closed case.
Beefynick
04-06-2008, 1:32 PM
I like AMD for desktops, but for laptops they run too hot so thus I am going with Intel. My last AMD laptop had and AMD Semperon in it and it got so hot that it burnt through the bottom of the case.
woweokaywtf
04-06-2008, 2:15 PM
My AMD runs at 30C idle, and if that is "running hot" than I really would like to see what Intel runs at.
My intel runs at 9C when idle, im running a Intel Core Duo E6750 with standard fan on "silent". I also used standard cooling paste. if i have like FF etc. open i run at 10-15C, when i play CoD4 on full i get to 30C, also WoW at 20C.
My AMD tho, ran with standard everything, at full fan speed it was at just about 30C at idle, but when gaming it went up to 45-50C, wich is.. Way much, the Intel is more stable etc., true that. And it also runs faster.
Thats testing with 2 equal PCs before and after i changed from AMD to Intel
Spastic
04-06-2008, 2:27 PM
My intel runs at 9C when idle, im running a Intel Core Duo E6750 with standard fan on "silent". I also used standard cooling paste. if i have like FF etc. open i run at 10-15C, when i play CoD4 on full i get to 30C, also WoW at 20C.
My AMD tho, ran with standard everything, at full fan speed it was at just about 30C at idle, but when gaming it went up to 45-50C, wich is.. Way much, the Intel is more stable etc., true that. And it also runs faster.
Thats testing with 2 equal PCs before and after i changed from AMD to Intel
What did you use to compare the two processors? What programs did you run? I don't believe anything you are saying since all testing I have done, and seen, shows a very minimal performance increase with the same rigs, since well processors are not huge on your gaming performance, it's the overall scheme.
Intel and AMD have 1-5 FPS difference on certain games, when using chips that are equivalent to each other. 9C though, wow, that is pretty crazy. But as I said I only use my stock fan and 2 case fans, no fancy cooling at all.
woweokaywtf
04-06-2008, 2:39 PM
What did you use to compare the two processors? What programs did you run? I don't believe anything you are saying since all testing I have done, and seen, shows a very minimal performance increase with the same rigs, since well processors are not huge on your gaming performance, it's the overall scheme.
Intel and AMD have 1-5 FPS difference on certain games, when using chips that are equivalent to each other. 9C though, wow, that is pretty crazy. But as I said I only use my stock fan and 2 case fans, no fancy cooling at all.
No "fancy cooling".
I only used standard fans, on 2 cheap motherboards.
Tests:
3DMark06 for cpu, the intel had 5fps, the AMD had 3fps.
At idling, no programs up or "anything like that".
Both tested i only had my WLive Messenger up, and nothing else (windows vista ultimate both).
Gaming i used CoD4 and WoW to test temperature and how fast it worked (it does affect, rlylylylyly.).
other programs on randomness i only used Firefox and windows live messenger.
Dont believe me if you dont wanna.
But at least heres a pic of my intel with random programs up...
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/7417/randomidling1dd9.jpg
Spastic
04-06-2008, 2:44 PM
I wasn't doubting the temperature of your PC, or how the performance of Intel is slightly better than AMD. It just seemed as though you were blowing things out of proportion. But to me the cost difference is worth 1-5 FPS, as I don't have all the money in the world to go out and spend on a CPU, and if I were to buy a 30$ fan I am sure my temperature would fall a good 5-10C.
I have an intel q6600 and its running so hot right now. like 60+ on pretty much idle. I dont know know what the fuck to do.. I have 2 fans as well as my heatsink but my case is in a slot under my desk so im assuming there is very little airflow.
Any suggests on a new heatsink? Needs to be front mounted becuase my mobo has back mounted cooling
Sarge51
04-06-2008, 6:01 PM
Aren't AMD Processors slower than Intel's? Not by much, I presume. But for the ultimate nerd it can make a difference.
Kai Dragon
04-06-2008, 7:59 PM
As stated above: AMD is for economic savings, while Intel is leading in performance, but that is at a higher price. Last I checked, the Intel Core 2 Extreme were $1,000 roughly. On the other hand AMD's priced quad core right now is $259. It's really based on the user if they want to save money, or want top-of-the-line shit.
Mitwang
04-22-2008, 6:17 AM
Intel by far.
The only time AMD had any kind of lead whatsoever was back 1.5-2 years ago when Intel had their priorities to shit. AMD was making quality processors (the FX-55 through 60 were very popular for gaming) while Intel was making overheating, excessive core clock, unstable pieces of crap - (I'm looking at you P4 Extreme Edition). But that stint was thankfully pretty short and AMD got knocked right back out when the Core 2 chips came out a year later.
You also have the fact that besides processors, Intel is a powerhouse on its own with motherboards, integrated graphics (not that I advocate them), and network devices. Intel is just the better company. Plus I'm Jewish, and alot of their stuff is developed by Israelis in Haifa.
once_i_ate_a_child
04-22-2008, 6:46 AM
AMD, obsiouvly.
USER WAS PUT IN TIMEOUT FOR THIS POST. (http://forums.explosm.net/eventlog.php)
Reason: Contribute a bit more maybe?
hardcoresk8r69
04-22-2008, 10:42 AM
I have been looking into AMD and Intel processors recently and have heard that the Quad core made by AMD is buggy. I have the Q6600 made by intel and it runs between 30-40C on stock fan and I have no problems with it. I cannot credit where I heard about the bugs but I prefer Intel over AMD.
BlackHood
04-22-2008, 11:58 AM
AMD had the lead a few years ago, but the Core 2 Duo and Quads have taken Intel back into the lead.
Personally I'd love to return to the situation we had about 3 years ago. When Intel are struggling to get the upper hand they put much more effort into making good processors. If they take the lead, they're less likely to try and achieve more.
Spastic
04-22-2008, 12:13 PM
It's the owner of AMD's own fault, really. Now with Intel slashing prices on most of their processors, and up to half on some quad cores, I don't see AMD coming back into real competitiveness with Intel for a long time.
Not to mention the fact AMD could even go out of business, they lost something like 1.6 billion dollars over the last quarter alone.
EDIT
Seems as though I misread it, they only lost about .002 billion dollars, according to this quote.
In Q4 2007, AMD lost more money than it took in via revenue, a whopping $1.772 billion quarterly loss on $1.77 billion in revenue. It is financial quarters like those, coupled to a handful of other several-hundred-million dollar losing quarters, that puts AMD on the map of discontent for Wall Street gurus.
Hunnter
04-23-2008, 3:41 AM
Well, sadly i might have to switch over to the Intel group now.
AMD recently have just went a bit downhill.
I just wonder what crazy person decided on a tricore design... doubles, nothing else!!
Intel have actually gotten their act together and created fairly efficient processors, and some other nice side-projects coming along too. (the160gig SSD is sounding promising, even if it is Flash...)
I just wish Intel would stop being Microsofts bitch.
Mind you, i think after MS just losing the appeal for the Vista Capable lawsuit, which pretty much happened due to them cutting corners with the requirements for Intels sake, the relationship might be a little shakey in the next few years.
edit:
Hmm, http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2286591,00.asp
Who knows, now that this was just posted.
There could be some hope.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.