What CPU brand do you prefer?
 

I've generally been an Intel man myself; I guess it's just brand loyality.

Also, if anybody prefers a brand that falls in the "Other" category, I'd be really interested in what that brand it is, and why you like it.

IBM - PowerPC 970

I voted AMD only because my last few systems that i use for browsing/gaming/work mostly have been Athlon systems, though i have a Tualatin PIII 1.4Ghz and PIV Northwood 2.8@ 3.33Ghz.

I voted AMD but want to change that to "Other".

However, it seems I can't change my vote on a poll here once it's cast. (I've seen other fora where one can change one's poll vote until the moderator closes the poll.)

Why "Other"?

Well, I really want to vote AATI ("Any Alternative To Intel"). There need to be strong alternatives to Intel for the sake of consumers, to keep Intel "honest", to keep CPU quality high and prices low.

Another PPC 970 for me :(

For Prime95, Intel.

For everything else. AMD.

vote intel
 

Intel has been 25% faster in my trials!

My preference is what gets the work done.
I voted AMD because instead of whining about Intel's monopoly, they did something about it, and the consumer won in the long run(large selections of prices/speeds, huge increase of options, forcing lower prices on the high end.)

Yup, were it not for AMD we'd probably be paying £1000 for a 1.5GHz processor NOW. :(

If it was a year ago I wouldve voted for AMD. But now I am CERTAIN that I will vote for Intel.

Heres why.
AMD:-
- delays after delays for BOTH the barton and the Opteron/Athlon64 core. I am simply FED UP of the delays. In fact I am to the point where I dont trust anything they say until the CPU is actually on the market. This has happened before and will happen again.
- Paperlaunches after paperlaunches. Well their 2600/2700/2800 all the way up to 3000+ are ALL paperlaunches. NONE of the chips are on the market when they were 'launched'. IN fact the 2600-2800 came about 10 weeks AFTER the initial launch. Intel on the other hand has chips on the market 1-2 weeks after the a typical launch.
- Lies after Lies. I am tired of AMD telling us they are not having ANY problems at all in fact all I could see were problems after problems. "we are having no problems with the SOI process" and LOL 3 weeks ago we heard they paid IBM 46millions to fix their SOI problems. There are more and I cannot be bothered to list.
- Selling the same thing for more, PR rating. Well here it is. Markup a 2200MHz/333 which is a 3000+ and now push it up to 2200MHz/400 and sell it as a 3200+. WOW THAT IS WHAT I CALL TOTAL RIPOFF. Same mhz just different multiplier and now they sell the same thing for more. This has also happend on the slower speed grade which I CANNOT BE BOTHERED TO LIST. In fact the PR rating no longer list up to its 'outperforms competitive processors BS'. 3000+ does not outperform a P4 3.06. PERIOD. I wonder how this PR crap goes when Intel releases HT enabled processors on the 800MHz BUS.

I really cannot be bothered to list on and on. There are a few more things I could but for now I wont.

1-3 years ago I loved them but now I totally hate AMD for the reasons above. They are hardly interesting in the mid/high end right now. Hardly any cheaper than Intel either.

I am not saying Intel is good but for the past year or so they have been excellent. No bullshit no delays no lies. Just release after releases after release of stable and proven platforms and processors. AMD is not a charity. They are here to make money as well but if they do not impress they do not deserve my money.

Not trying to start a flame but for what I am seeing a lot of guys would be waiting for a '64bit duron' in September.

While I am at it I might as well point out a few more things.

SMP AMD are no longer cheaper than Intels. The reason they are cheaper is that they have a few (3-4) 'desktop quality' SMP boards which the Intel XEON does not have. XEON has only got 'server quality' boards. If you compare a full blown AMD MPX server board you will see their pricing is hardly any difference.

AMD Athlon MP is hardly any cheaper than the Intel XEON cpu as well. While you can say you can mod an XP to an MP I wouldnt be doing it if it is a REAL WORKSTATION OR A REAL SERVER. You can have fun modding your toy wks/ser with whatever you want but on a real productional machine thats just OUT.

Intel faster for what most of us do - For once I see SSE2 is rather useful for the majority of the home user. Multimedia is what Intel P4 excel at. I would love to see how many of us at home runs CPU intensive SCIENITIFIC programs (maybe different for the users of this specific forum but I am talking about in GENERAL) that requires massive x87 processing.

For example for what I do. Some photoshop, some dvd->divx encoding, mp3 encoding, GAMING, P4 just win hands down. Athlon outperforms P4 on legacy apps where there are no optimisation. Thats why it performs well on the 2001 benchmarks. EG. CCWS 2001 and Business Winstone 2001. But I dont need my Microsoft Word to run so fast. I would rather for my games and what I use to run faster when needed. And yet when SSE2 is in action they are not just slightly faster it is SIGNIFICANTLY faster.

enough of my rant for now.

AMD has never maintained that the rating was meant to compare to "the competition". It is based on the classic Athlon, not a Pentium chip.

[quote="trif"]AMD has never maintained that the rating was meant to compare to "the competition". It is based on the classic Athlon, not a Pentium chip.[/quote]

I dont even want to argue you on that. WE KNOW it is against the P4. AMD say its not. But at the VERY BEGINNING they said it was.

[quote="xtreme2k"]If it was a year ago I wouldve voted for AMD. But now I am CERTAIN that I will vote for Intel.[/quote]

I make the same choice between the two.

Intel started their run from the point they release Northwood. An adding bonus is Intel CPU runs a lot cooler. Sit them side by side, you hardly hear the P4 fan.

However, the I64 and powerpc is far superior. They are just not within my reach/need and lack of fun applications.

AMD say they are only comparing PR with their old Thunderbird was ONLY to stop somebody from sueing them.

EVERY Paper AMD publishes with the XP PR rating has ALWAYS been against a P4 that is on the SAME SPEED GRADE. For example. I have around 10 PDF files there published by AMD and EVERY ONE OF THEM, gives you graphs of, XP2000+ compared to a P4 2.0GHz. XP2200+ comparing to a P4 2.2GHz.

It is SO BLOODY OBVIOUS it is compared to the P4. Even the PRICING is compared to the P4. YOu will see how CLOSELY the XP and the P4 pricing is at a MHz vs PR level. Go to some website that sells CPU. From 2400+ you will see they are priced even AGAINST a P4 so CLOSE that it is so hard to say it is 'not compared to the P4'.

[quote="ebx"][quote="xtreme2k"]

Intel started their run from the point they release Northwood. An adding bonus is Intel CPU runs a lot cooler. Sit them side by side, you hardly hear the P4 fan.
.[/quote]

eh? ever built a 3.06GHz PIV machine? i did and i can tell you the processor is the hottest i've ever come across that was'nt o'ced. Plus you're not using the right coolers on your XP's if its too loud 8) my setup at 2.64Ghz dosen't hit 30db and my temps are about 56c loaded.

I was going to buy AMD about a year ago, but they delayed and delayed both Palimino and Thoroughbred. I didn't wait for the t-bred, I just got a p4 machine and super overclocked it. AMD has been disappointing recently. The desktop Hammer will probably end up coming out 1 year after it was originally supposed to be released! Also, have you guys seen the naming schemes for the Opteron (Hammer for servers)? Article: [url]http://www.overclockers.com/tips00314/[/url]. It is really lame.

AMD is best to lie and cover up if they cannot produce what people expect. People are expecting Opteron to be at around 2GHz+ for it to at least compare to the latest Intel XEON. However at initial launch they will only be releasing 1.4 and 1.6GHz parts. Now that they cannot produce a CPU at an 'expected' speed now they need to find ANOTHER PR system to cover it up.

My Thoroughbred Athlons run a little *cooler* than any P4 I've ever worked with - despite having a LOT smaller contact area to funnel the heat THROUGH.

Earlier Athlons tended to run hotter than comparable P4s - but again, only a LITTLE.


I've not voted in the poll, as I've got quite a few and have used quite a few CPUs from both AMD *and* Intel - and tend to look at what''s more cost-effective for what I'm doing with a CPU *at the time* - which tends to vary from month-to-month, much less over the course of a year or more.

Right now, I'd say Intel has a VERY narrow lead on overall performance on the high end - but AMD is STILL blowing them away on cost-effectiveness in the low-end and mid-range single systems, and if you're willing to work with modded XPs in dual systems as well at ANY price point, SSE2 intensive work (like Prime95) excluded.

*BUT*

It still depends more on the specific APPLICATIONS you run - if your applications are SSE2 intensive, they WILL run faster and more cost-effectively on Intel hardware. If they're integer-intensive or non-SSE2 floating point intensive, AMD wins.

Usually, in both cases - there are exceptions, and variations depending on the MIX of applications.

I vote Intel...

1) Superior documentation...
2) Integrated heat spreader...
3) The retail HSF retention mechanism is a dream to work with...
4) Throttling protection... Yeah, the newer AMDs have it too, but their implementation is too slow... You can fire up a P4 sans HSF and it will immediately throttle... Do that with an XP and you have a expensive keychain...
5) The AMD price difference is almost nothing anymore, unless you stick with 1900+ or slower chips...
6) The P4 just goes really damn fast in Prime95 and Seventeen or Bust...
7) Intel has the research budget and facilities to be first on the block with all new technology... Has AMD *ever* innovated? (Hint: No, and I've been "around" for quite a while!)

That said, I have been known to build AMD boxes when I have somebody on a real tight budget wanting a box...

Would I buy a Hammer if I could buy one today? Sure, as long as it was under 200 bux and outperformed a 2.4B...

> Has AMD *ever* innovated?

2900 and 29000 series were pretty innovative for their time - and were the primary reasons AMD was selected as a second-source for 8088/8086/80286 production - which Intel did NOT want to do on their CPU designs, but IBM pretty much forced them into.

I have to agree that the integrated heat spreader is nice - but Intel did the P-III without those, the lack is NOT just in AMD's court there.

And if Hammer *isn't* innovative, I don't know *what* is.

I'd argue that the Athlon was fairly innovative in it's time, but everything Athlon (Athlon-64 not included) since the Thunderbird has been strictly evolutionary in nature.


BTW - it looks like AMD is going to beat Intel to doing CPUs on SOI - though they had to get some help from IBM to make it work *right*.
On the other hand, IBM was first to SOI by a year or two, with their Power series CPUs....

AMD might have some innovation in the CPU core. But certainly has absolutly NO innovation in terms of the physical CPU and Cooling design.

Athlon Classic copied from Pentium 2 Slot1 design
Athlon Thunderbird copied from Pentium 3 Coppermine FC-PGA design
Opteron copied from Pentium 4 mPGA design

lol. what is next.

Intel is not interested in SOI. They are interested in Strained Silicon. AFAIK they will implement SS in their 90um process.

The reason AMD requires SOI right now is not because they are 'innovative'. But because if they dont have SOI their Athlon64/Opteron will be clocked at a speed where it will not be competitive with the P4/Xeon/Itanium.

[quote="QuintLeo"]>I have to agree that the integrated heat spreader is nice - but Intel did the P-III without those, the lack is NOT just in AMD's court there.[/quote]
Hmm...

[img]http://www.teamprimerib.com/jpg/p3.jpg[/img]

[quote]And if Hammer *isn't* innovative, I don't know *what* is.[/quote]
Where do I buy one of those?

Yeah, Intel *did* finally add a heat spreader to some of the VERY LAST P-III designs - if I had a web cam I'd show you my 1 Ghz P-III that's FC-PGA design. There's a lot more of the non-heat-spreader P3s around than the ones that DO have a spreader, though - I'm not sure if even all of the Tulies have them.

As far as Hammer, sometime in April IIRC.

[quote="QuintLeo"]...if I had a web cam I'd show you my 1 Ghz P-III that's FC-PGA design...[/quote]
I know... I'm just messing with you... :)

:arrow: i go for intel Processor. i have one right now 256/133/733 Malaysia.

It depends on the application I must run... :)

Applications thet don't recognize SSE2 (the vast majority) run faster on AMD.

Luigi

[quote="xtreme2k"]Not trying to start a flame but for what I am seeing a lot of guys would be waiting for a '64bit duron' in September.[/quote]

I don't think that you had to try, the "amd vs. intel" battle was waiting underneath the surface, just waiting to come out. I personally choose intel. I have my reasons, but just to ease some tension I can agree to disagree and move on. :D

I noticed the amount of AMD's on the GIMPS stats page is climbing for quite some time now. Whereas the total has remained more or less stable.

YotN,

Tha

It's not that the AMD CPU count is rising all that much, but more that recent versions of the client recognise Athlons when older versions called them "unknown CPU type".

I'm *still* tyying to figure out the "7 Cyrix" listing on my personal stats - I don't run ANY Cyrix CPUS at all, though I do note that the number is pretty close to my count of AMD K5 cpus.