What CPU brand do you prefer?

eepiccolo · 2003-03-18, 16:06

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.

adpowers · 2003-03-18, 16:17

IBM - PowerPC 970

8 ball · 2003-03-18, 16:18

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.

cheesehead · 2003-03-18, 20:04

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.

wfzelle · 2003-03-18, 22:18

Another PPC 970 for me :(

outlnder · 2003-03-19, 03:29

For Prime95, Intel.

For everything else. AMD.

2003-03-19, 04:52

Intel has been 25% faster in my trials!

Tasuke · 2003-03-19, 19:51

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.)

8 ball · 2003-03-19, 20:16

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

xtreme2k · 2003-03-19, 20:43

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.

xtreme2k · 2003-03-19, 21:20

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.

View Poll Results: Which brand of CPU do you prefer for your computer?
0, I am not currently running gimps, there is no client for my PDA.	3	0.59%
1, I believe GIMPS is a good use of my time, but am not so in to it as a hobby.	21	4.10%
2-3, I have a small home network, or have my home and work machine on gimps.	23	4.49%
4-6, I have a small network at home/a few machines at work I admin.	22	4.30%
7-15, It is an obcession, true, but one I dreadfully enjoy. This is my mark on history.	14	2.73%
16+, I have the warmest apartment/have access to a large number of business or school-lab computers. My(coworkers/students) enjoy that they are making a difference and history.	20	3.91%
C	2	0.39%
D	6	1.17%
A	7	1.37%
B	3	0.59%
E	3	0.59%
F	3	0.59%
G	6	1.17%
H	1	0.20%
I	1	0.20%
Yes! Subforums are a great idea!	7	1.37%
No! I like thing the way they are!	12	2.34%
Yes!	8	1.56%
No!	10	1.95%
There are other projects?	5	0.98%
10	1	0.20%
20	1	0.20%
25	13	2.54%
50	9	1.76%
100	2	0.39%
All of them (!)	4	0.78%
Yes, I have a lot of junk^H^H^H^Hcool stuff to sell!	9	1.76%
No, it would just create a lot of problems!	16	3.13%
6 months	3	0.59%
1 year	18	3.52%
5 years	33	6.45%
10 years	4	0.78%
never	1	0.20%
~1x	1	0.20%
~4x	6	1.17%
~16x	9	1.76%
~64x	8	1.56%
>256x	8	1.56%
0. I only love GIMPS	16	3.13%
1. Mersenne primes don't provide instant gratification	12	2.34%
2-3. I'm interested in finding aliens and the cure for cancer.	6	1.17%
4-7. I have enough machines to go around.	1	0.20%
7-10. I'm obsessed with "distributed" everything.	3	0.59%
Mathematics	7	1.37%
Computer Science/Programming	10	1.95%
Engineering	8	1.56%
Physics	6	1.17%
Other	9	1.76%
Yes, and it will be over ten million digits!	2	0.39%
Yes, but it will be less than ten million digits.	26	5.08%
No, this year will be another slump.	12	2.34%
Yes!	10	1.95%
No!	7	1.37%
What is IRC?	6	1.17%
Intel	27	5.27%
AMD	18	3.52%
Motorola	0	0%
Other	3	0.59%
Voters: 512. You may not vote on this poll

2003-03-18, 16:06	#1
eepiccolo Dec 2002 Frederick County, MD 2×5×37 Posts	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.

2003-03-19, 04:52	#7
TTn 1FAE₁₆ Posts	vote intel Intel has been 25% faster in my trials!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Second-hand CPU vs brand new GPU	fivemack	GPU Computing	12	2017-01-11 23:05
GPU brand	kracker	GPU Computing	12	2014-04-20 15:56
Brand New to Prime95	bmorgan	PrimeNet	5	2013-02-20 22:06
what do you prefer for results?	tnerual	Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5	3	2006-10-29 11:19
Which GIMPS logo do you prefer?	Xyzzy	Lounge	6	2002-10-04 20:49

2003-03-18, 16:17	#2
adpowers Sep 2002 2⁴×5 Posts	IBM - PowerPC 970

2003-03-18, 16:18	#3
8 ball Mar 2003 11 Posts	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.

2003-03-18, 20:04	#4
cheesehead "Richard B. Woods" Aug 2002 Wisconsin USA 1111000001100₂ Posts	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.

2003-03-18, 22:18	#5
wfzelle Jan 2003 2×7 Posts	Another PPC 970 for me :(

2003-03-19, 03:29	#6
outlnder Aug 2002 2·3·53 Posts	For Prime95, Intel. For everything else. AMD.

2003-03-19, 19:51	#8
Tasuke Aug 2002 2³·3² Posts	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.)

2003-03-19, 20:16	#9
8 ball Mar 2003 11 Posts	Yup, were it not for AMD we'd probably be paying £1000 for a 1.5GHz processor NOW. :(

2003-03-19, 20:43	#10
xtreme2k Aug 2002 2·3·29 Posts	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.

2003-03-19, 21:20	#11
xtreme2k Aug 2002 2·3·29 Posts	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.