add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

What do you prefer, AMD or Intel?

2TekBuilds
  • 17 months ago

What major CPU manufacturer is your favorite? Mine is Intel, usually they preform better.

Comments

  • 17 months ago
  • 5 points

I prefer AMD because the have normally been the cost leader. I'm very smart financially and don't like to waste my money. If I can get an AMD processor for 50% of the price of an Intel and still get 80% of the performance, that is just smart money and I'll choose that route every time. AMD is also easier to root for, but in truth I'd ditch them in a heartbeat if they lost their value aspect.

I've also always preferred AMD's method of more threads too. I used to use Intel way back in the day and was one of the few people who used dual socket pentiums back before multi-cores and multi-threads were a thing. It was so much smoother.

I've owned many CPU's since then on both sides and without a doubt Intel is faster. I still argue to this day that my AMD systems are smoother though, even the ill FX line. For daily tasks with multiple programs operating simultaneously I'll gladly run an FX 6 or 8 core, even if a lowly dual-core celeron will get more FPS in a game.

At the end of the day though as the first paragraph stated. The AMD processors will do the same thing the Intel ones do for much less money. For me that's the end of the discussion.

Also, over the last couple years my AMD branded chips have made me astronomically more money in crypto than my Intel chips have. That same thing can be said for my AMD vs Nvidia gpu's as well, that's an entirely different discussion though.

  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

I don't really have a preference for manufacturers. If you asked me if I preferred Ryzen over Coffelake I'd say Ryzen due to adequate gaming performance and server uses. However, if you asked me if I preferred Vishera (Improved Bulldozer) over Ivy Bridge I'd say Ivy due to its massively improved single core performance.

  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

I don't care to have a favourite CPU manufacture, or GPU for that matter. I will pick one based on my needs or requirements.

Now with that said, my 3 main systems are all Intel as at the time of purchase they either suited my requirements the best or offered the most performance for my work load. I would however have no hesitation picking up AMD if they best fit my criteria.

  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

Whoever has the best bang for the buck at the time. Sometimes I'm willing to pay a little bit more and sometimes I'm not. In the year 2004-2005 AMD was a no brainer. 2014-2016 Intel was dominate. What I like having is a valid choice between Intel and AMD,or Nvida and AMD Radeon. What's going on with the Nvidia RTX cards is the reason why I don't root for one brand or another.

The only valuable attribute a company or brand can offer is good customer service. I shouldn't have to send a motherboard or another piece of hardware into a company twice to have it fixed (looking at you Asus).

  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

What major CPU manufacturer is your favorite?

Cyrix for sticking to the man. But AMD bought them after Intel bankrupted them.

  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

Ha - Ha, did someone mentioned a Cyrix CPU?

My first personal computer did have a Cyrix 6x86 P166 CPU and 4MB of Ram if i remember correctly. Woot!

Oh! those dayZ... :-P

  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

They also used to have a 4x86 that was a drop in replacement for 3x86. Granted not really a true 4x86 performance but better then anything AMD or Intel wanted to do.

It would be nice to have a third party not cross licensed for some real competition again.

  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

It would be nice to have a third party not cross licensed for some real competition again.

Yeah that would be awesome, but i can't see the light... lol

And someone should resurrect 3dfx again, anybody listening... :-P

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/OUcAAOSwrwJboSht/s-l1600.jpg

And i was a proud owner of that GPU above too, those days.

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

I know, late to the party but Cyrix takes me back to the good ole days when Mhz meant something and we only had 2 genders. When I got the 4x86 it was an impressive upgrade over the 3x86. Then the Pentium 150, Voodoo 2 and a 19" CRT whoo hoo!! Quake 2 anyone?

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

Quake 2 anyone?

Yeah, i did play that game like a madman those days. :-P

When I got the 4x86 it was an impressive upgrade over the 3x86. Then the Pentium 150,

Yeah, we could follow up the technological progress.

These days, everything does go overboard. It's a mess!

Now, we have a new CPU and GPU almost every year, to confuse as even more, with questionable results at the end. lol

[comment deleted]
  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

3dfx cards had the best performance with their proprietary Glide api.

Yeah, it didn't go very well after Geforce came out.

But Microsoft's Direct3D and OpenGL implementations from other graphics card manufacturers made Glide almost an obsolete API. Oh well...

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Via bought Cyrix. They also bought out Taurus (the Winchip people). I think they sold a few winchip followup CPUs branded as Cyrix, but Via closed Cyrix down and only kept the name (they probably kept producing some cyrix chips: the mediaGX [owned by National?] seemed to live forever).

Intel killed Cyrix by suing them to the point where they were paying lawyers $9 for every $1 in engineer salaries (which was probably what Intel's payroll looked like at the time (they sued everybody), but it was enough to still design chips and maintain process superiority).

I've had 3 Cyrix-based machines,

3 Intel based machines,

4 AMD based machines (one of the AMD machines hardly counts, it was cobbled together from an Intel machine, an unused CPU, and about $50 in cheap geeks.com parts and replaced in about a year).

And I guess two MOS technologies 6502 that my parents bought (can't forget that Atari 400 and later 800).

[sorry about the spacing, that's the only way I know how to include linebreaks in pcpartpicker.com] I really loved my Cyrix machines, they were great for the price (even if I played all that quake on a Cx686). I prefer AMD, mostly on price and typically get more than I pay for (my second machine was a "32 bit" Duron that mostly ran Linux in 64 bit mode). I'm inevitably irked with Intel chips, as they always seem to remove features included on the chip (AMD has only recently done that with <8 core zens). That said, one of my Intel chips was a 300A Celeron (a computer later renamed "Methuselah" thanks to how long I kept it and how long it was still useful. Of course, this also involved a 533A overclocked to 800MHz when the original chip stopped being happy at 450MHz).

So I'll admit to being biased to AMD, mostly because you typically get what you pay for and more with them, while Intel has to chop features off a perfectly working chip until they will part for it for your price (the only thing holding back my 300A was the "official" clockspeed. That was a really dirty trick to snuff out the K6, but I bought it anyway). But I have to admit that from Sandy Bridge to Zen, Intel was almost always the better choice.

As far as "AMD bought them", it seemed that at the time ATI was buying all the companies with cool vaporware*. I don't think anything ever came of any of them, but AMD owns them all now (although Cyrix [bought by Via] and 3dFX [bought by nVidia] were the ones I mainly cared about).

  • some of these like Exponential (the 500MHz powerpc company in a time of ~100MHz machines) might have sampled real prototypes, but I doubt they all did.
  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Via bought the brand but never did anything other then rebrand other designs under the Cyrix name. Centaur Tech I believe designed them.

AMD bought out the mediaGX line from NS and all the remaining low power IP designs and actually ran with the designs, everything AMD produced for low power products before Ryzen are developed from those Cyrix designs.

  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

With me I am a fanboy of technology not of a name brand. I will buy whichever has the best product I can afford for the intended use I am buying it for. I love how AMD has CPUs out now that can compete with Intel again so it is better for consumers. What is happening with nVidia now on the higher end cards is just dumb and I hope AMD can compete in the higher market too so this BS can stop.

I know in april 2017 I wanted to build my PC for gaming, video work, and some other CPU intensive tasks. I had a choice between the i7-7700k and the R7-1800x. I chose the 1800x as it was far superior for the multicore power I needed and still does really well with gaming. In my HTPC I needed a basic CPU for media playback and chose to go with a pentium on the kabylake platform. After adding a video card I also use it for light gaming and it holds up rather well.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

AMD supports ECC memory. Intel doesn't, unless you're willing to pay double the price for a Xeon.

  • 16 months ago
  • 2 points

Running a Core i3 6100 with ECC in a FreeNAS server...

The i5's and i7's don't support ECC, the i3 and down do(only in compatible boards).

Not that that's much better lol.

[comment deleted]
  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Neither. I want to get something that is relatively trouble free/stable and is good price/performance. I want it compatible with the OS I plan to use. Of course, I am not interested in 'supporting' Intel but I have no real favouritism towards AMD although it's good there is at least some competition with them both again.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

AMD is better at this point in time. Intel is suffering 10nm shortages while AMD prepares for 7nm

[comment deleted]
  • 16 months ago
  • 0 points
  1. the (number)nm refers to die size, less is better, also 2 i guess
  2. IPC is a thing, and currently Intel is better at it
  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

The number doesn't refer to the die size...not even remotely close. 14nm is the fabrication process. The number refers to "minimum feature size" and is somewhat arbitrary. The smallest piece doesn't tell us much about the whole, they don't have to shrink literally everything to call it a "die shrink".

IPC stands for "instructions per cycle"...it's essentially a measure of how much "work" a CPU can do every clock cycle...

Now I remember why I quit coming to this site...people who talk out their ***. You ignored everything that dude said because you have NO IDEA at all what he's talking about...

[comment deleted]
  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

I already replied in one of the first comments, but I thought I’d add a little bit more of reasons.

AMD. I don’t feel lile paying premium for 10 more fps and less multitasking power

Not only I decided to give a try to AMD for being more budget friendly, I decided to give it a chance because I know AMD and ATI Radeon cards seemed to have a bad reputation for getting too hot or burning up years ago. When I told my friends that I got a Ryzen 5 2600 they told me don’t worry, you will soon be back to intel once your RX 580 and Ryzen get fried up in sparks

Coincidentally one of my friends had an AMD GPU, the R9 370 and it “Blew up“ because he was required to OC it.

Maybe before ATI was bought by AMD in 2006, the products really had a reputation for failing. That doesn’t seem to be the case now. AMD is not really well know in Latin America and people tend to be wary of what they don’t know. also Ryzen is only 2 years old, so of course it generates some doubts and uncertainty due to terrible past experiences.

Because it’s true. Most premade pcs and laptops you see in Walmart and Best Buy only have intel, and many people don’t even know AMD exists.

Well’ I thought: ”Ryzen can’t be that bad if it is competing with Kaby and Coffee Lake“.

To me, it feels like AMD has finally caught up with modernity and it isn’t the bad company it was 10 years ago.

[comment deleted]
  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

What does that have to do with anything?

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

Gaming, if the GPU is not powerful enough for what you need

[comment deleted]
  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Intel

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

AMD!!!

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

While I like AMD as a company, I'll buy from either depending on what's available. In modern corporations, fans are an exploitable resource and sooner or later somebody will realize that fans will buy anything and eventually will. If you want to "fanboy" a company, I strongly suggest sticking to companies that are out of business and can no longer break your heart/steal your wallet.

I like Atari, Cyrix, 3dFX. All are long gone (and Atari was never the same after Warner bought them). 3dFX had the issue that they couldn't get "lighting to strike twice": they had make an absolutely brilliant pair of designs (pixelFX and textualFX) and couldn't get a real followup out the door (I don't know if they didn't pay the original designers and they up and quit, or they did pay [presumably they had equity] them and the took the money and retired. All I know is they rode the original design until it was completely played out and then went out of business).

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

Intel. Gave up on AMD/Radeon products about 10 years ago after having nothing but trouble with the drivers on the last PC I had with their products.

Now they might have decent products, albeit slower than Intel, but I have long-term budgets and for PC's, I usually put away $10 to $20 a week and over my 4/5 year upgrade cycle it lets me not have to worry too much about pricing.

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

You mean instead of complaining about not being able to afford a PC you save money out of every paycheck so in a few years you can build a beast?

Am I dreaming? Or was I just abducted by aliens again?

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

Hahah.

No aliens, just the power of compound interest and small accruing amounts.

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

Was pretty much neutral and went for both. But then a Phenom II X4 810 i had kept losing performance after time and overheating (when everything was clean) and it was sad that my old core 2 duo E6300 performed better... Same thing with AMD GPU's. Previously Had older nvidia e-geforce cards from EVGA and then upgraded to a XFX Radeon 5770 and the thing literally fell apart inside my computer while it was on. Like the screws fell off the heatsink and it all collapsed in the case. I couldn't believe it had happened and neither could XFX but it did. Luckily they replaced it with a 1GB 6770 but even that started to overheat and perform badly / cause artifacts...

Went back to Intel / Nvidia with the 7700k and 1080 ti and never looked back. Couldn't be more happy.

I see the comparisons and posts/topics of Intel VS AMD CPU's saying how intel is overpriced and how they screw over customers or AMD is cheaper and "overall" better... To me i want to have the best for what i am doing, gaming. So the price difference doesn't matter to me as i will not be upgrading every year. It took me about 6-7 years to upgrade from my phenom II to this so i am good for a bit.

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

I've always been an AMD/ATI "Loyalist" that being said I'd think you'd be hard pressed to build an Intel/Nvidia based system that can match my Ryzen 1700x@3.9 ghz and Asus Vega 64 Strix based system for a combo of both gaming and productivity, for the same cost.

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

I kind of want Zhaoxin to succeed and bring products to other markets, if for no other reason than competition.

HiSilicon and Nvidia are both interesting to me in the ARM space.

Broadcom makes the SoC for Raspberry Pis.

In the Intel vs AMD fight, excluding performance, I tend to like AMD. Their entire CPU history is just very interesting, and as far as companies go I tend to prefer the value focus.

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

Neither. The companies don't care about you or I. They care about their bottom line. If AMD was in Intel's place, they'd probably be committing some shady tactics of their own. They can't, though, since they're behind Intel in marketshare and consumer visibility. When a company is lagging behind another company, they will build on good faith with consumers until they're at the top, then they'll become the monster they fought against to get there.

For my use case, both will work sufficiently. My first (and only) gaming PC was built on an Intel CPU. I'm in the market for a new CPU and platform and I may go Ryzen this time around, or I may stick with Intel on their 9th gen if the benchmarks are right. It can go either way. The "principles" each company possesses matters not to me, only performance and how much they cost to attain said performance.

  • 17 months ago
  • -1 points

AMD. I don't feel like paying premium for 10 more fps and less multitasking power. AKA Intel.

usually they perform better

only in single core tasks

  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

Yeah, I’m more of a gamer, which are usually single core tasks.

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

only in single core tasks

There is no black and white "single core load" and "multi-core load", wish this misconception would go away already. Different applications are coded to utilize different amounts of threads in different ways. Some tasks can only be parallelized across 2 or 4 threads, some will make use of any threads available, some can't be parallelized at all. Some applications respond better to a CPU speed increase, some applications would prefer a few more threads. And some applications need as many fast cores as you can throw at it. More cores don't always mean better multi-tasking either(which most people seem to think having 100 Chrome tabs open is "multitasking" LOL).

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted]
[comment deleted by staff]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube