if you like wasting money and not playing games amd. if you play games and want to feel like you didnt just throw 90 dollars at a homeless man then intel. the saying never lies "you get what you pay for" unless its a killer nic.
AMD hasn't been nearly as "budget" as they were 4 years back. Unfortunately for them, the Intel Core architecture is not only stronger than AMD's offerings, but it's also reasonably well priced. At the moment AMD really needs to start producing something really amazing if they want to maintain their budget-friendly status that they earned about 8 or so years ago. I'm not saying AMD is bad, it's just that, at the moment, they don't really compete with Intel in any market.
As much as I dislike AMD, I have to admit that they're low end can at least be competitive because of their low prices with Intel's lower offerings. But of course, there are always some exceptions.
you kids dont know what youre talking about. AMD does very strong in the server market, AMD was ahead of intel not too long ago until the core 2 duos came out. Fanboys till death huh. AMD will bounce back with a new processor soon. Also their quad cores aren't bad, they just need to improve on the ghz speeds and they'll be great.
#17 uh.. umad? The guy wanted to know for mobile. He's not talking about the past, nor is he talking about the future. He probably wants to buy something right now, and an unreleased chip ain't gonna help him much, nor are dated chips from before c2d came out. Fanboy much?
Oh.. and if he plans to have a mobile server, my bad. Then you right. But oh wait.
I think maybe you should "read this whole thread again" because you're the one with "downs", get that MRI yet?: -server? He asked for mobile, but it's not like it matters because Intel is still ahead in the server market TODAY, and no, don't give me that crap about a year or two ago as that doesn't mean a thing TODAY. -the past? How is that relevant to anything? -fanboys? You're the one telling everyone here they are kids when you're in your own world thinking AMD is the same company they were 3-4 years ago. -the future? That's nice, but as much as you want to be Ms. Cleo, you're not. -AMD's quad cores aren't bad, they're just not better than Intel's, which means they're not good enough.
AMD Phenom runs hot Intel Core 2 architecture is very efficient
One point to Intel
AMD Phenom - Poor overclocking potential Intel Core 2 Duo - Overclocking GOD
Two points to Intel
Case in point. There is always a comparison.. And in SOME cases, AMD is just as good an option as Intel.
Back on topic. As far as notebooks go, Intel comes out well on top. AMD still do represent pretty good value for money at the budget end of the market but...
I'm not sure you can read... An AMD Phenom 9750 OUTPERFORMS a Q6600 @ 2.4GHz - stock settings. Of course when you throw overclocking into the mix you'd be an idiot to go the AMD route. Nevertheless AMD isn't that far behind Intel in this particular generation, even beating Intel price / stock performance wise.
My computer right now has an AMD 64 Athlon x2 and I love it, they are really cheap processors that deliver a lot of performance. AMD was right up there with intel until the Core 2 Duo, that processor was just completely amazing, especially for gaming it even keeps up with the Quad Cores because games typically only utilize 2 chips.
The advantage to AMD right now is that for a very small amount of money you can have a really good quad core processor.
Intel probably will outperform it at the highest levels with overclocking and such, like #26 said but if you're buying for budget and want to save wherever you can I'd definitely go for AMD.
If you're buying mobile just read up on the turion vs the centrino, because thats what you'll be comparing.
#26 i don't know if its a very fair comparison between the first quad core (q6600) and one of the newest (9750). the two years or so in between leave a lot of room for change, even at stocks speeds i'd take a new intel c2q > a phenom
How is is not fair to compare two similarly priced processors? Don't get me wrong, I would take a Core 2 Duo / Quad over a Phenom every day of the week, but it's not so black and white to be saying "No comparison" and the like as some of the people above me have been saying. The fact of the matter is that for the everyday consumer, they don't care for overclocking potential. In fact I'd bet that most consumers first and only question is, "Does it work?". So whilst AMD Phenoms get a bit toasty under the hood the answer is yes, they do work / are perfectly stable.
lets put it this way, AMD has been in this situation before, at least something mildly similar. this time around its just a little bit more complicated, since they were the dominating force in the CPU market, now they are the red-headed step child thats getting beat while Intel sits upon the performance/stock crown waving its gold locks taunting AMD. time will tell if AMD will be able to compete with Intel, especially since AMD is behind on their 45nm parts. and you cant just switch from 65nm to 45nm and expect everything to work d=PX``
#35 i'm saying its not really fair comparing an older cpu to a brand new one. like would the phenom still beat a yorkfield cpu @ 2.4? or a nehalem cpu at 2.4?
you may say that the prices are different then, but how many people still but q6600 vs the new quads? especially when the nehalem cpu's come out, the q6600 will be basically dead
I know exactly what you are saying but it makes no sense... So just because it's older we have to cut it some slack? Would you buy it out of the goodness of your heart? And yes a Phenom will still keep up with a Yorkfield @ 2.4Ghz. Yorkfield didn't implement any major architectural changes over the Kentsfield design apart from SSE 4 support, it was simply a shrink in the manufacturing process.
Your argument really doesn't hold much water. Do you know that the 45nm Q9300 was meant to "replace" the 65nm Q6600 yet really didn't turn out any better; It may consume less energy but it doesn't overclock as well on account of its lower multiplier (at such high overclocks you see motherboard limits introduced). Infact the Q9450 doesn't beat it by all that much either. Up until a few months ago, you could get a Q6600 for $230 whilst the Q9450 was still up at the $400 mark. Do you still maintain that it's not fair to "compare" them?
I am not a fan of AMD, I would recommend buying a Core 2 over a Phenom til I was black and blue in the face. But it is not quite as one sided as people claim. AMD do represent pretty good value for money and in some ways are keeping up fine with Intel. But it must be said it isn't looking good for them when Nehalem hits the streets
ok i see your point too. i'm just making an arguement for arguements sake. i know amd is pretty much killing themselves to sell their cpu's so cheaply, but its the only thing they have on their side. but price aside, the phenoms and agena core can't compete at all in the upper market as they're very limited on clock speed, so basically the only thing amd has going for them is the ability to cut prices so drastically to make it borderline competitive. at least until nehalem comes out, then it seems pretty bleak for amd.
#highhopes
Submit Comments
Registered Users Only
In order to post comments, you must be a registered member. If you have not registered, it's free and easy!
amd vs intel
Too Short
Price + Performance
It's almost the same for desktop processors except that AMD can be better for REALLY CHEAP budget buyers :)...
As much as I dislike AMD, I have to admit that they're low end can at least be competitive because of their low prices with Intel's lower offerings. But of course, there are always some exceptions.
The guy wanted to know for mobile. He's not talking about the past, nor is he talking about the future. He probably wants to buy something right now, and an unreleased chip ain't gonna help him much, nor are dated chips from before c2d came out. Fanboy much?
Oh.. and if he plans to have a mobile server, my bad. Then you right. But oh wait.
whats there to argue about?
I think maybe you should "read this whole thread again" because you're the one with "downs", get that MRI yet?:
-server? He asked for mobile, but it's not like it matters because Intel is still ahead in the server market TODAY, and no, don't give me that crap about a year or two ago as that doesn't mean a thing TODAY.
-the past? How is that relevant to anything?
-fanboys? You're the one telling everyone here they are kids when you're in your own world thinking AMD is the same company they were 3-4 years ago.
-the future? That's nice, but as much as you want to be Ms. Cleo, you're not.
-AMD's quad cores aren't bad, they're just not better than Intel's, which means they're not good enough.
Get Intel, the dual core 2 duo is an impressivly efficient chip.
Lets see... AMD's phenoms are in fact slightly faster clock for clock then Intel's core 2.
AMD Phenom 9750 2.4GHz - $160
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz - $190
One point to AMD
AMD Phenom runs hot
Intel Core 2 architecture is very efficient
One point to Intel
AMD Phenom - Poor overclocking potential
Intel Core 2 Duo - Overclocking GOD
Two points to Intel
Case in point. There is always a comparison.. And in SOME cases, AMD is just as good an option as Intel.
Back on topic. As far as notebooks go, Intel comes out well on top. AMD still do represent pretty good value for money at the budget end of the market but...
#17 You need help.
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz - $190
i would rather spend 30 dollars more and get better performance
just pick one I say, haha.
PZ. I only read from 19 and after too.
The advantage to AMD right now is that for a very small amount of money you can have a really good quad core processor.
Intel probably will outperform it at the highest levels with overclocking and such, like #26 said but if you're buying for budget and want to save wherever you can I'd definitely go for AMD.
If you're buying mobile just read up on the turion vs the centrino, because thats what you'll be comparing.
you may say that the prices are different then, but how many people still but q6600 vs the new quads? especially when the nehalem cpu's come out, the q6600 will be basically dead
Your argument really doesn't hold much water. Do you know that the 45nm Q9300 was meant to "replace" the 65nm Q6600 yet really didn't turn out any better; It may consume less energy but it doesn't overclock as well on account of its lower multiplier (at such high overclocks you see motherboard limits introduced). Infact the Q9450 doesn't beat it by all that much either. Up until a few months ago, you could get a Q6600 for $230 whilst the Q9450 was still up at the $400 mark. Do you still maintain that it's not fair to "compare" them?
I am not a fan of AMD, I would recommend buying a Core 2 over a Phenom til I was black and blue in the face. But it is not quite as one sided as people claim. AMD do represent pretty good value for money and in some ways are keeping up fine with Intel. But it must be said it isn't looking good for them when Nehalem hits the streets
Submit Comments
Registered Users Only
In order to post comments, you must be a registered member. If you have not registered, it's free and easy!