Bloomberg Anywhere Remote Login Bloomberg Terminal Demo Request


Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.


Financial Products

Enterprise Products


Customer Support

  • Americas

    +1 212 318 2000

  • Europe, Middle East, & Africa

    +44 20 7330 7500

  • Asia Pacific

    +65 6212 1000


Industry Products

Media Services

Follow Us

Bloomberg Customers

Businessweek Archives

Intel vs AMD

? Why Did Providence Hire Michael Powell? |


| Maps: Picture This ?

August 15, 2005

Intel vs AMD

Cliff Edwards

Could it be the folks over at Intel are getting a little nervous?

Word on the street is the rival Advanced Micro Devices has been eating their lunch in the small, but very lucrative four-way server business (that's four or more processors in one system). AMD also is doing brisk business in the entry-level server market.

Never a company to take any lost sales standing still, Intel announced today it "is accelerating the availability" of its dual-core Xeon and Xeon MP processors, introducing new chips at some unspecified time this year instead of next. They'll be targets at "early adopters and evaluators of dual-core technology."

In an oddly worded release, the chipmaker then adds that these new processors really are a prelude to two other chips that will be introduced in early 2006.

What gives? Behind the curtains, one might expect to find that Dell has been pressuring Intel to come up with something to help them compete with hot-sellig systems from HP, Sun and others, who have heartily been jumping on the AMD bandwagon.

And AMD execs likely are smirking at the idea that dual-core technology still needs a lot of testing, since their own products have been flying off the shelves. They say they have an inherent advantage over Intel because their architecture is vastly more energy -efficient, on top of being powerful in their own right.

While Intel is still making a bundle off its Xeon chips, it seems clear they're feeling the heat for the first time in a long time from AMD. And if researchers from IDC or Gartner in coming weeks confirm that AMD continues to gain share in that space, it'll be a black eye that will make Intel very unhappy indeed.

01:47 PM


TrackBack URL for this entry:

INTEL is having trouble copy AMD64 instructions to pentium-M, that's why their Pentium-M based 64 bit chips won't be available until 2006. On multi-core front, INTEL is year behind.

Posted by: OpteronRules at August 15, 2005 10:15 PM

Either way, Consumers will win. AMD needs to keep the pressure on INTEL. Intel has huge ammounts of money and resources, when intel starts to fight, intel will have the upperhand. Until then, AMD seems to have planned very well.

Posted by: Nick at August 16, 2005 11:19 PM

AMD is always a better product anytime. Intel has made lot of money cheating people. Intel is for people who does not know about performance. It is purly for Illiterates.

Posted by: chris at August 17, 2005 11:55 AM

Considering performance:

"When multiple applications are running, the clear conclusion is that the Intel Pentium 840 Extreme Edition is superior to the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+."

"however, when we ran single applications on each system. Here, the AMD system performed distinctly better (by just about 30% on average) compared to the Intel system."

Who runs single applications nowadays? Anyway, I think it's a tie. I think I would choose Intel, it's served me so well for so long to forget.

Posted by: Someone at August 21, 2005 03:36 PM

AMD outperforms Intel and it happens the other way around also, but not too often anymore. The simple fact is AMD has been extremely honest about the performance of their CPU's. Pricing them appropriately compared to the intel counterparts and to their own. Intel blows smoke and uses the media hype to drive their processor prices up(actually to release them with high prices). AMD doesn't need any of that just honest performance that proves itself. Intel might have money but it doesn't help them catch up to AMD in terms of 64-bit processing and dual core. Most people in this world just want a low cost pc to use for the 3-5 years they last on average. AMD offers low-budget and high-performance in the same package. Right now only 64 bit processors are gonna last long enough for the avg pc user. AMD has a 64 bit processor for $100 with 939 CPU's starting at $130. Intel EMT64 starts at $180. I bet if AMD didn't release the Athlon64 then EMT64 wouldnt be out for another year and would be priced terribly high. I for one am so greatful for AMD CPU's ever since my first AMD 386 system. Then my k6-2+ then my Duron, Athlon, Athlon XP and now 64. By the way i have also bought the pentium, PII, PIII, and P4 at one point in time. Now all my intel systems have been sold. I still have 3 XP systems in my house and they all work perfectly for what i use them for. Gaming machines and media centers/home theatre pcs. I play the newest games like BF2 on my older Athlon XP systems great. Besides lacking ram, 1 gig isn't enough anymore even on my amd64! any other game ram isnt an issue.

Posted by: Paul at August 29, 2005 05:05 PM

i meant em64t

Posted by: paul at September 5, 2005 06:45 AM

The one thing people don't mention when they talk about AMD these days is that THEY can take on Intel and even beat them because of their partnership with IBM... the company that traditionally would have the most patents every year in the US.

Posted by: Sedaine at December 13, 2005 08:11 PM

The IBM partnership will help alot, IBM have already produced an affordable ultra high performance chip, that is designed for the Play Station 3.

And Dishonest Intel? What are you talking about. Intels prices are high a few years ago because they owned a monopoly, it would happen to AMD if AMD is in the same place.

The only reason AMD is on the lead is because AMD caught Intel with their pants down. And the Under Dog must always fight harder, in order for the underdog to win.

AMD is like Hyundai/Kia, they cut down the prices and and give the consumer more features to win loyalty, and its happening already.

Posted by: BJ at December 22, 2005 09:43 AM


I have just bought an AMD Athlon 64bits. But i could not figure out which is best because some people tell me AMD Is best some Tell Me Intel P5.

So i am waiting for an an plz answer me soon

Posted by: Kevin at January 31, 2006 02:16 AM


I too have that kind of problem. But I am waiting for someone to reply... which is better? AMD or Intel? Setting price aside what do you think is better?

Posted by: Carlo at February 2, 2006 11:06 PM

Intel vs AMD? I have both and the what I found is dependent on the application. Either chip you buy will problably be discontinued (Intel and AMD are releasing 65nm and 45nm this year). If possible test the applications you going to use daily and see if there is a difference, then decide if the difference is worth it.

Check for compatibility issues. Also, if you are not a techie, don't forget about support. Don't assume that the hardware or software vendor will develop a patch (they have decide if its worth it).

As far as performance. If you are willing to pay for it, you can usually match the performance between the two of them.

Posted by: Al at February 4, 2006 09:07 AM

I'm sorry, but I'd have to say that current AMD processors are better than Intel's. My reasoning is based not only on 3D performance, but mainstream performance as well.

In most benchmarks, the current AMD Athlon 64 processors beat out comparable Intel Pentium 4 processors without needing to be overclocked. Also, AMD processors have a much, much better price/performance ratio than Intel's. If you also research about the power requirements, you will find that in EVERY benchmark that AMD Athlon 64 processors use LESS power than their Intel counterparts. The last benchmark that I saw on the newest Intel Extreme Edition processor showed that it used over 275 watts at full power!! Most people nowadays have an avarage power supply size of 350-400W, so you can see just how much power an Intel processor uses!!

My recommendation, go AMD. Cheaper on your pocket when you buy, and cheaper on your pocket when you use it....and at least the same if not better performance.

Last thing to think about...AMD produced a line of chips based on 1 architecture (Athlon) that has lasted over 6 years. The only major changes to that architecture were 1) the FSB was increased, and 2) the amount of L2 cache grew. Beyond that there were NO new changes, and even with Intel's quad-pumped bus, it was still quite evenly matched. With AMD's latest AMD64 chips, the technology has been available since 2003, and Intel actually had to play catch-up in the 64-bit arena. AMD developed the x86 64-bit extensions, while Intel had to copy it over a year later. Also, with the oferring of dual-core chips, AMD's Athlon 64 architecture was built for dual-core from the ground up. The idea for the memory controller being IN the processor itself was pure genius, along with the Direct Connect feature - the processor doesn't have to go outside itself for memory calls. You would think that Intel would have thought of that first, but they still use the FSB/Northbridge for all communication between each chip, which slows performance. Also, AMD became the first to develop dual-core ahead of Intel.

You've gotta give it to AMD, they've worked hard to beat Intel, and they're finally doing it...and doing it well. If you see a computer built with and AMD chip, they're usually priced at LEAST $100 cheaper than those with an Intel chip...and they offer the SAME or BETTER performance. Believe it!!

Posted by: Magic at February 15, 2006 12:27 AM

You guys are all wrong!!! Im an Intel worker, and there's is nothing better than the Daul-Core Pentium D. It clearley outperformers the AMD dual-core X2, and costs WAY CHEAPER!!! For us, Intel workers, we think we outperform the AMD chips. And were also going think about how to use better artitecture. So go Intel!!!

Posted by: Talha at February 18, 2006 12:24 PM

u guys are wrong. I would always go for intel, and u konow how good it is?? I have both an Intel and amd daul core chips, with every same parts. 500gb disk, 2048 memory, and on. This is what i do. i use my Intel CPU for all multitasking bussiness application, and also play good proccesor work games, like Half life 2, Halo and more. For my AMD chip CPU, I do the same thing, but dont use it as much becuase for me the Intel Pentium D 950 is a better work and play proccesor than the Amd Athlon X2 4800+. I go for intel mostly becuase to me Intel is a way better choice to me. And if i were u i would do the smae thing

Posted by: talha at February 18, 2006 12:32 PM

Thats interesting how the person that works for intel says that intel products are better. I disagree, i keep seeing article after article proving that AMD products have outperformed Intel products. This is not just on price, but peformance as well. I have always used AMD products all my life..oh by the way did I forgot to mention that i work for Intel?

Posted by: unknown at February 21, 2006 02:54 PM

INTEL is, and always have been a lot of hype. I have always use AMD Chips. I did not care what CPU engine I was using, as long as I was getting the same horsepower out of the chip. Now, AMD have always had the same horsepower as INTEL. So, I went with the cheaper Chip. Now isn't it ironic that INTEL HAS LOST THERE advantage ON THE MARKET?

My 1st chip was the AMD 25Mhz that will take you back some years. I am currently using the AMD 64 4000+ a speed demon.

Posted by: Mike at February 26, 2006 12:06 PM

I've always had intel, but I am trying Athlon 64 now. Hopefully, I'll be pleased with it!

Posted by: JC P at March 6, 2006 06:40 PM

65nm are 65nm(and soon they will be 45), 3.4Ghz are 3.4Ghz....come on guys Intel is better that's 100% proofed.There are some fun programs that produce fiction units in amd favour, but the really truth is more GHz, more instructions per second!!!:)

And one more thing, if you whant to test intel vs amd, do it that way:

for best performance whit pentium i suggest P5WD2 Premium or something else but with intel chipset too, not some silly experiments with nforce chipset or other stuff like that!!

for best performance whit amd you can try with nforce chipset!

p.s. for best results compare for example with task manager in Xp - what will be the % of processor usage with same applications(processes)!

Posted by: Nikolay at March 8, 2006 09:40 AM

Does Intel pentium 4 have what is called a 64 bit, as does AMD Athlon 64?

Posted by: Diane at March 12, 2006 04:07 AM

Yes Intel EMT64, now go read news out there about Intel Supporting 64 bit.

AMD, I read someone told they are lke Hyundai /Kia and hey they are right. It is like Hyundai and Kia and not Ferrari!! One thing I can say about Intel as a DataCenter Manager, it is STABLE!! Yes I said STABLE!! Cant find that in AMD!!

Posted by: Ted at March 16, 2006 04:50 PM

Intel IS more stable than AMD. AMD does have a higher ratio than Intel does on frequency, but the ratio is not as high as you think it is. So Intel is still pretty fast.

I rather have a stabled and fast computer than a really fast computer that is less stabled.

Posted by: GX L at March 26, 2006 08:05 PM

I recently built an AMD system with a Athlon 64 3000+ and in a side by side test with my friends P4 3.2, my computer is still faster. Load times are anywhere from 10-80 sec. faster with the same amount of ram. About stability, I've had this thing overclocked by 400mhz (2.2Ghz) with the fan off and it takes 10 minutes of COD 2 before it crashes.

Posted by: Koby at March 27, 2006 02:53 PM

well folks, AMD is getting there.Intel must be alarmed,180k units returned by apol computers,whew!

intel now is very strict in quality issue.AMD is trying its best to be on top of the market..Intel must not be too confident,or one day they will wake up AMD on top.Did i mention AMD website is better than Intel..

im more satisfied in amd than can use your AMD for 5 years +,but in intel processor less than 5 yrs,because AMD produced a line of chips based on 1 architecture (Athlon) that has lasted 5yrs+ ..while intel uses diff archi on diff processors,thats business strategy anyway. Intel must copy AMDs 1 archi..

well its us consumers who will benefit from this AMD vs. Intel war...Wake up intel!!wake up!! before AMD takes over...

Posted by: balot at March 30, 2006 02:46 PM

There is two major difference about AMD and Intel cpu's, AMD runs at full speed at all time and the cache is on the processor, Intel's cache is on the motherboard and it speed slows when it's temperature rises that's why they won't burn. I use AMD with good parts like you should in any computer and it runs perfectly for everything i do. I see test all over internet where they use known test machines and recent games and programs of video editing, image editing and more,

AMD always outperforms in most test intel even with there lower clockspeed and the've been honest.I chosse AMD :)

Do someone knows when the first AMD 3.0ghz will be available ?

Posted by: Yannick Giard at April 5, 2006 02:11 PM

Guys it is this simple. AMD is the best, and any real computer person would know that. AMD has spent its time increasing speed without increasing power consumption. AMD has increased how information flows through the chip. Intel has just increased the GHZ (easier to do). AMD was the first real dual core. The GHZ's are lower in AMD right now, but the 4800 and FX 57-60 (2.4-2.6 ghz) smoke's the intel 955E's (3.8 ghz) in every benchmark without overclocking.

The cream is the AMD FX 60 Dual core. It is untouchable right now. Intel will be releasing a new processor this summer, and it is supposed to be faster. However, I would bet it will run hotter and consume much more power.

Intel has spent the last few years increasing ghz (basically factory overclocking) where AMD has improved information transfer rates in the processor. AMD can be overclocked so far beyond intel it is not funny (without heat problems). There is no doubt if you want a real processor that will last for a few years. BUY AN AMD!

Posted by: Stefano Fiore at April 13, 2006 08:29 AM


every one

FROM my first pc i use AMD Processor.

and i got them better and faster performance than

fucking intel. intel got popular but in 2003 launch of AMD Athlon 64Bit make that intel loose every where and in every match . me just not saying that coz i like AMD i just wana say that AMD got reall technology, INTEL using more cache's and more Ghz than AMD but why intel looser. AMD are cheapers than intel

using K7... DDR with EV6 Alpha bus and now in these days AMD Athlon 64Bit the reall and top rated Processors

just got performance not ... popular name(fucking intel) lol




ok every one

good bye

GOD bless u all


from PAKISTAN ..

Posted by: TARIQ MAHMOOD at April 14, 2006 04:55 PM

seems like amd much of a better choice.

so comparing

intel 3.2GHz and amd thlon proc.3400

i guess amd is better?

Posted by: kit at April 15, 2006 08:50 PM

If Intel is better, how come Dell bought Alienware? amd 64.

Posted by: LUIS at April 16, 2006 01:18 PM

Just a quick ?

if i bought say a Amd 64 3200+ (2.0GHZ) how many intel GHZ would equal the same performance?

Ive heard AMD is more efficient with their GHZ so say a 2.0 GHZ has the same power as a intel 2.8 GHZ(i made those numbers up) so what are the real numbers? if i bought a 2GHZ AMD Athlon 64 how many GHZ would a Pentium 4 need to equal it?

Posted by: dracule at April 17, 2006 10:43 AM

I'm a solid Intel user every since I started building my own computers (10 years ago) the reason why had to do with the AMD K6 processor. This machine running next to an Intel P2 350 was 30% slower and 50% hotter than the intel. It also had crap load of compatability issues (seemed like every piece of hardware I put into the machine took hours to configure) with the AMD. Every since I have have used intel. Well due to all the news and, I was about to build myself a new computer anyway (for gaming), I bought myself a new AMD 64 4000 to compare and ran it side my side my current intel (P4 2.8 i built 3 years ago)I found that my old machine with all the crap (dust on the board from neglect, programs on the HD, etc. etc.) ran just as fast if not faster than this "brand new top of the line AMD" that I keep hearing is so far better than anything else. During the course of a lan weekend, the amd (mind you its brand new with only Dawn of war on it) had program crash after program crash and was slower to load. The only benifit to the amd was the temperature. I must admit AMD is a much cooler running machine and they have come leaps and bounds in relability and speed than the k6 days. But unless AMD does something more about increasing its reliabality (which was the main problem I had with the chip 10 years ago)to put it even in the same bal park as intel, i'll pay the extra money for a chip that I know will run with stability time, after time, after time and so what if the intel is hotter, thats what fans are for. The way I see it is what use is a chip you can't depond on I don't care if its cheaper. Some times its as basic as the old saying "you get what you pay for" and AMD is the cheaper chip. You be the judge

Posted by: Grimjack41 at April 19, 2006 04:16 PM

I used intel quite some time now, but after the switch to amd, my god, I would never go back to intel..I tested the dual core intel with the dual core amd, no comparison..I'm not sayin intel is not fast..But if you want a beast stick to AMD..I'm very happy with my AMD 4800 friend is trying to sell his on ebay haha..

Posted by: Kai at April 20, 2006 06:00 AM

an amd 64 4000+ will rip an intel 3.8 into shreds ,and it runs cooler all the same,you my friend have to be the most uninformed that i have saw a post from or not know nothing about computers at all,amd 64s out perform their intel counterparts in 99% of benchmarks.not to mention an amd 3400+ at $200 dollars humilliates the $1200 flagship pentium extreme edition,i get sick of reading these stupid post of people complaining that not alot of pograms or software are compatable with an amd machine just because their used to buying somthing theve seen on tv and fear change,amd chips use the same sse,sse2,sse3 instructions that intel uses plus 3d now,so everything that runs on an intel runs on amd also,maybe your 2.8 p4 works for you and thats great, but real gamers know that powerful gaming lies with an amd based rig,they wont even use intel,

Posted by: myzery at April 24, 2006 12:16 AM

hi everyone

im using intel pentium 4 processor 2.93 ghz 384 ram (compaq presario 1435il)i works greater than amd .amd is just for sake of name .with 384 ram and 2.93 ghz my pc is like a jet.People don't like intel becoz its costly than amd .

bye everyone

charanjyot singh


Posted by: Charanjyot singh at April 24, 2006 11:25 AM

Yooo Folks!! I'm looking forward some serious answers please. I read all the comments, yet i'm not convinced. Is there anyone now that can convince me about the issue of AMD VS INTEL. I'm about to buy a laptop. Please Folks!!! I need more info

Posted by: Brahim at April 24, 2006 03:30 PM

amd,s do more instructions per clock cycle, that is why a 2.0 gig athlon will stomp a 3.8 gig p4,and by the way,stop saying that everybody buys amd because they are cheaper price wise,i paid $1200 dollars for my amd-fx60, because it is killing the p4 extreme edition by more than 2 football fields in benchmark tests,as a matter of fact amd processers are more expansive than intel processers at the moment and i believe amd has every right to ask for more money because they clearly have the better product by a huge margin,intel dosent even have a true dual core, ppl call it fake core because its nothing more than 2 old p4 presscott cores molded together,also to the last poster who asked about the laptop choice,if you want all out raw power get the amd if you want longer battery life and decent performance get the intel,

Posted by: myzery at April 25, 2006 03:11 AM

i think that amd currently has an advantage over intel


(1) Best 64 bit processing.

(2) ANYONE in the gameing world knows that AMD proccesers consitently beat intel on the performance tests (same goes with duel core).

(3) Lower price than intel.

(4) if you are building your own pc i think that you have a better motherboard sellection and it is way easyer to choose a socket type.



(1) lowest $$$ duel core proc

(2) as of april 26,2006 i have heard rumors that intel has a new design comeing out that beat amd's current cpus on the market

-->Amd also has a proccesser in the works but is yet to be realeased so.....


Right now id go with a socket 939 amd if you plan to upgrade or go duel core and a socket 754 amd if you want a pc that will just be fast for 2 yrs


to buy the stuff go to

(best site EVER)




Posted by: sgm at April 26, 2006 07:42 PM

OK, lets set this str8, AMD vs Intel, im goin to say that Intel has been betting AMD, AMD was aways that little bit behind, FSB, the clock speed and even at the in DDR vs DDR2, but thats to change on June 6th the reses of AM2 sok, whitch will sopport DDR2;), AMD are on DDR and they still out Perform the Intel any day.

Intel say they have 3.8Ghz right, 800FSB, to like 1066Mhz tops, "and there 64bit $h!t, is well... $h!t, AMD rok, eg: my mate has got a, AMD Athlon 64 4400+ dual core running Win XP with SP2, i wont him to run X64 but hay, 2gig dual ch RAM DDR400, Westin Digital HDD total of 860gig, XFX Geforce 6800GS XXX edtion, and so on, and it plays F.E.A.R on 1600X1200 on ultra high at 120fps witch i think is all u need, and renders Adobe Premiere 2 Pro very fast.

Unlike the PC i have at the College, witch run Avid Xpress Pro, on a P4 sok 775 3.6ghz 800FSB 2gig of dual ch DDR2 Ram and 400gig HDD, and a Leadtek nVidia Quadro FX4400, and is not very impresive at all, also running Win XP SP2...

ALL in ALL AMD have the floor, and Intel needs to just keep tryin...

I will also say that AMD have been doin the right thing sinc the Athlon XP, and the 64 is just great, and AMD have been better on the gaming side of thing pritty much sinc then.

Intel, I have found can be better for processing Windows XP, and simple applications...they uses2 have the grunt...but now nut

post bY dArKNeO_7712

Posted by: dArKNeO_7712 at April 27, 2006 03:08 AM

AMD 4 ever!

Posted by: yo at April 28, 2006 03:42 PM

Intel put their money into advertising for a long time. When did you last see an AMD commercial? (I saw one once, on late night TV.)

AMD put their money into research and development, not ads, and they are now producing fast chips that people want, especially in the gaming community, and gamers are insane when it comes to needing the best and the fastest and we want it NOW! Gamers will sacrifice food and women (though not beer and potato chips) to afford the best and latest computer and OS.

I have four Pentium computers and one AMD, my latest, and the best. From now on I will be buying AMD and AMD only. To me, Intel is just fluff while AMD is meat and potatoes.

Posted by: wayne at May 3, 2006 01:34 AM

Ok guys.

There is a ton of different opinions here. Well, I do respect them a bit, though all those stating that Intel is better ARE WRONG! it should be said that AMD is CERTAINLY SUPERIOR to current Intel chips. Why?

1) TECHNOLOGY: Athlon64 core design is WAY MUCH better than the Pentium4 one.

Someone voiced an opinion that MHZ's are more important. Well, that is TOTALLY WRONG.

Let's take a look at VIA C3 Processor.

Speed: 1GHZ

Performance: comparable with Pentium 2 and AMDK5-2


2) NetBurst technology used on P4 is just plain stupid. In the early times of P4, P3 was much faster than its successor.

3) The Majority of Intel products are expensive on comparasion with AMD ones.

4) Someone said that Athlons crash more frequently. Well it's even more stupid than all that "MHZs are better" fuss. Pentium4 and Athlon64 are both VERY STABLE if USED CORRECTLY AND NOT OVERCLOCKED.


1) That new Intels technology they use in Conroe is SUPERIOR to Athlon64 AND AM2.

SO in a year or half when Conroe is going to be released, AMD will be the one behind. Currently it is VICE VERSA

Posted by: A64 is faster than P4 at May 3, 2006 04:58 AM

I am planning to buy a comp.

i dont kno whether to get a amd or a intel processor

if i get a amd64 which motherboard should i buy to

support that .

also help me to select a good mid-range graphics card and sound card .

Posted by: khas kifas at May 3, 2006 09:06 AM

khas kifas

ASUS makes good AMD boards, 7600 GT 256mb ($261)nvidia cards are nice, and if you get a SLI board you can use 2 video cards on it. Which is nice too. Im in the process of buying one myself. Im getting FX-EXTREME soundblaster, its $150 so that may be more than you want, theres SB Augigy4's out there for like $70 (these are CDN prices)

Posted by: chris at May 4, 2006 04:43 PM

Hey I'm planning on buying a Comp this summer. I'm thinking about spending around $500 to $650 dollars (package with tower, monitor, and printer) I'm pretty much going to use it for homework and gaming. Should I get like a AMD 3500, or a P4 for like $100 more? From what I've read here AMD chips own Intel chips even though AMD clock speed is lower. I'm definetly leaning towards getting an AMD.

If I were to get an AMD processor, is it worth paying about $80 more for a AMD 3800 compared to the 3500?

Posted by: Kevin at May 9, 2006 10:44 PM

Hey Guys, I am A 15 year old boy and have been using an intel celeron 800mhz since i was 5 years old, you know, if you were to sell an intel processor which is old, you will get more selling price, compared to an AMD processor. Intel is the best... and that is why i am Purchasing a new intel pentium 4 tommorow. It is the best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: yusuf qamri at May 10, 2006 08:30 AM


Posted by: Kevin at May 11, 2006 12:15 AM


Posted by: Noli at May 13, 2006 12:08 AM

amd or intel which is best as language and os support

Posted by: atul gupta at May 19, 2006 09:04 AM

I want to know why a 15 year old boy using a 10 year old computer thinks that is worth anything. Computers only last for 3-5 years, you are more than double that. They just don't build them like they used to. I started building computers at your age when you were in diapers. Now that I have graducated from College with a BS in Computer Science, and having taken EE course, AMD is currently superior. Now Intel does not like being second, so they are going to try and change that this year.

But I just replaced my Pentium 4HT with an Atholon 64x2, and it beats the pentium hands down. I have compared it to one of the servers at work which has a Quad Xeon and and 12 gigs of memory, and it runs comparable to my Athlon 64x2 with 2 gigs of RAM.

A note on workplace computing, (high security domain) I currently have a mix of AMD Athlon 64 and Pentium 4, and one Pentium D, I like the Pentium 4 in the business Domain, however, that is only on a high security domain. For home users, and small business AMD rules, higher performance for tasks you run.

Bottom line, compare AMD in Intel in a store with programs you run and get which one works best for you. In my experience, AMD has the edge for my home computer

Posted by: Rob Geoni at May 21, 2006 12:45 PM

First off, don't trash age 15, this is about Intel vs. AMD, not generation X vs generation Y.

Secondly, AMD's only advantage is price, so if you want a cheap machine with no actual performance go ahead.

"But Mr. Intel Zealot, Intel runs their processors 700-800 MHz faster than AMD, so per unit AMD is better."

So, what you're saying is, buy AMD because you can't compare apples and oranges? Performance is performance, if Intel processors are faster, Intel processors are better. Period, full stop if you're British.

Thirdly, AMD cannot compare cooling devices with Intel. Intel is a larger corporation and can hire more, better engineeers to create better heat sinks, and more efficient fans. This allows Intel processors to be overclocked to a higher degree with less uncontrolled heat.

Bottom Line:

Buy AMD if you want a bunch of cheap computers for a office or business, Intel for your home where performance counts.

Intel: 2 AMD: 1

Posted by: Mitchell Keller at May 21, 2006 10:43 PM

If you did a search and replace on this page, you could replace "AMD" with "Apple" and "Intel" with "IBM", and you'd have another *inane* exchange circa 1985-1995.

Or go a little further back and you could use Atari 800 and Commodore 64.

The ramblings here are so emotional. And pointless.

Anyone who would rely on the toothless banter in this thread to make some sort of buying decision would be a bonehead, indeed.

This is one ridiculous thread, and the vast majority of you are idiots!

(Note: I thought this thread was in danger of actually containing any usable content, so this this post's only intent is to incite a flame war - on me, of course - so fire away).

Posted by: Roy G. Biv at May 22, 2006 08:26 PM

can anyone provide me with a top end AMD system configuration ???? (Along with a graphic card)

Posted by: Girish at May 23, 2006 05:50 AM

I have a friend whose computer is 1.5GHZ and compared to my AMD 1.0GHZ its almost equal sometimes my AMDcomputer is faster.

On the Stability of computer, i think it depends on the user how he/she uses/handle his/her computer.

AMD OR INTEL it doesnt matter as long as they compete we will have better computers



Posted by: jef at May 26, 2006 04:01 PM

Athlon 64 > Pentium 4

Sempron > Celeron D

Turion 64 > Pentium M

AMD > Intel

Posted by: KDre at May 26, 2006 09:41 PM

Hello !

Well i can say that in mutithread and we, prety much anything intel is a better made product this days,despite all what u see on diferent sites. I use both an AMD64 3200+ and one Intel P4 630 3ghz with HT + a pentium D 930. Ill tel u about P4 and Athlon64 now and i guess i can have a fair opinion and u take it as it is. In every mutithread situation, and i mean here even from starting the OS and loading programs at startup, etc, Intel does it faster and the HT of P4 is some real good thing if you work with many programs at the same time, or u want to play a game and listen some music too (for example). If i do that with the Athlon64 it will FREEZE or in the best case will move slowly and have to reboot. If you want to play games everyday you can do it well on both of them, but on mutithreading situations and that is some 80% of all situations these days, AMD is handicapated.

As for A64 x2 vs Pentium D, i can`t tell u much, i just choose intel for its overclocking potential and low temperatures. It seems that p4`s HT is good for multitasking as the Pentium D, somehow, is no much diference till u use an aplication that demands alot of power, then Pentium D(or a dualcore i supose) is better indeed.

For gamers...theres no difference between them, games are single threaded so even a dualcore will work as a single for a game. For other people, is whiser to choose an intel with HT, and for people who need more computing power, a dualcore is a good choice.

Posted by: Andrei at May 27, 2006 06:14 PM

Lo all,

Well here are my 2 cent: As for the theory as to AMD being a cheaper chip, and thus being given a car analogy previously , any person who knows what they are talking about know that currently AMD bests Intel in the market. As previously mentioned, it's by no sheer coincidence that Dell, as company known only for using Intel chips, will soon be offering PCs with AMD chips. Don't let brand loyalty get the better of you. It's like those who swear that Sony makes the best TVs out there right now (uh, yea if your still gonna buy a Wega CRT). You can almost never listen to a salesperson at retail. Even in BestBuy(they need to sell their computers--> stocked and comprised primarily with Intel chips. Just do the research for yourself. There are many websites to choose from and the benchmark numbers don't lie. I'm gonna be building a PC soon. And it will be with an AMD 4400(ASUS Deluxe, 7800GT OC x2, 2gigRam, 600watt psu, and all the other goodies). I am a gamer to boot, and any real gamer goes AMD. For those in the masses who care less to research, you get what you deserve. Good luck to all.

Posted by: Lex at May 29, 2006 10:22 PM

I agree with Lex ^

If ya aint gonna do the research to see which one is better, you deserve the crappy Intel that brand loyalty made you buy it.

AMD > Intel H1 > H2 :)

Posted by: KDre at May 30, 2006 12:46 AM

Hello. I don?t know why i came up to this forum but anyway.

I?m a computer engenier i have studied both sides of informatics(Software and Hardware)in Portugal, that is, as you know, or not, extremely rated in education. They have got the best Universities.Thats why i?m in U.S working for Intel.Corp. (best engenier's are not American, i know what im talking about, i?m Portuguese ;))

I?m going to speak only for people who understand of informatics and that have the knowledge to speak about computers, in this case processors. And im not in Intel.Corp side, im here to talk about facts.

First of all its not right to say AMD "rocks" on gaming, well they were made for that (3Dnow, arctecture based on 3D priority when needed)but, thats very bad for people who want multitask performance, because, giving the priority to 3Dnow you will not be able to get performance on backgroun operation, as hearing music while playing. Thats sad for a Company like AMD that speak about performance every time, the term performance can not be described only for single aplication matrix.

Now speaking directly because i dont have enough time to write much.

Intel is MORE stable, Faster in Multitask and it as the best performance in heavy aplication matrix's.


You want the explination why? In engeniering terms?

Ask me. Give me your e-mail i?ll explain you.

Posted by: Luis Dos Santos Domingos at May 30, 2006 07:46 AM

AMD "rocks" :)

Posted by: KDre at May 30, 2006 11:08 PM

Well, I have to really take a good long hard look at a comment made from Mr.Domingos in regards to his blatant disregard of the PC gaming community. Obviously, you still haven't addressed the numerous websites that can refute your claim. Because in the gaming world presently, it is all about AMD. Perhaps you should leave the PR spin to the reps at Intel. Things can change in a heartbeat in the PC world, since technology advances bi-annually. I am aware of the Conroe chip coming from Intel, and it's business model to regain footing in a market it lost over the last 3 years. That segment of the market I'm referring to being the gaming community. When I think of Intel nowadays, I think of Sony with their PS2's uh "Emotion Engine" Don't believe the hype. PS2 won the last console generation, but the PC community is of a different ilk. Long live market competition! Better for consumers.

Posted by: Lex at May 31, 2006 12:01 AM

Well i'm on hte verge of buying a new pc... but this forum really hasn't helped much so far.. An intel cpu has a faster clock speed but an amd is supposed to be faster in other ways?

i'm going to be getting an radeon x1900xtx graphics card (512 mb) with 4gb of RAM ect, but wit the processor i'm not sure? is the clock speed more important than what amd are doing? i'm going to be using my pc for gaming in very hight resolutions and with ultra high graphics oblivion is a main game and also i will be doing some video editing so can someone help as too choose amd fx60 or intel 3.8ghz? thanx

Posted by: Help at June 1, 2006 10:38 AM

Yo Help

From what i've heard and researched online (independent testing, comparisons etc.) AMD is the way to go if you're going to be gaming hardcore. It is true that AMD has a lower clock speed but iS in A Lot of ways faster. In conclusion...AMD is what you want if you want to game game game. Only disadvantage to an Athlon fx (along with other single core AMDs) is that it doesn't semi-multitask as well as an Intel with hyper-threading, but who the heck cares when you're going to be gaming right? Anywho, get the AMD, its better for gaming, and if you dont believe me go on some sites and do the research. I've seen FPS bar graphs where low end AMD semprons get better FPS than three pentium 4 models =0, Just goes to show.

Posted by: KDre at June 1, 2006 11:05 PM

blog comments powered by Disqus