AMD versus Intel, again.

[tenguzero]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050902/tc_nm/intel_amd_dc

Too bad AMD kicks so much of Intel's ass it isn't funny.

Intel = Way higher prices for parts, slower to adopt 64-bit architecture, under fire for being an evil monopoly (think Nintendo in its late 80's heyday.)

AMD = Much more affordable for competitive components, early adopter of 64-bit architecture (which means motherboard designers were tweaking their 64-bit support around AMD cpu's and not Intel,) strong and loyal following (pretty impressive exposure for only having 10% of the market.)

Cyrix = Who?

[Neutrino]

Originally Posted by tenguzero

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050902/tc_nm/intel_amd_dc

Too bad AMD kicks so much of Intel's ass it isn't funny.

Intel = Way higher prices for parts, slower to adopt 64-bit architecture, under fire for being an evil monopoly (think Nintendo in its late 80's heyday.)

AMD = Much more affordable for competitive components, early adopter of 64-bit architecture (which means motherboard designers were tweaking their 64-bit support around AMD cpu's and not Intel,) strong and loyal following (pretty impressive exposure for only having 10% of the market.)

Cyrix = Who?

yeah this is going to get ugly and it will drag forever trough courts. If the charges are true intel did use some very dirty manuevers

[Plastic_Fork]

I'll still buy Intel. I have nothing against AMD - they make very good products. I have just had poor experiences with their products and they tend to not work/cooperate for me. So I stay with Intel which has always worked and integrated well into my computers.

[Neutrino]

Originally Posted by Plastic_Fork

I'll still buy Intel. I have nothing against AMD - they make very good products. I have just had poor experiences with their products and they tend to not work/cooperate for me. So I stay with Intel which has always worked and integrated well into my computers.

Honestly Intel makes very good products overall, and they do have an advantage by offering complete systems. CPU/Chipset/Mobo all in house products and very stable. On AMD you have to be more careful since they rely on 3rd party support, therefore you have to make sure to choose the right parts (once you do that however they will match easily the stabilty of intel - heck even SUN will start offering opteron servers soon).

The problem with intel right now is the stupid architecture they ended up with. The whole 32 stage pipe in the prescots is a joke. So for now AMD is easily ahead of them in thsi department. However Intel has a very good R&d department and its already officially anounced a complete revision of they processor line with a realistic 14 stage pipeline among many other things.



Of course that being said my AMD fanboy contract requires me to formally anounce that:

AMD rules and Intel sucks.

[Plastic_Fork]

Maybe that's the trick I'm missing then. I'm not familiar enough with AMD to select parts that work that well with each other. I am biased toward the companies that have worked very well for my Intel systems so maybe I need to approach parts selection differently.

And by the time I'm ready to build a new PC, Intel will have their kinks worked out with the new CPU's so I'll probably buy them anyway. And ATI gives me the same fuss AMD does so again I am biased toward nVidia cards. Guess I just have poor luck with ATI and AMD.