# Which CPU brand do you choose? Version 2



## apj101

OK, the world has moved since 2003 when the last poll was made, i thought it best to start with a new thread to reflect all the new technology

So which CPU brand *would *you choose?


----------



## diduknowthat

hmm, I think i'll hold off voting until my next PC build, since I'm still using my old amd 64 2800+ right now.


----------



## JFHuff

Granted AMD is better for gaming in general....that conroe is giving them a run for their money.


----------



## apj101

JFHuff said:


> Granted AMD is better for gaming in general....that conroe is giving them a run for their money.


pound for pound conroe beats amd in gaming, even with the drastic amd price cuts


----------



## Rambo

Had to vote Intel since I have just built my E6300 Allendale system.

I'm glad you made another poll for this, because I had voted AMD in the other one


----------



## ckfordy

Well i have a AMD processor right now that is really good at gaming.  But now that conroes out i think i will vote for intel.


----------



## leetkyle

AMD. Intel have disappointed me 1 too many times.


----------



## Tayl

I haven't actually ever purchased an Intel processor within my life. Come to tihnk of it, I've never owned a PC that has had one in either, thus I have chosen to go with AMD. Although there are indeed the new Conroes out which by the sounds of it out perform all current AMD processors, I haven't actually used one myself yet so I can't really comment on it.


----------



## koOp

i like AMD over Intel, dno why jst like the sound of AMD. and i hate the logo sound of intel enoying


----------



## Geoff

I'm glad there is a new poll.

However my vote still doesn't change from the last poll, so I voted Intel.


----------



## dragon2309

My vote is the same as the first poll, but now its more sincere and not as fanboy-ish, INTEL FTW

dragon


----------



## Motoxrdude

I like AMD more then intel, but since the new conroes, intels are faster so i voted Intel.


----------



## holyjunk

Amd. I know it is kind of stupid but hear me out. Get a dual proc that later supports 4x4. Then I can get the same proc later down the road for a much cheaper price but still get big performance gains. I know nothing is certain right now and nobody knows which socket, proc, or types of parts will be compatible with it. Also, if amd DOES yes a big does have reverse hyper-threading enabled somehow then that will be huge. 4 procs all working on one application. The possibilities are endless and probably none of it will be logical because at the time something will have already been better. For me really amd is a personal pick. Stupid yes, I know.


----------



## r0k0

Intel


----------



## dave597

amd, the gamers choice.


----------



## Bobo

I see absolutely no point in this thread....except for bummed Intel fanboys.  Are we going to make a new one every time a new processor comes out?

I will always prefer AMD over Intel as a company.  However, I will buy whichever processor is best for my money.


----------



## Geoff

Bobo said:


> I see absolutely no point in this thread....except for bummed Intel fanboys.  Are we going to make a new one every time a new processor comes out?
> 
> I will always prefer AMD over Intel as a company.  However, I will buy whichever processor is best for my money.



I disagree.

The last poll was made over 3 years ago, and since then peoples views have changed, both companies have made major changes, and so on.  A poll from 3 years ago isn't accurate for current reference, and as you can see, the majority of voters have decided to go Intel this time.


----------



## r0k0

i would buy AMD but i already got my equipements in Intel so i cannot go out and just buy a new AMD cpu, i'd have to buy a mobo for it lol anyways my advantage here in Canada is that Intel are way cheaper than AMD and still Intel rocks with my Dual Core and 7900GT i'm getting :

2012 in SM2.0
2009 in HDR/SM3.0
1706 in CPU

4895 in 3DMark 06 with CPU and GPU Stock Clocks


----------



## Ku-sama

AMD because in like a year AMD is going to crush Intel... i just prefer AMD better, even thoug their stuff isnt the best out there right now


----------



## Bobo

Ku-sama said:


> AMD because in like a year AMD is going to crush Intel... i just prefer AMD better, even thoug their stuff isnt the best out there right now


It is by far the best in the lower budget range.


----------



## YEA_PC_PHONICS

power PC cause of the Xbox 360


----------



## Dr Studly

wtf voted power pc?

Edit: lol, nvrm


----------



## Impr3ssiv3

AMD all the way


just got my X2 4200+ in yesterday


----------



## Slackr89

currently running an AMD AM2 64 3500+, but i plan to upgrade in spring to an FX model


----------



## jancz3rt

*Hmm*

I voted for AMD because I still think overall, they offer a better line of processors. Yes the Core 2 Duo is the best right now but that's because it's the newest processor out there. It's a neverending circle of ups and downs for both companies. As Einstein said, it's all relative 

JAN


----------



## Deadwater

I would choose AMD, seems to be the better CPU.


----------



## fade2green514

you should make a thread "which cpu architecture do you prefer" lol
i chose intel but thats only because they hold the lead for the fastest home pc processor on the market...


----------



## Charles_Lee

i couldn't decide, cuz i own a amd core, and yet i ve always liked intel better.
well, i guess i can vote for intel, and yet i really don't know


----------



## Iluvpenguins

im gunna hold out and see if AMD will come out with something to put up against the Core 2 Duos,but as of right now i voted amd


----------



## JamesBart

*Hmmmm.... intel*

Intel is all that ive known so far so thats all i have gone for. but i would like to experiment with AMD sometime in the near future and thats all i know about that!


----------



## pbdr

I actually have both an Intel (laptop; wrk computer) and an AMD (desktop; home).  I voted for AMD, I like there processors andtend to side with the "little guy"; yes the Conroe is the best right now, but you can still hang with an AMD.

Not to mention, as has already been pointed out, how long until the the top proc switches again?  My guess, less than a year.  Intel's Conroe just shows that _they_ can still hang with AMD after years of being second best...

I also think it is necessary for there to be at least 2 very competative PU makers out there (which there is) to keep inovations coming at a decent rate.


----------



## Verve

I really haven't gotten to the point of building my own computers, but if I had to choose I think I'd go for AMD for easier overclocking.


----------



## Charles_Lee

Starwarsman said:


> I really haven't gotten to the point of building my own computers, but if I had to choose I think I'd go for AMD for easier overclocking.


you are quite right, well in a sense that dual core amd processors are good overclockers, both x2 series and some opterons...
i have very little experience with intel cpu overclocking,
but you know what? i think intel cores are just as good as amd for overclocking,
i mean as long as you know what you are doing, its all good...


----------



## MasterEVC

AMD.

Intels new chips are actually good for once, but still they charge and arm and a leg for it. Until they get some reasonable prices Im sticking with AMD


----------



## XFs

Where is AMD assembled?  Thailand?


----------



## chrisalviola

XFs said:


> Where is AMD assembled?  Thailand?



have you seen the processor? mines written malaysia.


----------



## Geoff

Starwarsman said:


> I really haven't gotten to the point of building my own computers, but if I had to choose I think I'd go for AMD for easier overclocking.





Charles_Lee said:


> you are quite right, well in a sense that dual core amd processors are good overclockers, both x2 series and some opterons...
> i have very little experience with intel cpu overclocking,
> but you know what? i think intel cores are just as good as amd for overclocking,
> i mean as long as you know what you are doing, its all good...



The new Intel Core 2 Duo's are much better at overclocking then AMD's X2.


----------



## Mikky

it doesn't really metter what u use, it is important how u use!


----------



## fade2green514

damn this poll is pretty close. looks like intel is taking most of the votes, i wonder why AMD is still keeping up. intel clearly has a better processor... i mean the e6400 is better than the 4800+ and cheaper too! whats up with that! plus, its much more overclockable, along with the e6300 as well...


----------



## Iluvpenguins

Because AMDs are still good.Sure the Core 2's are better,but they are newer sooo...why wouldnt they be better,its just gunna be back and forth because amd will ocme up with something amazing and then intel and etc etc.


----------



## bigsaucybob

I went with Intel. I have a Core Duo in my laptop and soon to have a Core 2 Duo in my desktop.


----------



## justinmmm690

I am using Intel P4 650 3.4GHz
It is amazing.  AMD might have a better front side bus but look at intel great speeds in the business for a really long time,  tons of L2 Cache and HT tech.

AMD has a really sucking con-  Integrated Memory Controller that dosen't support DDR2.


----------



## ckfordy

justinmmm690 said:


> I am using Intel P4 650 3.4GHz
> It is amazing. AMD might have a better front side bus but look at intel great speeds in the business for a really long time, tons of L2 Cache and HT tech.
> 
> AMD has a really sucking con- Integrated Memory Controller that dosen't support DDR2.


 
The Athlon 64s are better then the pentium 4s in alot of stuff.  Lots of L2 Cache doesnt mean a thing and the HT technology sucked.  And for your information AMD has its new processors out with Socket AM2 and the memory controller which is really good supports DDR2.  Next time do your research.


----------



## Geoff

justinmmm690 said:


> I am using Intel P4 650 3.4GHz
> It is amazing.  AMD might have a better front side bus but look at intel great speeds in the business for a really long time,  tons of L2 Cache and HT tech.
> 
> AMD has a really sucking con-  Integrated Memory Controller that dosen't support DDR2.



AMD's Athlon 64 line are far superior to the Pentium 4 line, and thier X2 line is also far superior to the Pentium D line.  The only thing Intel has going for it is the HT.

And AMD does support DDR2, it's called socket AM2.


----------



## justinmmm690

*I have completed My research*

Your right. But HT tech is amazing I can comfortably watch t.v. and use internet and run e-trust anti-virus I am going soon to see if I can get an upgrade pack from dell for pentium extreme 3.73GHz.  I am not upgrading to Core 2 Duo because my mobo is 1 year old and don't want to change it.


But back to the memory controllers.  I did my research and yes only the older sockets can't support it.


----------



## justinmmm690

On to my next topic.  Pentium Extreme Edition at 3.73GHz.  I am wondoring does AMD have Dual Core+HT Tech


----------



## Filip

justinmmm690 said:


> I am wondoring does AMD have Dual Core+HT Tech



No, they don't, if by HT Tech you mean Hyper-Threading.


----------



## Geoff

justinmmm690 said:


> Your right. But HT tech is amazing I can comfortably watch t.v. and use internet and run e-trust anti-virus I am going soon to see if I can get an upgrade pack from dell for pentium extreme 3.73GHz.  I am not upgrading to Core 2 Duo because my mobo is 1 year old and don't want to change it.
> 
> 
> But back to the memory controllers.  I did my research and yes only the older sockets can't support it.



You do know that a $183 Core 2 Duo outperforms the $1000 PEE 3.73Ghz, right?  So by trying to save money, you will actually be losing money.

And a dual-core processor is much better then a processor with HT.


----------



## justinmmm690

yes but i am a beginner PC builder and i just don't want my first project to be a mobo replacement
and Pentuim Extreme Edition is Dual Core and Has HT tech.


----------



## Bobo

justinmmm690 said:


> and Pentuim Extreme Edition is Dual Core and Has HT tech.


yes but HT ain't crap compared to a dual core processor, and a C2D will whoop its butt.


----------



## Geoff

justinmmm690 said:


> yes but i am a beginner PC builder and i just don't want my first project to be a mobo replacement
> and Pentuim Extreme Edition is Dual Core and Has HT tech.



Thats true, but it still doesn't replace the fact that any Core 2 Duo will outperform it. 

Are you sure your motherboard even supports having a 1066Mhz Bus?


----------



## justinmmm690

yes i am sure about the 1066MHz I have called dell to make sure


----------



## bball4life

Yes core 2 is incredible, but I am still a big fan of AMD so I voted amd, I'm glad I'm not alone.


----------



## slobdogg

justin, your right, the pentium d extreme edition is the best way to go.  it has a higher speed then the core duo, so its faster.


----------



## bball4life

slobdogg said:


> justin, your right, the pentium d extreme edition is the best way to go.  it has a higher speed then the core duo, so its faster.


OH LMAO, clock speed has nothing to do with how fast a cpu is.  The x6800 the extreme edition core 2 would blow away the pentium d ee, even the e6600 and e6700 would beat it, or at least be very close.


----------



## slobdogg

bball4life said:


> OH LMAO, clock speed has nothing to do with how fast a cpu is.  The x6800 the extreme edition core 2 would blow away the pentium d ee, even the e6600 and e6700 would beat it, or at least be very close.



what Ghz do those run at?


----------



## bball4life

slobdogg said:


> what Ghz do those run at?


That doesn't matter, but they run at 2.93GHz, but they are able to do oh so much more.  Look for some benchmarks if you don't believe me, but they are so much faster.


----------



## slobdogg

bball4life said:


> That doesn't matter, but they run at 2.93GHz, but they are able to do oh so much more.  Look for some benchmarks if you don't believe me, but they are so much faster.



then it cant be faster.  if it's running at 2.93Ghz, how can that be better then a 3.73Ghz processor?


----------



## Filip

Pentium D EE is faster in terms of GHz, but when it comes to performing a certain task, for example, video compressing/decompressing or something else, Core 2 Duo X6800 takes the trophy, not to mention it overclocks far better, runs cooler due to less voltage becouse of the new 65nm process, it's newer and most important, it's cheaper.

I suggest you to read some stickies.


----------



## SirKenin

I choose whatever brand is right for the application.  Just not PowerPC, AMD or Via.


----------



## bball4life

Filip said:


> I suggest you to read some stickies.


Not only stickies, but google about it, read up on wikipedia, GHz isn't everything and to be very honest that is the mistake most noobs make about processors.  You have been trapped by intel GHz which they no longer play tbh, but honestly don't act like your right when you haven't researched it and when you honestly are completely wrong.
For example I have a p4 630 its 3.0GHz and an amd 3700+ its 2.2GHz my amd is a good chunk faster then the intel, my friend even oc'ed the exact same chip the 630 to 4.2GHz and my amd at 2.75GHz still easily whooped it, in fact it still beats it at around 2.4 or 2.5GHz if not lower.


----------



## SirKenin

lol.  The clock wars ended when Intel whipped AMD's ass to the 1GHz mark.  All of a sudden AMD completely changed their tune and said that it's not the clockspeed that matters.  And so it has been ever since.


----------



## bball4life

SirKenin said:


> lol.  The clock wars ended when Intel whipped AMD's ass to the 1GHz mark.  All of a sudden AMD completely changed their tune and said that it's not the clockspeed that matters.  And so it has been ever since.


Lol and intel was left playing the clock speed game on their p4's with netburst, and then they finally realized they were all alone and people were finally starting to realize that clock speed means nothing anymore, and then they changed their tune again.


----------



## SirKenin

Well, the theory behind the P4 is a sound one.  The idea was to keep ramping it up.  I guess the fact that the Athlon XP was stomping it, and the A64 came out and killed it there was no sense going any further with it.  At least that's my thoughts on it.


----------



## bball4life

And the fact that intel totally bombed netburst and it never turned into anything good, I mean they planned on hitting 10GHz with netburst but never got anywhere close, it was a good idea, they just never developed the process enough or got it to work like it should have.


----------



## ceewi1

SirKenin said:


> Well, the theory behind the P4 is a sound one.  The idea was to keep ramping it up.  I guess the fact that the Athlon XP was stomping it, and the A64 came out and killed it there was no sense going any further with it.  At least that's my thoughts on it.


That was certainly part of it.  Speeds in excess of 5Ghz were sometimes required for the P4 architecture to beat out AMDs top processors in the gaming arena.  Heat and power were the biggest issues, though.  The requirements quickly became untenable as Netburst was scaled up, a major reason why Tejas was scrapped in favour of Dual Core processors.


----------



## diduknowthat

slobdogg said:


> then it cant be faster.  if it's running at 2.93Ghz, how can that be better then a 3.73Ghz processor?



Cause there's much more to the performance of a CPU than the net speed.


----------



## Clutch

Filip said:


> when it comes to performing a certain task, for example, video compressing/decompressing or something else, Core 2 Duo X6800 takes the trophy


The Core 2 Duo is pretty much faster than the Pentium 4 in *all* tasks.


			
				Filip said:
			
		

> runs cooler due to less voltage becouse of the new 65nm process


A "new" 65nm process? Processors using the 65nm process have been out for over a year.

The main reason that the Core 2 is cooler than the Pentium 4 is the fact that the Pentium D 9xx series has around 376 million transistors, meanwhile the Core 2's have only 291 million transistors. Every transistor dissapates heat, and it's common sense to assume that the less heat producing things you have, the less heat there will be.


----------



## justinmmm690

I agree that Core 2 Duo is better but I am trying to get a Pentium Extreme [email protected] because I read all of your posts and now clock speed dosen't matter.  And I don't want my first PC project to be a mobo Change.


----------



## Filip

Clutch said:
			
		

> A "new" 65nm process? Processors using the 65nm process have been out for over a year.



I woudn't say more than a year, becouse 1st 65nm CPU was released somewhere in the end of 2005/beginning of 2006, hence it's newest/latest process for CPU's till 45nm process comes on market.


----------



## Geoff

Clutch said:


> The main reason that the Core 2 is cooler than the Pentium 4 is the fact that the Pentium D 9xx series has around 376 million transistors, meanwhile the Core 2's have only 291 million transistors. Every transistor dissapates heat, and it's common sense to assume that the less heat producing things you have, the less heat there will be.


Also (partly due to the reason you specified), is that they use less voltage, which also in turn, generates less heat and is better on the batter if you use a laptop.




justinmmm690 said:


> I agree that Core 2 Duo is better but I am trying to get a Pentium Extreme [email protected] because I read all of your posts and now clock speed dosen't matter.  And I don't want my first PC project to be a mobo Change.


A motherboard change isnt hard at all, even if you bought a new motherboard and CPU, it would be cheaper then the PEE.

Here are some benchmarks comparing the two:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=432&model2=435&chart=165


----------



## koalaa

first processor (ordered today): Core 2 Duo E6600


----------



## Rambo

koalaa said:


> first processor (ordered today): Core 2 Duo E6600



Good choice man! Are you going to be overclocking?


----------



## koalaa

probably not, since I don't know how or what the benefits are.


----------



## Geoff

koalaa said:


> probably not, since I don't know how or what the benefits are.



It increases performance dramatically, especially with the Core 2 Duo's.


----------



## SirKenin

Whatever works at the time.


----------



## Archangel

AMD... they have green case badges...


----------



## Jet

Sorry, I must say that I am supprised that AMD is so close to Intel. I guess it is all of those people that haven't ever used a good Intel processor....


----------



## Archangel

Jet said:


> Sorry, I must say that I am supprised that AMD is so close to Intel. I guess it is all of those people that haven't ever used a good Intel processor....



or you haven't ever used a good AMD processor..


----------



## TEKKA

I voted intel cause i only used a old amd k6 cpu in a laptop ages ago and it was slow (but yes it was a old cpu, prob good in its time) and i am really happy with my pentium D.


----------



## bball4life

Archangel said:


> or you haven't ever used a good AMD processor..


Exactly.


----------



## Jet

Archangel said:


> or you haven't ever used a good AMD processor..



After thinking about it some, that is a true statement as well. This poll is more on who has used what processors and what their slight fanboy (or girl) tendency is that a comparison of raw data.


----------



## Archangel

anyway... if i would buy a new pc now.. i would go for a e6600 or x6800..   so i would go for Intell for sure.   due to circumstances,.. ive been lucky and got this X2... and it runs like a dream too so far,... so i cant really complain about either of the 2 brands.   besides.. im pretty sure AMD will release a new series of good CPU's pretty soon too.. wich will give the conroes a hard time again      i cant be bothered by the brand... the only the evolution of the CPU's will continue.. and who has the best CPU will vary from month to month..  ( so imo Intel and AMD are pretty equal on that.. in my oppinion  )


----------



## Impr3ssiv3

oh snap AMD is just 2 way from your precious C2D


----------



## Angel69

I'm AMD fan forever


----------



## fish-warezmaster

whoaa,almost balance..btw im using intel..still my old northwood..hehe


----------



## jp198780

all my pc's are Intel, like Intel..


----------



## pokemon87654

Although, I do like the new Intel's, I can say, that if I had a choice I'd still go with AMD, just becuase I haven't had one problem with them, and Intel I have now lost two processors...


----------



## tlarkin

This is a tough one.....

In my PC at home I have an Athlon 3400 and it is almost time to upgrade

The new intels are nice, and smoking fast but I have always been an AMD fan.....

I think it will come down to price.  Which bundle deal can I get for the best products/price ratio.

I am going to build a dual processor system and go with SLI or xfire here soon (like in the next 6 months) and am kind of waiting for the new AMDs to roll out to see what I want to build.

Right now the Core 2 Duo chip is looking pretty impressive right now though.

PPC is pretty much not used on a consumer level at all anymore.  You find it in server prodcuts and sparc systems.


----------



## The_Beast

I have used an Intel since I was first using computers. However I have used AMD and it was fast. If I could chose I would vote Intel and AMD but you can't so since I am building a C2D right now I guess I am voting Intel.


----------



## xBoom

Right now I have Intel but if I have money I'm going AMD.


----------



## Geoff

xBoom said:


> Right now I have Intel but if I have money I'm going AMD.



May I ask why?  And what AMD chip are you going to?


----------



## diduknowthat

xBoom said:


> Right now I have Intel but if I have money I'm going AMD.



You do realize that AMD had a massive price drop a few months ago right..?


----------



## blood2rayne

Intel is the best part of my life


----------



## palmmann

intel if i can afford it($500 budget for the whole comp)

if not a solid single core amd


----------



## Bobo

palmmann said:


> if not a solid single core amd


You can definitely get a dual core system for that price.


----------



## holyjunk

lol, amd and intel are 70 and 70. I think that is because some people feel a "loyalty" to amd. Or they thought amd was still the best when they voted.


----------



## Bobo

I definitely feel that AMD is a better company.  And now moreso paired with ATI.  Intel just happens to have the best processor.  AMD will have the best later.  Then Intel again....that's what happpens.


----------



## pdc76

even though amd does not have the cpu edge right now, i still think they make solid cpu's. they dominated gaming for a long time, that's something intel has yet to do. i believe amd will come out on top again, sooner or later. since i'm not a front runner, i'm not voting for intel simply because there the best right now. my vote as of this time makes it 73 - 72 in favor of amd.


----------



## Powman

Amd has proven itself as an inexorably good gaming and overall processor. Intel is still a good company, and the price is right. (at least righter than AMD) But I still should vote AMD just on a performance based level. 
   Right now the scores between AMD and Intel are pretty much even. I don't know why PowerPC and other are even on there.


----------



## [ULKER]

Im sticking with a C2D, so INTEL.
I have a 2500+ btw.


----------



## lovely?

lol amd and intel are neck-and-neck, with 80 votes each


----------



## Bl00dFox

The result is sickeningly close : Intel 81 AMD 80


----------



## lovely?

no kidding lol


----------



## bambangly

In my country, intel number one.
I choose intel for brand cpu.


----------



## noob101

I gotta go with amd


----------



## DCIScouts

Still gotta be AMD for me...  Makes it 82 to 81.


----------



## ghost

AMD for me too, I wish AMD pull their fingers out their asses and make a dual core 65nm CPU with 4mb L2 cache or an 45nm that would be nice  rather than wasting their money and time with this 4X4 bo***x!


----------



## deankenny

i choose AMD because, well the new duo core from intel is faster then the x2 from AMD so yes is faster for games but AMD handles games better and is more stable so i stick with AMD


----------



## Cromewell

> i choose AMD because, well the new duo core from intel is faster then the x2 from AMD so yes is faster for games but AMD handles games better and is more stable so i stick with AMD


They are both as stable as each other. And if the Core 2 is faster then how can AMD be faster?


----------



## deankenny

Cromewell said:


> They are both as stable as each other. And if the Core 2 is faster then how can AMD be faster?



i didnt say AMD is faster, the game developers and producers make and model the games on AMD machines so id stick with AMD


----------



## joeswm8

sure they make them on AMD machines.... even though Core 2 Duo runs faster and more powerful...


----------



## Geoff

deankenny said:


> i didnt say AMD is faster, the game developers and producers make and model the games on AMD machines so id stick with AMD



LOL!  Where did you hear that?  Or is that just another one of your speculations?


----------



## deankenny

[-0MEGA-];511822 said:
			
		

> LOL!  Where did you hear that?  Or is that just another one of your speculations?



no every single game manual i have says made for AMD processor technology in the back check it out


----------



## jp198780

Dell is now putting AMD cpu's in their computers..


----------



## Jet

deankenny said:


> no every single game manual i have says made for AMD processor technology in the back check it out



1. Do you have more than 50% of the games in the world? If you don't, you can't prove your statment:



> i choose AMD because, well the new duo core from intel is faster then the x2 from AMD so yes is faster for games but AMD handles games better and is more stable so i stick with AMD



2. Do you realize that that badge is more a type of ad than proving anything?  I mean, AMD pays x company y amount of dollars to have their label on games..


----------



## jamie_whizkid

i prver intel exspeicaly the intel core 2 duo extreme

but at mo i have rubbish comp with a adm athlon 2700+ 2.12GHz


----------



## curtains

*Amd!!!*

I prefre amd for its compeitive prices .. there way cheaper for what they do and i'm neva gona buy a top of the range product so who cares who has the fastest cpu well i would if i was rich .. but thats another story


----------



## TherealChessnut

I slightly prefer AMD... but as many people have said, I would try to get whatever processor fits my needs and budget the best.  Intel has the performance crown certainly for anything bleeding edge, but I am building on a low budget so those processors don't have an impact on me until they become cheaper.  With either company I would have plenty of room to upgrade as prices drop; both companies will be bringing out new technology in the time before I would upgrade.  That is the ramblings of this newbie anyway.

TherealChessnut


----------



## Young Nerd (real young)

*I only prefer intel because...*

I only prefer intel because they have the new core2 duo line which are just an amazing proc. Heck if could get the new quad core I would, but I can't afford it, curently I only own an socket 754 AMD Athlon 64 3700+.


----------



## Archangel

Young Nerd (real young) said:


> I only prefer intel because they have the new core2 duo line which are just an amazing proc. Heck if could get the new quad core I would, but I can't afford it, curently I only own an socket 754 AMD Athlon 64 3700+.



from that i assume you prefered AMD before that, because of their awesome x64 CPU's when they were released?


----------



## Bobo

Don't pick on the (real young) nerd...he's just being a fanboy....


----------



## lovely?

Young Nerd (real young) said:


> I only prefer intel because they have the new core2 duo line which are just an amazing proc. Heck if could get the new quad core I would, but I can't afford it, curently I only own an socket 754 AMD Athlon 64 3700+.



huh? i was under the impression that socket 754 only supported up to athlon 64, 3400


----------



## Bobo

lovely? said:


> huh? i was under the impression that socket 754 only supported up to athlon 64, 3400


Nope, it goes up to the 3700, but they're hard to find and expensive.
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80719-R&prodlist=nextag


----------



## Jet

$300+ for a 3700+? Wow. Talk about in need of a motherboard upgrade!


----------



## Emperor_nero

Jet said:


> $300+ for a 3700+? Wow. Talk about in need of a motherboard upgrade!



Yes but it comes with ***Free Shipping***!


----------



## Jonyboy

I chose intel because i dont own any amd computers but i would be perfectly happy to use or try an amd computer.


----------



## Dual_Corex2

Bobo said:


> Nope, it goes up to the 3700, but they're hard to find and expensive.
> http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80719-R&prodlist=nextag



DO NOT GET THAT! I have never seen such an outragous price for a 64.

I only paid $140 for my cpu and its twice as good as that one


----------



## towly

I voted for AMD simply because its what I've been using for a long time now and feel more comfortable with.


----------



## 69mako

I have used Intel since day one.  Never a problem.  Don't see any reason to change.

Mako


----------



## playwith_madness

im totally new to this stuff, so correct me if i am wrong. Intel has the superior processor now however Amd just lowered their prices massively therefore if i am not looking for super computer 2020, The best bang for your buck would be Amd?  that said was the dual core Amd also lowered recently?

Oh and btw i dont play computer games.


----------



## zaroba

theres no selection for 'no preference' so i hit other.

i don't really have a cpu preference.  when it comes to building a pc, i first find a motherboard i like and then get whatever kind of cpu that it needs.


----------



## jedijeff123

playwith_madness said:


> im totally new to this stuff, so correct me if i am wrong. Intel has the superior processor now however Amd just lowered their prices massively therefore if i am not looking for super computer 2020, The best bang for your buck would be Amd?  that said was the dual core Amd also lowered recently?
> 
> Oh and btw i dont play computer games.



no, Intel's "superior processor" aka core 2 duo, is actually pretty affordable. unless ur on a super tight budget, say, 600


----------



## Zovistograt

I choose AMD since it's cheaper and I don't particularly see any difference.  I probably will get one when I get a new laptop in the summer.  All I have now is a Celeron M, so maybe that's why


----------



## INTELCRAZY

*Something about AMD and Intel*

Here's something u probably haven't seen about Intel, Intel is watching what AMD researching. Intel is watching AMD closer than ever before. They need to quit this, it is causing their research to suffer from this. I'm sure the quads would have been out last year if this wasn't occuring. Think about this.


----------



## Verve

I haven't been keeping up on this. But when is AMD going to release their newer processors that are supposed to compete with (or be better than) the C2D?


----------



## INTELCRAZY

*I dunno, AMD just got Dual-Core*

AMD is supposed to release something better than C2D, when they just came out with Dual-Core? Oh, please, Intel has had 3 or 4 dual core series and now a quad series. AMD needs to have a reality check, it will probably take-off quick in sales (like every other AMD processor). And then the bugs start to appear and it slowly dies AMD style.


----------



## xxxalpinexxx80

coooooooooonnnnnnnnrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooooooooeeeeeeeee


----------



## xxxalpinexxx80

rocks


----------



## jedijeff123

when Macs switched to Intel from PowerPC, wasn't there like a huge performance increase? so i don't know why anyone would vote PowerPC


----------



## priteshvarsani

*theres no dif in branding*

there is no point judgin a cpu by brand, a cpu is a cpu and should be judged on the price and speed (and support)


----------



## ETSA

Brand loyalty is something most people practice and most companies strive for.  A lot of people specifically shop for certain brands due to past experience.  So, brands do make a difference, as far as performance it only depends on what a person is looking for.


----------



## Geoff

priteshvarsani said:


> there is no point judgin a cpu by brand, a cpu is a cpu and should be judged on the price and speed (and support)



I do agree.  Like for instance, the Core 2 Duo is an Intel, but that doesnt mean all Intel's are good (like the Pentium 4).  And the same goes with AMD.


----------



## gottabamd

amd!!


----------



## PabloTeK

For single core processors AMD takes my fancy right now but Intel takes the title for dual core. That may change though...


----------



## xxxalpinexxx80

*intel*

intel


----------



## polakpl002

i would go with intel on core 2 duo they kill  amd with the price and speed
plus intels are supposily better for overclocking


----------



## darksideleader

i was always an AMD fan and now they bought ATI, i couldn't be happier.  The crossfire chipset and multi GPU works great


----------



## Sophocles

I voted Intel because my two most powerful rigs have E6700 and E6600 processors, but I also have rigs with D 940, AMD Opteron 170, and 175. All are pretty fair but for now the Intel's are on top.


----------



## elitehacker

Intel all the way. At the moment its the best cpu company. I have a X6800 and that creams the AMD flagship CPU which my friend has.


----------



## Vampiric Rouge

I have always been a AMD guy but the Core 2 duo I'm about to build is very nice. It's hard to say until AMD comes out with a 65nm so we can really see who has the better processor.


----------



## macnoob

i looked at amd, and said, "hey i like that", now theres the intel xeon running something insane like3.3GHz and i've started looking the other way now


----------



## mazinya

I have a question... my CPU is AMD 64 +3500 and i bought it more than 6 months ago. Everybody recommended me to buy the AMD 64 cuz its better than the intel one (over heating etc.)  But now, i noticed that a lot of the recommendations are for intel E6300 or E6400. 

Is it realy that today intel gives more than AMD? Can someone explain to me what has changed in the new intel CPU's that its worth buying them?


----------



## g4m3rof1337

mazinya said:


> I have a question... my CPU is AMD 64 +3500 and i bought it more than 6 months ago. Everybody recommended me to buy the AMD 64 cuz its better than the intel one (over heating etc.)  But now, i noticed that a lot of the recommendations are for intel E6300 or E6400.
> 
> Is it realy that today intel gives more than AMD? Can someone explain to me what has changed in the new intel CPU's that its worth buying them?



Well.
I recommend intel over amd.

I have an e6300.
Love it.


----------



## Laptop

lol. thats khool. most peple have intel pentium. Me too


----------



## krncho

Intel's the best right now. Look at its price and the performance it gives ya D =D


----------



## lovely?

hmm maybe time to unstick this thread eh? its kinda dead.....


----------



## Geoff

No need to unsticky it, it's one of the biggest debates


----------



## Itanda

okay I know this is a Cpu/ Overclocking Thread but this site has no computer general forum. I am going to tell you what rig i am possibly building and telling you the price and tell me if its a good deal or is there anything i should upgrade.


Specs:

 AMD 5200+ 64BIT(Am2) Cpu
2 Gig DDR2 PC4200 RAm
320 GB Sata 7200RPm HArd Drive
NVIDIA 7600GS 256gmb PCI-E Graphics
480W Power supply

The only thing i might need to change is the graphics card. plz tell me as soon as posibly if i should change it.


----------



## jimmymac

Itanda said:


> okay I know this is a Cpu/ Overclocking Thread but this site has no computer general forum. I am going to tell you what rig i am possibly building and telling you the price and tell me if its a good deal or is there anything i should upgrade.
> 
> 
> Specs:
> 
> AMD 5200+ 64BIT(Am2) Cpu
> 2 Gig DDR2 PC4200 RAm
> 320 GB Sata 7200RPm HArd Drive
> NVIDIA 7600GS 256gmb PCI-E Graphics
> 480W Power supply
> 
> The only thing i might need to change is the graphics card. plz tell me as soon as posibly if i should change it.


 
obviously you didnt look too hard, theres a desktop computers section at the top of the forum and a general computer chat section at the bottom. Might be an idea to post a thread there....


----------



## cuffless

i normally prefer amd but i love my c2d


----------



## Jack Bauer

I like Intel better cause that is all I have basically owned except for a amd athlon 64 3800+ single core which was awesome till I fried my motherboard.  But with the Quadcores and Core 2 Duo's I'll stick with Intel for now.


----------



## curtains

I'm the person that picks the winning side  lol, so that means a intel for me atm. I have a c2d E6400 really happy with it and highly overlockable compared to my old x2 4800+, and it performs better stock anyways and performs way better overclocked, and the prices were bout the same.


----------



## gabbaii

i recently got a c2d e6600. abosolutely love it


----------



## Agesilaus

I prefere intel, its great!


----------



## Violent 777

c2d is too ownage


----------



## wizle

I just built this rig \/  Mama is tired of her old HP 533w and wants this 1  Its Intel based so I'll build another Think I'll  try AMD this time just for a different flavor


----------



## oscaryu1

amd and intel are catching up together .. amd got the first 64bit... intel is more popular, but i have alot of intels in my house so intel has it


----------



## IxBLACKHEARTxI

Intel all the way


----------



## nmwords

I Just ordered my c2d E6600 from newegg 1 hour ago, so obviously intel.


----------



## elitehacker

Core 2 Duo is OWNING the pack at the moment.


----------



## fatdragon

intel to the future


----------



## xXNuLL

I prefer AMD even though nobody cares lol!


----------



## shawn_selig29

i will run intels in all my computers...i never ran any of the new amd's..but theres nothing wrong with intel's latest chips...


----------



## Tuffie

Intel for life.

Kent.


----------



## maroon1

E6600 is only $235 on newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115003


----------



## Tuffie

Yeah.

Kent.


----------



## xBoom

Intel is leading right now. They are the first ones to release quad-cored CPU.


----------



## fatdragon

i wonder when amd going to catch up


----------



## Tuffie

AMD wont, cause they suck.

Kent.


----------



## 12-Gauge

> AMD wont, cause they suck.



If you say so mate.


----------



## SnoopSanders

maroon1 said:


> E6600 is only $235 on newegg
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115003



This is an awesome price drop. This processor was 310$ just yesterday. That's Sweet.

And I love Intel.


----------



## Geoff

XRT said:


> AMD wont, cause they suck.
> 
> Kent.


If we asked that before the Core 2 Duo, you'd say Intel was the best.

Before the Core 2 Duo, Intel was sucking.  The A64 was so much better.


----------



## 12-Gauge

For those of you who believe that AMDs suck, you might want to have a look at this:  http://www.legitreviews.com/article/490/1/

They compare the AMD Athlon X2 5600 with an E6300 C2D. They're both around $185 but the AMD comes out on top in nearly all tests and benchmarks. Obviously an Intel quad-core would slaughter any AMD ever made, but for now, AMDs are still better value for money in my opinion.


----------



## jedijeff123

when i built my computer i got a pentium d. i came to this forum and was dissapointed bcuz everyone said the the PDs suck. well, i finished my computer a month later and loaded the first game up and on the highest settings, Need for Speed Most Wanted ran with almost zero lag. people also said that my GPU was crap too, well, my new compy is a far cry in performance from my PCI FX5200 and Pentium 4 @3.0Ghz. i understand the C2Ds are better, but my Intel will still run great.


----------



## skidro892007

Intel all the way. I've never had problems with them and they are rock solid.


----------



## Tuffie

I just like Intel because I don't ever care about price.

But I know your right on the fact that AMD can provide good cards cheaper then intel. 

Kent.


----------



## oscaryu1

Intel, I watched the AMD 1/2GHz CPUs burn up without the HSF... they reached up to 370C~!!!!! without HSF... Intel here. AMD is diappointing, but in the future AMD may go over Intel


----------



## Tayl

I'll change my answer to Intel. I think I voted AMD at the very start because that's what I had but then with my most recent PC I decided to purchase a C2D and now I'm really loving this processor . 

370C? Surely not. I thought PC's had a default fail safe to cut off / shut down at 100C? But if that's true, damn thats hot! Crack an egg on the processor type moment or what.


----------



## Geoff

Breaks said:


> 370C? Surely not. I thought PC's had a default fail safe to cut off / shut down at 100C? But if that's true, damn thats hot! Crack an egg on the processor type moment or what.


I think he was talking about the video Toms Hardware made, where they took off the heatsink and fan from a processor while benchmarking, and measured the temps.  AMD just kept getting hotter and hotter until it started smoking, but I dont think it got up to 370C!

And Intel slowed down as it got hotter, then eventually shut off.  But this was back before AMD had thermal throttling or w/e they call it.


----------



## davethedrummer84

*GO Amd*

I just built a new rig running an AMD X2 5600...Runs flawlessly my mom has a duo core 2 cpu from Intel..I hate to say it but my 200 dollar cpu runs cooler and about as fast as her 600 dollar cpu....Intel is overpriced....Go with Amd.. and yea they seem to run games better


----------



## jp198780

paid $30 sumtin 4 my CPU..runs great


----------



## gthang79

AMD for me! I built my 1st rig 8 years ago (approx) with an AMDk62 500mhz, and its still working perfectly today. I decided to build a new system 3 months ago and went for an AMD 64X2 4200, a great chip for the money in my view. I prefer the fact AMD don’t spend millions on advertising. Everyone of those Intel chips has helped pay for the TV adds we all know and love.

AMD for ever!


----------



## Itanda

davethedrummer84 said:


> I just built a new rig running an AMD X2 5600...Runs flawlessly my mom has a duo core 2 cpu from Intel..I hate to say it but my 200 dollar cpu runs cooler and about as fast as her 600 dollar cpu....Intel is overpriced....Go with Amd.. and yea they seem to run games better


 what core 2 duo did she buy for 600$ the most expensive one is the E6700 and its like.. $400 on canada computers..


----------



## enam

I had been using Intel Celeron 1.1 GHz for last five years. Recently I purchased Intel Core 2 Duo with 512 RAM. My old PC is now being used by my younger.


----------



## streetz24amd

AMD all the way


----------



## Shane

Yeah AMD fanboy here

though i wouldnt turn down a free Intel quad core system if anyone wants to buy me one


----------



## diduknowthat

Itanda said:


> what core 2 duo did she buy for 600$ the most expensive one is the E6700 and its like.. $400 on canada computers..



Maybe the core 2 extreme or core 2 quad. 

Anyways, whoever said AMD processors plays games better, have you seriously seen any of the C2D's? They are just as competitive in games, if not better than all the AMD processors.


----------



## CG man

Whos best only makes any sence depending what year your building a new computer and who at that particular time has the best processor at the mo it's Intel.  my AMD  gaming comp mobo just blew so I'm having to run games on the slower 2Ghx AMD dual Opterons if I had the cash I would build a Core 2 Duo  AMD has nothing to touch this at the mo.Theirs nothing special about  AMD for running games best Processor out there for games or anything is Core 2 Duo the only thing in a computer built specificly for games is the graphics card.

Intel will be still making Core 2 Duo when AMD ships it's core 2 Duo beating processor. I've no idea when this will be bare in mind AMD and ATI  are now one so expect something special.


----------



## ThatGuy16

I would say im an AMD guy , everyone says "intel is far better and ALOT faster".....benchmarks show that at stock clocks the 5600-6000+ are neck to neck with the 6600 and even beat it at some tasks...ok im done  
_ok intel is a better overclocker..._


----------



## maroon1

> ..benchmarks show that at stock clocks the 5600-6000+ are neck to neck with the 6600 and even beat it at some tasks...ok im done



http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q1/cpus/index.x?pg=3
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=432&model2=694&chart=192
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2933

At stock clocks, E6600 is overall faster than 6000+


----------



## ThatGuy16

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=432&model2=694&chart=181
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=432&model2=694&chart=180
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=432&model2=694&chart=191

they are so close most are neck to neck at *stock* clocks....just admit it they are very close even the ones the E6600 beats it its only by about 2 seconds


----------



## maroon1

> they are so close most are neck to neck at *stock* clocks....just admit it they are very close even the ones the E6600 beats it its only by about 2 seconds


Have you looked at all the tests ?

6000+ is better in some of the tests, but E6600 beats it in the majority of the tests

And I never said that they are not very close in terms of performance


----------



## ThatGuy16

maroon1 said:


> Have you looked at all the tests ?
> 
> 6000+ is better in some of the tests, but E6600 beats it in the majority of the tests
> 
> And I never said that they are not very close in terms of performance



i know, For the same price if i had to get the 6000+ or the E6600 i would get the 6600...


----------



## Person1234

I voted AMD because I more experience with them.
Although I must admit, they are dieing, which could mean their last CPUs could be cheaper.


----------



## justinmmm690

*AMD or INTEL*

The battle between intel and amd is huge and will probably never end but I think that Core 2 Duo is far superior to anything amd has!  The only thing I like bout amd is the fast FSB which is a huge factor for speed.  That's why the athlon's run alot faster than p4's!


----------



## Froboy7391_99

Intel, always intel, Pentium 1/2/4/M and soon a Core 2 Duo or Qaud


----------



## demhaqehsa

AMD, but its all preference for me.   Intel is good, you cant deny it


----------



## Good Ol' Ramos

Same with me. I have no problem with Intel. I think they've done a great job. I just have an affinity with the underdog. I trust the little guys more. To AMD, it's all about just catching up and providing the fastest and most efficient product. With Intel, it's about sitting on the pile of cash.


----------



## ajaysolutions

Intel all the way, can't beat core 2 duo's (except with core 2 quads ) and thermal protection too!!


----------



## CG man

I'm wondering what the poll will be when AMD and the ATI scentists make a processor together and likley with a  bit of IBM imput as usual. it's going to be a monster they must of bee planning it since the merger. For now I'll go Intel but waiting to see what this AMD quad core is like it's ment to be a quad core and not two dual cores linked like the intel one so might be much faster.


----------



## tlarkin

Ati has been not impressing me lately.  Releasing buggy nonintuitive drivers for their cards.  Don't get me started on the Linux side either.

Honestly, Nvidia as of right now in my experience writes some of the most solid drivers for their video chips.  I could care less what the 3DMark score is, I want it to run how it is suppose to at all times and allow me to run OpenGL desktop window managers and the such with out crashing, chocking, or eating up resources in the OS.

Previously I was a Huge ATI fan.  But I think they can come back.  If I were in the market for a video card right now I would buy Nvidia no doubt.

As far as processors go, I have to hand it to intel.  I was die hard AMD fan until the Core 2 Duos came out.  Intel has always made a solid chip but AMD always had comparable for cheaper.  That is not always the case now.  

AMD is not a bad chip by any means either.


----------



## Geoff

CG man said:


> I'm wondering what the poll will be when AMD and the ATI scentists make a processor together and likley with a  bit of IBM imput as usual. it's going to be a monster they must of bee planning it since the merger. For now I'll go Intel but waiting to see what this AMD quad core is like it's ment to be a quad core and not two dual cores linked like the intel one so might be much faster.


Take a look at the first poll, and you'll see that when the Athlon series was ahead, AMD was #1.  People just vote for whatever is better at the time they vote.


----------



## Risingtide93

Intel. Since it's expensive and "extreme" . But if your tight on budget, I would defintely go for AMD since they are great, too!


----------



## Shane

AMD seems to be going downhill since Intel released their Quads but i like the look of ATIs now GFX cards.


----------



## elxr06

AMD and Intel are 1 on 1 with dual core! I can't tell the difference! My friend's HP laptop uses intel's core2 duo, my roomate uses a HP laptop with AMD X2, both seem to run at the same level!


----------



## Geoff

elxr06 said:


> AMD and Intel are 1 on 1 with dual core! I can't tell the difference! My friend's HP laptop uses intel's core2 duo, my roomate uses a HP laptop with AMD X2, both seem to run at the same level!


What model were they?  It's possible that the Core 2 Duo was running at say, 1.66Ghz, whereas the X2 was running at 2.0Ghz..

And theres alot more that makes up computer performance then the CPU, generally you wouldnt notice a difference between a 1.5Ghz C2D and a 2.16Ghz C2D if your just doing basic stuff.


----------



## Jet

Risingtide93 said:


> Intel. Since it's expensive and "extreme" . But if your tight on budget, I would defintely go for AMD since they are great, too!



Expensive, eh? A little more expensive that AMD sometimes, but when I bought my computer, the cheapest dual core was $245, and the motherboard that went along with it was another $125.


----------



## s0rbit0l

*Intel*

Intel has recaptured most of the market with the newest core 2 duo and quad core, however, if you are an avid gamer who wants best bang for buck it would definitely be AMD


----------



## Geoff

s0rbit0l said:


> Intel has recaptured most of the market with the newest core 2 duo and quad core, however, if you are an avid gamer who wants best bang for buck it would definitely be AMD



The Core 2 series are better then AMD's processors at gaming.


----------



## Lomandriel

OK speed wise/power their will never be a clear victor out of AMD ANd intel, someday someone will always unleash something even more powerful.

However AMD is on average more cheaper, and for people who actually do care for spending money its a real good alternative. WHichever way you go they're all built good anyway. This is my first personal computer (that i can actually technically call myn) and im still using a 3 yr old(should be 3y rs any month now) AMD athlon xp 2500+... other comps have always used AMD and whenever we've replaced the cpu its never broken.. we just needed to upgrade the whole comp eg: mobo needed to be replaced so the cpu had to go since they dont fit together...

So yeah the point... Intel or AMD, whichever you go we can always expect quality, power etc. Who wins in power, I dont know and dont care  ALl i know is AMD's are still the leading low price leader and its not like their CPU's dont pack enough power for the average user , not to mention its price...


----------



## Ambushed

Amd ^^


----------



## ThatGuy16

Intel Sucks 

<< *avatar* *cough-cough* 



Alright... intel/amd... don't matter to me, as long as it gets the job done


----------



## Geoff

ThatGuy16 said:


> Intel Sucks
> 
> << *avatar* *cough-cough*
> 
> 
> 
> Alright... intel/amd... don't matter to me, as long as it gets the job done


Intel currently has the best performing series of processors on the market though..


----------



## ThatGuy16

[-0MEGA-];759784 said:
			
		

> Intel currently has the best performing series of processors on the market though..



I know lol.

Untill i get the money for a Q6600, the avatar stands.


----------



## dakaptin

I go for the AMD.
AMD has always been, and will be for a quite a while longer the underdog - this has been the case regardless of performance. 

This is because Intel boasts much greater ability to research, produce and develop chips because it has so much experience/infrastructure/technology/cash with that regard, while AMD has always come out with great products with a better and more innovative design/arcitecture for their chips, and at better prices.


----------



## jutnm

wtf is power pc ????????????? whers it made ...........yugoslavia from old destroyed russian tanks


----------



## TEKKA

Intel for me, always used intel and never had a problem.


----------



## Tayl

ThatGuy16 said:


> I know lol.
> 
> Untill i get the money for a Q6600, the avatar stands.



You should change your avatar to 'Being broke sucks' . Boy don't I know it.



jutnm said:


> wtf is power pc ????????????? whers it made ...........yugoslavia from old destroyed russian tanks



If I remember rightly from what I read and correct me if I am wrong, PowerPC's outside of the PC market are used in Nintendo Gamecubes & Wii's, Xbox 360's and PS3's. Or at least they have some sort of involvement with them so there not as ancient or as crappy as you seem to assume. Although don't quote me on that because I'm not 100% sure if that's right or not. I think they are also used in the Power Mac G5 which are fairly decent desktop computers.

*:: Edit ::*

After having read a Wiki post that someone linked to in another thread, it appears that PowerPC processors are also used to some extent in the Blue Gene computers. Which are supposably the best super computers in the world to date 

Rove.


----------



## towly

Intel and AMD both work for me, so no complaints.


----------



## Cromewell

PowerPCs were great. Almost worth buying an apple 

I don't think they are used in xboxs or PS3s though.


----------



## Tayl

Cromewell said:


> PowerPCs were great. Almost worth buying an apple
> 
> I don't think they are used in xboxs or PS3s though.



I'm sure I read somewhere that they might have had some relation to those consoles. Can't quite remember what though, or if it were true or not.

Rove.


----------



## skidude

I'm still with AMD, I'm hoping their new stuff will kick the crap outta the Core 2, but for now I admit that Intel is better. I like AMD's prices a LOT better though.


----------



## Shane

skidude said:


> I'm still with AMD, I'm hoping their new stuff will kick the crap outta the Core 2, but for now I admit that Intel is better. I like AMD's prices a LOT better though.



i agree,I do still like AMD even though Intel are in the lead at the moment,But the Q6600 is a great price


----------



## Jabes

amd all the way especially with their quad coming out soon


----------



## INTELCRAZY

Jabes said:


> amd all the way especially with their quad coming out soon



Careful, did you see what I posted about the new Barcelonas barely competing with the current Xeons. And SUPPOSEDLY, they were better than the next generation of Xeons. BUZZ! WRONG! Don't believe the Hype


----------



## Jabes

INTELCRAZY said:


> Careful, did you see what I posted about the new Barcelonas barely competing with the current Xeons. And SUPPOSEDLY, they were better than the next generation of Xeons. BUZZ! WRONG! Don't believe the Hype



well I'm still gonna stick with amd 4 now


----------



## porterjw

I love my Pentium D 940! I have no immediate need to repalce it, nor do I forsee a need in the next 2-3 years.


----------



## Motoxrdude

I am using AMDs for my computer builds and they seem to run well. I am currently in the process of building an intel computer.


----------



## Geoff

imsati said:


> I love my Pentium D 940! I have no immediate need to repalce it, nor do I forsee a need in the next 2-3 years.


If you were a high end gamer you would


----------



## 5LY5N1P3R

Intel will always be the best with AMD constantly in their shadow trying to keep up..im not a fan boy i just dont buy junk


----------



## Jabes

5LY5N1P3R said:


> Intel will always be the best with AMD constantly in their shadow trying to keep up..im not a fan boy i just dont buy junk



junk????? please explain


----------



## oscaryu1

5LY5N1P3R said:


> Intel will always be the best with AMD constantly in their shadow trying to keep up..im not a fan boy i just dont buy junk




Ditto! AMD was leading before the Core 2 Duo's came in line! And still, AMD is no loser!


----------



## Geoff

5LY5N1P3R said:


> Intel will always be the best with AMD constantly in their shadow trying to keep up..im not a fan boy i just dont buy junk


Intel has not always been the best.  In fact back in the days of the early P4, the Athlon XP was by far the best performer, Intel didnt come close.



oscaryu1 said:


> Ditto! AMD was leading before the Core 2 Duo's came in line! And still, AMD is no loser!


Why are you agreeing with him?  He's saying AMD is junk, and then you say AMD is no loser...


----------



## 5LY5N1P3R

Jabes said:


> junk????? please explain



1.poor motherboard chipsets
2.poor support for emerging FSB technology
3.fragile CPU Cores 
4.severe lack of top end CPU speed


----------



## Geoff

5LY5N1P3R said:


> 1.poor motherboard chipsets
> 2.poor support for emerging FSB technology
> 3.fragile CPU Cores
> 4.severe lack of top end CPU speed



Maybe you are new to the computer world, but AMD currently does not use a FSB.  They also have an integrated memory controller which dramatically increases memory-intensive applications.  Up until the Core 2 Duo, AMD had the high end FX-60, which was far superior to anything Intel currently had on the market


----------



## 5LY5N1P3R

[-0MEGA-];789645 said:
			
		

> Maybe you are new to the computer world, but AMD currently does not use a FSB.  They also have an integrated memory controller which dramatically increases memory-intensive applications.  Up until the Core 2 Duo, AMD had the high end FX-60, which was far superior to anything Intel currently had on the market



" Up until the Core 2 Duo" stop living in the past...right now AMD is getting raped by intel dont try and convince me otherwise..its my opinion


----------



## Geoff

5LY5N1P3R said:


> " Up until the Core 2 Duo" stop living in the past...right now AMD is getting raped by intel dont try and convince me otherwise..its my opinion


Yes AMD is not doing so well now, but the Core 2 Duo's havent been out long at all in the grand scheme of things.  The P4 vs Athlon lasted several years, so for a long time the Athlon XP/64 was the best performing processor around.


----------



## 5LY5N1P3R

[-0MEGA-];789651 said:
			
		

> Yes AMD is not doing so well now, but the Core 2 Duo's havent been out long at all in the grand scheme of things.  The P4 vs Athlon lasted several years, so for a long time the Athlon XP/64 was the best performing processor around.



exactly AMD arnt doing well at all and intel have got the Quad core which may not be being utalised just yet but when it is then once AGAIN intel are kicking AMD out the door!


----------



## Jabes

5LY5N1P3R said:


> exactly AMD arnt doing well at all and intel have got the Quad core which may not be being utalised just yet but when it is then once AGAIN intel are kicking AMD out the door!



yea but amd is getting a quad core to


----------



## 5LY5N1P3R

Jabes said:


> yea but amd is getting a quad core to



Key word "getting" as i said! always following in Intels shadow..nice avatar  i see u worship the sheep of the computer industry


----------



## Geoff

5LY5N1P3R said:


> exactly AMD arnt doing well at all and intel have got the Quad core which may not be being utalised just yet but when it is then once AGAIN intel are kicking AMD out the door!


You seem to be missing my point, AMD was ahead of Intel for a long time in the desktop processor market, it wasnt until a couple years ago where Intel started to regain the performance lead.



5LY5N1P3R said:


> Key word "getting" as i said! always following in Intels shadow..nice avatar  i see u worship the sheep of the computer industry


AMD already has their quad-cores out, however they are server CPU's.  Their desktop versions should be out soon.


----------



## 5LY5N1P3R

[-0MEGA-];789681 said:
			
		

> You seem to be missing my point, AMD was ahead of Intel for a long time in the desktop processor market, it wasnt until a couple years ago where Intel started to regain the performance lead.
> 
> 
> AMD already has their quad-cores out, however they are server CPU's.  Their desktop versions should be out soon.



DUDE! we are talking about today!!! back in the old days MC hammer was considered cool aswell do u still listen to him??...or maybe i shouldnt ask that.. only "fan boys" would stick to AMD now seeying though their getting an 4ss wooping from intel... "desktop versions should be out soon" soon? by then intel will most likely brought out a more powerful range of quadcore.
all im saying is that right now in todays computer industry Intel is the better..


----------



## Jabes

5LY5N1P3R said:


> DUDE! we are talking about today!!! back in the old days MC hammer was considered cool aswell do u still listen to him??...or maybe i shouldnt ask that.. only "fan boys" would stick to AMD now seeying though their getting an 4ss wooping from intel... "desktop versions should be out soon" soon? by then intel will most likely brought out a more powerful range of quadcore.
> all im saying is that right now in todays computer industry Intel is the better..



there comin out q1 2008


----------



## Geoff

5LY5N1P3R said:


> DUDE! we are talking about today!!! back in the old days MC hammer was considered cool aswell do u still listen to him??...or maybe i shouldnt ask that.. only "fan boys" would stick to AMD now seeying though their getting an 4ss wooping from intel... "desktop versions should be out soon" soon? by then intel will most likely brought out a more powerful range of quadcore.
> all im saying is that right now in todays computer industry Intel is the better..


Did I ever disagree in saying that currently AMD is better?  I am not a fanboy as you can see, because I have an Intel rig.

Lets not forget what you said which started this: 
_"Intel will always be the best with AMD constantly in their shadow trying to keep up..im not a fan boy i just dont buy junk"_

So to answer that again, Intel will not always be ahead, AMD is not always in the shadows, and AMD is not junk.


----------



## 5LY5N1P3R

[-0MEGA-];789696 said:
			
		

> Did I ever disagree in saying that currently AMD is better?  I am not a fanboy as you can see, because I have an Intel rig.
> 
> Lets not forget what you said which started this:
> _"Intel will always be the best with AMD constantly in their shadow trying to keep up..im not a fan boy i just dont buy junk"_
> 
> So to answer that again, Intel will not always be ahead, AMD is not always in the shadows, and AMD is not junk.




lol ok touché ur right i was a bit harsh with that statement.. but if anyone was to go out today and buy a pc it would be wiser to go with intel than it would AMD.. in the future none of us know which wil be the better but for now ill stick with intel


----------



## TFT

At last, now we got the correct answer to whatever the question was 
Yea if I was buying today it would be Intel, but next year who knows. I'm a fan of whoever has the best when I'm buying.


----------



## 5LY5N1P3R

TFT said:


> At last, now we got the correct answer to whatever the question was
> Yea if I was buying today it would be Intel, but next year who knows. I'm a fan of whoever has the best when I'm buying.




lol thats how i am too.. i dont praise one particular make.. i will buy whatever the best is


----------



## elitehacker

Intel is the best CPU out there at the moment. AMD is all over the place. Although Intel is abit more expensive but the performance gain is more than worth it.


----------



## porterjw

[-0MEGA-];789617 said:
			
		

> If you were a high end gamer you would



I'm not. So my original statement stands.


----------



## ad356

have to support the underdog. i converted over from intel chips back when i moved from a pentium II 350 MHZ to a 700 thunderbird athlon, that was a long time ago. i havent owned anything intel since that PII, i have since had a 700 MHZ tbird, a 1500+ athlon XP, a sempron 2800+, an athlon 64 3000+ socket 754 (still my wifes machine), and currently athlon 64 X2 4200+. i cant complain about any of them. they are stable, fast, and a good value. AMD all of the way, and cant wait until the new AMD chips come out, they will put intel back in its place again.


----------



## elitehacker

How can you speculate on the future like that? AMD is so far behind now, what makes you think they will catch up to Intel? Intel is poised to release 45nm chips, while AMD is nowhere need that. AMD will always be the budget option, it will be for those who do not have the funds for an Intel chip.


----------



## repo485

I've been hearing that AMD is starting to take over Intel. Intel's customer support is falling through the floor.My pick is AMD.


----------



## Geoff

repo485 said:


> I've been hearing that AMD is starting to take over Intel. Intel's customer support is falling through the floor.My pick is AMD.


AMD isn't taking over Intel in terms of performance, The Core 2's still outperform AMD's latest by a long shot.

Sure AMD may have better customer support since they need more buyers then Intel, although how often do you actually use Intel's tech support?


----------



## DirtyD86

repo485 said:


> I've been hearing that AMD is starting to take over Intel. Intel's customer support is falling through the floor.My pick is AMD.



that would be like the mom and pop general store down the street buying out walmart... you wont be seeing that anytime soon i can assure you


----------



## tlarkin

I am a fan of both intel and AMD.  If I were to go out and buy a processor today, I would buy intel.  5 months from now?  Could be either.

Also, PPC is pretty much out of the consumer market unless you count console systems.  PPC hardware is found only really in enterprise products.


----------



## CrazyEh

I've always been an Intel fan. 

I haven't had one AMD cpu, so I cannot say anything bad/good about AMD.

I've only had one intel CPU blow on me. Intel's support was outstanding. They sent me a new CPU in no time.


----------



## SirKenin

Well, since Intel spanks AMD silly in the desktop and mobile markets, that's what I choose and use.  For servers I use either Xeons or Opterons, depending.


----------



## Geoff

AMD has already stated that it's moving away from trying to always top Intel's processors, and that they are now trying to focus on the mainstream market where there is more of a demand for value-priced processors.  I don't have any trouble believing that either, since AMD really needs to start selling more if they want to regain the processor market.


----------



## SirKenin

That's true. They can't keep up. They need to face it that they're not a key player, and start catering to markets where they do well, while still maintaining healthy margins. The budget desktop market they do well in. They've also made a strong showing with their Opterons. They don't have the fabs or resources to lead the segment.. so just settle in and make a strong showing in a couple of niche markets... 

Actually, if I was CEO of AMD I would cut the fanboys off completely. Their useless tongue wagging and 3 page Mad Onion signatures don't line shareholder pockets. In fact, there's no money to be made from those little brats. Besides, I grew sick and tired of listening to the fanboys a long time ago. The corporate market is where the money is. I would devote all my resources there. Forget the fanboys. They're useless...and usually operating on a McDonald's budget.

AMD is needed, to give Intel the incentive to push forward. Besides, it looks good on Intel when they smoke AMD for very little more money. They can use that in their marketting. Intel isn't interested in seeing AMD disappear either.


----------



## WhiteFireDragon

wait... i didnt even know there were other brands besides AMD and intel! marketing-wise, the others are getting owned since i never hear of them lol


----------



## tlarkin

WhiteFireDragon said:


> wait... i didnt even know there were other brands besides AMD and intel! marketing-wise, the others are getting owned since i never hear of them lol



really, there is no other consumer processor other than AMD or Intel.  PPC or power PC is really only in high end equipment and embedded systems.  All the current next generation console systems run off of PPC based architecture, IBM's blade servers run off of PPC, Cicso routers have PPC processors in them, some hand held technology, and I think perhaps even some cell phones have processors based off of PPC technology.  It is a RISC based platform so it is great for embedded systems that are basically just one circuit board with all the parts.

VIA made processors for a while but really they are only used in embedded systems, just like PPC processors are now.  With the exception that some higher end computers (well servers) run PPC based hardware.


----------



## Geoff

tlarkin said:


> VIA made processors for a while but really they are only used in embedded systems, just like PPC processors are now.  With the exception that some higher end computers (well servers) run PPC based hardware.


VIA still makes lower end processors for some desktops and small low-cost devices.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...Subcategory=446&description=&Ntk=&srchInDesc=


----------



## Cynthia Joffrion

*My Vote*



apj101 said:


> pound for pound conroe beats amd in gaming, even with the drastic amd price cuts



My vote is for AMD.


----------



## oscaryu1

Cynthia Joffrion said:


> My vote is for AMD.



What's your story?


----------



## windowsvista

I love intel and i think it is better


----------



## PurePwnage

Amd


----------



## jds21

Intel

AMD was leading before Intel released the Core 2 Duos and they have been behind ever since. ATI has also taken a massive plunge after being bought by AMD leaving Nvidia the leader of GPUs


----------



## funkysnair

well-ive had intel core2duo E6400 and amd 6000+ and i like amd better!!!!

cant say about new intel cos ive never used them but im not fussed on quadcores just yet as dualcores are still too good to be out dated!


----------



## Computer_Info

I think for most DIY, would go for AMD, my favoriate as well


----------



## Geoff

Computer_Info said:


> I think for most DIY, would go for AMD, my favoriate as well


Is there a reason why?  Or do you just prefer AMD?


----------



## Iluvpenguins

I go with whatever is better. For example, I had an AMD Athlon 64 3500+ from when they were kicking the P4's ass (purchased just as dual cores started coming out). But now Intel's core 2 duo's are taking it to AMD, so I switched over. The better performer wins my heart.


----------



## Kesava

i prefer intel. just because thats what i have always liked.

if im building something with a small budget i will start looking at AMD and ATI. but for the most part i stick with Intel and Nvidia. kinda stupid, but yeah. thats what i like for some reason.


----------



## daniel11

I think Intel Is better for Games and it have at most *more cache*. -_-"


----------



## ecyor07

If ur looking for quality and durability, go Intel! Ive been using it for almost 8 years now, and still it didnt failed my expectations. I just tried AMD recently, Im trying to test it if it can beat my Intel....  yeah!!!


----------



## JLV2k5

i cannot believe it is so close


----------



## jacklazara

i prefer to choose Intel


----------



## repo485

Well ive been told from lots of sources that AMD is for gaming and Intel is for multitasking and performance, but I'm going to have to go with AMD on this one.


----------



## Jabes

repo485 said:


> Well ive been told from lots of sources that AMD is for gaming and Intel is for multitasking and performance, but I'm going to have to go with AMD on this one.



thats not true anymore intel is in the lead right now


----------



## 98bishopmal

I know i have an AMD and im very happy with it but sorry my next system is going to be intel as they seem to be alot better at the moment


----------



## Kotaro669

Voted AMD. They have the best bang for the buck, or atleast... the most bang you can get with not so much buck.


----------



## voyagerfan99

The computer I'm currently on is running a strong Pentium 4. I'm still pretty happy with it, and it runs like a charm.

My personal computer is running an Athlon 64 X2. I originally thought I'd like AMD over Intel, but with all the advances Intel is making, I'm going to slide with Intel for the moment. (Not that AMD is bad!)


----------



## bigbird

Cyrix FTW!


----------



## elitehacker

In terms of performance, Intel wins hands down, AMD/ATi seems to have given up on the high end of the market, for both its CPU and graphics cards. I like my performance so Intel would be the one for me. I guess AMD/ATi is good for people who are on a budget and can't afford an Intel and don't require high performance CPUs.


----------



## Intel_man

Right now I'm running a Intel E6300 Core 2 Duo and it's perfect.


----------



## morris14cc

the core 2 duos are great


----------



## elitehacker

Core 2 Quad, namely the Q6600 is my choice at the moment, it has the right balance between price and performance.


----------



## N3crosis

I have an AMD 64 X2 6000+ right now, but when the new Phenoms come out(9750) I will get that.


----------



## Ambushed

AMD, but I want a Q6600!


----------



## G25r8cer

AMD! Best for your money plus, Im not falling for Intel's crap! They are just like mac. They try to make their stuff the next big thing


----------



## cohen

AMD and loving them!


----------



## ThatGuy16

g25racer said:


> AMD! Best for your money plus, Im not falling for Intel's crap! They are just like mac. They try to make their stuff the next big thing



I switched from a X2 5600+ to what i have now, they are the next big thing!


----------



## Mtag

If you are talking performance..... obviously Intel.  I can't see how anyone could argue that point.  AMD has done some smart things with their pricing to keep customers since they have fell behind as far as performance is concerned.


----------



## diduknowthat

g25racer said:


> AMD! Best for your money plus, Im not falling for Intel's crap! They are just like mac. They try to make their stuff the next big thing



I agree that AMD does have some very nice budget processors, but I don't see how you can compare Intel to Macs. AMD's the one going around making their Phenoms look like the "next best thing" with tag lines like "the first REAL Quad core" and stuff like that.


----------



## deankenny

INTEL, i been with AMD for years but INTEL have just jumped ahead this year while keeping prices down ty intel, cant wait to use your power


----------



## shenry

I voted AMD mainly because my experience with them has been better than with intels. The only reason my current rig is intel is because they are the best choice for performance at the moment.


----------



## mrbojangles9211

*Power PC*

I weep for all powerpc voters.


----------



## Geoff

g25racer said:


> AMD! Best for your money plus, Im not falling for Intel's crap! They are just like mac. They try to make their stuff the next big thing


Thats because they are the next big thing...


----------



## cohen

[-0MEGA-];944368 said:
			
		

> Thats because they are the next big thing...



Yes,

My AMD Processor it working very well, i like them.

As for Intel - they are good from something, like a mac, my friend has one and it is working fine. But if i had it my way i would have an AMD processor in it.


----------



## Nvidia4life

Intel is the only processor I trust.


----------



## PunterCam

They're all the same. Buy the cheaper one


----------



## Kewl Munky

I currently have AMD, but I'm going to switch to Intel.

I've never heard of power PC. I only know of one other that starts with a C.


----------



## yopmemama

i belive the cell processor to be an amazing feat in enginnering but for pure desktop i would prefer to amd quad core phenom as it is more of a new technological advancement than the intel quad as it is 4 native cores instead of 2 dual in n package


----------



## Geoff

yopmemama said:


> i belive the cell processor to be an amazing feat in enginnering but for pure desktop i would prefer to amd quad core phenom as it is more of a new technological advancement than the intel quad as it is 4 native cores instead of 2 dual in n package


The Core 2 Quad Q9x series is actually newer.  It features a 45nm process, 1333MHz FSB, 12MB L2 Cache, uses less power, etc.

Even the older Intel quad cores outperformed AMD clock for clock.


----------



## Timo

I am for whoever makes my bang for my buck. And seeing I am willing to pay Intel prices for Intel bang I'll go for Intel 

But were AMD to make better/cheaper Quads I'd take that


----------



## headcrabCAKE

Kewl Munky said:


> I currently have AMD, but I'm going to switch to Intel.
> 
> I've never heard of power PC. I only know of one other that starts with a C.



i think power pc is 

mac and apple computers and well games arnt really made for apple pcs so people mainly go with Intel and amd as Microsoft pay a lot for games on xp unfortunatly (i want game on LINIX! )


----------



## G25r8cer

PunterCam said:


> They're all the same. Buy the cheaper one



And the cheaper one is AMD. If I had more money to spend I might fall for Intels crap but not yet.


----------



## Irishwhistle

Intel, then AMD, then PPC


----------



## maroon1

Intel have great products at the budget market, Intel budget processor are getting cheaper and better month after a month 

E1200, E1400, E2180, E2200 and E2220, E4600 and E7200 are all great budget processors for the price.


----------



## Calibretto

Intel Procs have greater future proofing. Nothing wrong with AMD procs but they haven't been doing so well against Intel.

I would add the E8400 to that list maroon. It might not be a budget proc but it's one of Intel's best Core 2 Duo and for the price, it's amazing.


----------



## mach8ter

I love my Core 2 quad  
Have been running intel for nearly 7 years now.  Wouldnt use AMD.


----------



## 3uL

Actually, AMD is best for the gaming usage but it cannot handle multitask apps properly which it mean AMD is best for single apps like gaming.This is because of its L2 cache is smaller Intel L2 cache. So, Intel is best use when you always do multitask apps... but, I still prefer AMD..


----------



## colt1911

In the past I'd always buy AMD but since my first C2D and now my quad it's Intel all the way until Amd can show me some better results.


----------



## ellanky

Ive always used AMD but Im thinking of trying the Core 2 Duo's, they seem to be doing very well...


----------



## Dystopia

I do have an amd ahtlon64 x2 4000+ but if i could, id get intel(sodamned expensive!)


----------



## Steelshivan

3uL said:


> Actually, AMD is best for the gaming usage but it cannot handle multitask apps properly which it mean AMD is best for single apps like gaming.This is because of its L2 cache is smaller Intel L2 cache. So, Intel is best use when you always do multitask apps... but, I still prefer AMD..



Not anymore.  That was during the Athlon skt 939 vs Pentium battle.  Intel has the performance crown currently...period.


----------



## darksideleader

Future looks bleak for AMD.  AMD is pooling all their resources to ATI, good for the videocards, bad for the CPUs.  Mabye AMD can recover by... the end of 2009? who knows.

P.S. i like amd better btw, but when you can get a $180 proccesor overclocked to almost 4ghz, its obvious which CPU you rather buy.


----------



## mac550

Will i must say i have only ever had 2 Intel CPU's, i have always gone for AMD, prob the spec/price ratio. But i would never turn down a good spec Intel.


----------



## elron-jethro

i voted for intel becasuse it think they just have the edge on gaming, im not an intel fanboy-closedminded idiot, i currently use my old socket A Athlon XP 2000+, its never failed me once and i got it second hand!!  My next build hovever as you can see from my choice of motherboard, (i know its not awsome it just saves my money), will be an intel socket 775


----------



## dak1b

intel power!!!!!


----------



## diduknowthat

3uL said:


> Actually, AMD is best for the gaming usage but it cannot handle multitask apps properly which it mean AMD is best for single apps like gaming.This is because of its L2 cache is smaller Intel L2 cache. So, Intel is best use when you always do multitask apps... but, I still prefer AMD..



Welcome to 2008...AMD is good at being cheap, and that's about it.


----------



## Sir Travis D

Yes true diduknowthat.


----------



## elron-jethro

amd really do need to release something new, intel are planning to release a procossor that has 80 cores! (still in the testing and designing stage though)  im very anxious to see amds next move, it better be a good one now though or it might kill them


----------



## cohen

elron-jethro said:


> amd really do need to release something new, intel are planning to release a procossor that has 80 cores! (still in the testing and designing stage though)  im very anxious to see amds next move, it better be a good one now though or it might kill them



80 cores - don't you mean 8!?

AMD still need to get quads out.... my next built will be an intel.


----------



## Intel_man

cohen said:


> 80 cores - don't you mean 8!?
> 
> AMD still need to get quads out.... my next built will be an intel.



yea he ment 80 cores. The processor itself consists of 80 single cores linked together. It's soo big, it's bigger than a regular eating plate.


----------



## cohen

Intel_man said:


> yea he ment 80 cores. The processor itself consists of 80 single cores linked together. It's soo big, it's bigger than a regular eating plate.



OMG!!! *faints*


----------



## Sir Travis D

It will probably have a lot of problems, cost a lot more than any computer, and only be for servers.


----------



## diduknowthat

The 80 core platter is old news..it's been around for a while.


----------



## funkysnair

thats a giant computer biscuit


----------



## voyagerfan99

funkysnair said:


> thats a giant computer biscuit



LOL

I chose AMD for my last build because I had been hearing how good they are. I thought they were slightly more expensive because they were better.

My mistake.

My next build will most definitely be an Intel build.


----------



## ducis

I always root for the underdog, it creates a more competitive market which is better for everyone.
that said im running a Q6600


----------



## dannaswolcott

Intel, Celeron M, Celeron D I Find to be the best.


----------



## dannaswolcott

Intel Intel Intel!


----------



## Geoff

dannaswolcott said:


> Intel, Celeron M, Celeron D I Find to be the best.


Eww, Celeron D?

The Celeron M's on the other hand are very nice budget processors, so much better then the Sempron's.  After all, they are based off of the Pentium M.


----------



## dannaswolcott

I love my celeron's. My computers run very fast & smooth.


----------



## Geoff

dannaswolcott said:


> I love my celeron's. My computers run very fast & smooth.


If you think a Celeron is smooth, wait until you try a Core 2 Duo!


----------



## G25r8cer

cohen said:


> 80 cores - don't you mean 8!?
> 
> AMD still need to get quads out.... my next built will be an intel.



What are you talking about? Amd does have quads out but, they have their issues though. Im sticking with my Dual Core for a while. I dont do much gaming and the games I play work fine on my proc. 

P.S. Has anyone tried they 3-core AMD proc? Im assuming it prob has alot of issues but, just wondering.


----------



## G25r8cer

voyagerfan99 said:


> LOL
> 
> I chose AMD for my last build because I had been hearing how good they are. I thought they were slightly more expensive because they were better.
> 
> My mistake.
> 
> My next build will most definitely be an Intel build.



AMD's more expensive? LOL


----------



## MyCattMaxx

LOL, This is an old thread. Why not start a new poll to represent the current trend?


----------



## Ambushed

Current trend= Intel


----------



## MyCattMaxx

Ambushed said:


> Current trend= Intel


So sez  you. What about for the people here that may build their own and not by the sales records of prefab boxes that are mostly intel

This is still a 2 year old poll.


----------



## Mitch?

apj101 said:


> OK, the world has moved since 2003 when the last poll was made, i thought it best to start with a new thread to reflect all the new technology
> 
> So which CPU brand *would *you choose?



Maybe a new thread is in order? Since has changed since 2006??


----------



## Irishwhistle

Intel!


----------



## Fritzjavel

LOL... all this AMD VS Intel.. Did you guys notice there is "1!" person who says powerpc...LOL


----------



## AMD Fanboy

<------------- Nuff Said?


----------



## cohen

AMD Fanboy said:


> <------------- Nuff Said?



i take it you mean, by your user name


----------



## lovely?

cohen said:


> i take it you mean, by your user name



from where im standing the arrow is actually pointing just to the left of my screen, where an intel e4500's box is sitting. he is telling us he loves intels!


----------



## cohen

lovely? said:


> from where im standing the arrow is actually pointing just to the left of my screen, where an intel e4500's box is sitting. he is telling us he loves intels!



lol, nice one


----------



## concorde

AMD is cheaper than Intel. An Athlon 64 @ 2.5 Ghz can be had for just the same cost as a Celeron. 

You are paying for the name when you buy Intel.


----------



## diduknowthat

Mr. Johanssen said:


> Maybe a new thread is in order? Since has changed since 2006??



Actually not much has changed, C2D/Q is still dominating the market...


----------



## RAMbam

i like AMD and intel, just depends on what you are using it for


----------



## mac550

lovely? said:


> from where im standing the arrow is actually pointing just to the left of my screen, where an intel e4500's box is sitting. he is telling us he loves intels!


rofl! nice


----------



## Quick69GTO

Amd


----------



## cohen

RAMbam said:


> i like AMD and intel, just depends on what you are using it for



I agree


----------



## Vitek

Intel all the way....


----------



## ka5row

*AMD Phenom*

 The best AMD has to offer.
AMD Phenom X4 9850 Quad Core Processor - Black Edition


----------



## oscaryu1

ka5row said:


> The best AMD has to offer.
> AMD Phenom X4 9850 Quad Core Processor - Black Edition



QX9650 - Regular edition


----------



## lovely?

PC_I said:


> I like amd better because they are better for gaming, and they have a dual core processor which is twice as good at gaming!



hahaha you MUST be an old banned member coming to take revenge on us!

truth is AMD sucks and sucks bad. but you already knew that didnt you?


----------



## lovely?

no your thinking of the days when there was no such thing as the Core 2 Duo series.

i used to have an AMD athlon 3400, back when dual cores were nonexistent and back then AMD really was top-dog. that time has come and gone and for the last few years it has been as if AMD didnt even exist.


----------



## Cleric7x9

PC_I said:


> Hi lovely why do you say they suck?  everyone says that amd is better for gaming, intel is more for multitasking and office stuff.



no, nobody says that anymore. nobody who knows what they are talking about anyway.


----------



## Geoff

PC_I said:


> well i heard that amd is better for gaming, so thats what i believe.


lovely is correct, that was the case back in the A64 vs P4 days, but with the Core 2 Duo Intel is now in the lead.


----------



## benihana99

AMD for sure.


----------



## Geoff

benihana99 said:


> AMD for sure.


haha, ok...


----------



## skidude

I'm now an Intel fan, but I'm sure that will change when AMD comes out with the next big thing.... then it will change back when Intel beats that.... so on and so forth. The vicious cycle continues.


----------



## Intel_man

^^ No.... Intel has always been up top even when AMD releases there new things, Intel's old things are still faster.


----------



## Ramodkk

Intel_man said:


> ^^ No.... *Intel has always been up top* even when AMD releases there new things, Intel's old things are still faster.



No, old Athlon64's where a lot better than Pentium 4's at gaming.


----------



## Geoff

Intel_man said:


> ^^ No.... Intel has always been up top even when AMD releases there new things, Intel's old things are still faster.



As Ramodkk said, before the Core 2 Duo's AMD has the best performing processor, clock for clock.  The Athlon 64 was the best gaming processor you could buy, and the Intel P4's were thought of mainly for multitasking and office tasks.


----------



## Ramodkk

You tell'em Geoff! 

lol


----------



## skidude

Ya dude... the Athlon 64 was the top dog for like.... a long time...


----------



## kynangtinhoc.com

No i recomend you use Intel quadcore 4 CPU!


----------



## Cleric7x9

for what its worth, the users with more posts seem to support intel (with the exception of the previous post. maybe thats because the AMD ppl are still waiting for their computers to post their replies. lol jk. it was just an observation


----------



## Sgt_Grim_Reaper

I picked intel, 'cause of their core 2 duo being pretty fast. But for [email protected] server I would use a fast AMD processor 'cause it's optimized for it.

So I guess I would say I would use a processor that's more suited for the job I was using it for.


----------



## Ramodkk

Cleric7x9 said:


> for what its worth, the users with more posts seem to support intel (with the exception of the previous post. maybe thats because the AMD ppl are still waiting for their computers to post their replies. lol jk. it was just an observation



Lol, you're right, hadn't noticed that.


----------



## StrangleHold

Intel_man said:


> ^^ No.... Intel has always been up top even when AMD releases there new things, Intel's old things are still faster.


 
B/S The Athlon was a match for the Pentium III and it came out in 1999. Then the XP Athlon came out in 2001 and was faster clock for clock then the P4, the Athlon 64 even made the P4 look even worse. The Intel Core 2 was the first processor that beat a AMD Athlon clock for clock since the Athlon was released.

Thats whats so amazing that people kick on AMD about the Phenom because being slower than a Core 2, and it took Intel 6 or 7 years to make a processor that could beat a AMD clock for clock with a budget 10 times bigger. The same people that rib AMD now are the same that bought P4s and Intel just sat back and laughed. Feed the machine.


----------



## ryurich

I choose AMD. They just seem to work better in my computers. Also, I've had some compatibility, driver, and stability issues with Intel processors and I found that my AMD runs every game at max and with no difficulty or problems.


----------



## Geoff

ryurich said:


> I choose AMD. They just seem to work better in my computers. Also, I've had some compatibility, driver, and stability issues with Intel processors and I found that my AMD runs every game at max and with no difficulty or problems.


What programs gave you issues with an Intel processor?


----------



## jdbennet

used to like AMD, but the Core2 has won be back over to intel


----------



## Machin3

In my second computer that I have for gaming, I bought the Intel ExTreme Quad Core. It has rediculous performance. It is top quality and gets the job done.


----------



## jediwannabe

Wait hold up... it seems that some of you guys have forgot the clock speeds is not all that matters...but L1, and L2 latency's and size as well...not to mention AMD's new HT tech..AMD ALL the way!!!


----------



## Geoff

jediwannabe said:


> Wait hold up... it seems that some of you guys have forgot the clock speeds is not all that matters...but L1, and L2 latency's and size as well...not to mention AMD's new HT tech..AMD ALL the way!!!


Yes, but clock for clock the Core 2's are much better


----------



## tlarkin

Intel Xeons on my servers are work horses at work.  They are far the highest end machines I have and do the best performance for the job.

I wish AMD would give them better competition.


----------



## jdbennet

Which model Xeon?

Only xeon i ever used was the pentium 3 - era ones in a compaq proliant

but they were FAST, especially when you had 2-4 of them


----------



## Machin3

intel is the best


----------



## tlarkin

jdbennet said:


> Which model Xeon?
> 
> Only xeon i ever used was the pentium 3 - era ones in a compaq proliant
> 
> but they were FAST, especially when you had 2-4 of them



The newest ones.  Woodcrest or whatever they are called.  I have 20 intel xeon Xserves I admin at work and they rock the crap out of everything else I have worked with in the past.  Doing mass unicast imaging right now off them, and they can push out an 8 to 9 gig image to 20 clients at the same time in about 20 minutes. 

Not too shabby.


----------



## vix

I was an AMD fan for a few years, but from an overclocking perspective, the current line of  Intel chips will give you the best bang for your buck.  The 45nm processors are incredibly fast and run cool.


----------



## Vizy

Its probably true that Intel is better right now. But go AMD, the cpu underdog!! 

I bought AMD just because i was looking at the clocks and i had a budget. 

Also, AMD, has a more...aftermarkety type name. You know? Like I'd rather have an AMD vinyl than an intel on my car in Need For speed. 

Make sense


----------



## Mitch?

i've always seen AMD as a bit more of the badass out of the two 
i've never had issues with amd, and i figure a bit of support for them won't hurt, intel needs some competition...
i've got a 5000+ BE right now @ 3.2ghz and that was a great deal, and i'm planning on getting a Phenom 9850BE soon...
the motherboards for AMD cpus are way nicer for the price.... IMO at least.... i've got an MSI K9A2 and it works wonders... and it was $130 with a deal on newegg... 790fx chipset and all the stuff they crammed on there... nice cooling too (circupipe ftw)


----------



## HybridGoomba

Intel tends to be better quality(newer ones at least), but I decided to vote for AMD since they tend to offer decent performance for a good price, and a lot cheaper than Intel.


----------



## chibicitiberiu

I stick with Intel. If the AMD cpu gets too hot, you'll need a brand new motherboard, because it makes a "boom". But if Intel gets too hot, it just turns off the PC.
I don't know anything about PowerPC.


----------



## Cleric7x9

chibicitiberiu said:


> I stick with Intel. If the AMD cpu gets too hot, you'll need a brand new motherboard, because it makes a "boom". But if Intel gets too hot, it just turns off the PC.
> I don't know anything about PowerPC.



i have never heard that AMD explodes when it gets too hot but intel just turns off. do you have proof that AMD CPUs explode when they overheat?


----------



## /\E

chibicitiberiu said:


> I stick with Intel. If the AMD cpu gets too hot, you'll need a brand new motherboard, because it makes a "boom". But if Intel gets too hot, it just turns off the PC.
> I don't know anything about PowerPC.



That was back in older times that they fried... Today, they do the same as Intel and just shut down.


----------



## chibicitiberiu

Well, than I may be a bit outdated, but i still stick with Intel as long as they have better quality.


----------



## jdbennet

Intel Core2 CPUs atm are better but AMD cpus are cheaper

havent tried either of the quad cores yet though.


----------



## bubblescivic

intel here... always been even when it wasn't the fastest. i've only had one intel cpu fail due to a power outtage. i've seen/heard of plenty of my friend's amd cpus failing.


----------



## chibicitiberiu

I still stick with intel...they have more experience with cpus, don't they? They were founded way before amd. So I trust their products.


----------



## NaughtyMonkey

I have an Intel in my desktop and an AMD in my laptop and both are great so I really don't no lol.


----------



## Knivez

Conroe FTW hands down!


----------



## sgtsampay

I've always loved Intel but now I'm AMD as i love its great price for the product. I also don;t need the fastest CPU in the world and the AMD CPU seem fast enough for me.


----------



## houseofbugs

Intel. Core 2 Duo says it all. AMD lost after that bombshell hit...


----------



## jdbennet

core2 for performance

but for cheap machines, amd wins. You can get an X2 (wich is still very good, just not compared to the core2) for a fraction of the cost


----------



## DirtyD86

intel reigns supreme


----------



## KevinKevin

AMD4thewinner.


----------



## jdbennet

AMD sucks


----------



## Asonda

I choose AMD every time.

People can say what they want but AMD do show true engineering potential.

The phenom for example is a 'True' quad-core processor.

I don't hate Intel, I just prefer AMD. AMD seem to be trying to step up their game, so you should all watch this space.


----------



## Cleric7x9

Asonda said:


> I choose AMD every time.
> 
> People can say what they want but AMD do show true engineering potential.
> 
> The phenom for example is a 'True' quad-core processor.
> 
> I don't hate Intel, I just prefer AMD. AMD seem to be trying to step up their game, so you should all watch this space.



true engineering meaning inferior heat dissipation? how about tri-core processors (quad core with a defective core)? AMD is a great company and makes great CPUs, but you cant say their engineering is better than intel


----------



## Asonda

Cleric7x9 said:


> true engineering meaning inferior heat dissipation? how about tri-core processors (quad core with a defective core)? AMD is a great company and makes great CPUs, but you cant say their engineering is better than intel



see I put 'Potential' 

I just choose to put my faith in them. Sure they run hotter, their mess with the triple core Phenoms. Don't know why, I just choose them for my solid office machines.

For sheer Gaming/Workstation performance, Intel at the mo are the only way to go.


----------



## jdbennet

> how about tri-core processors (quad core with a defective core)



Thats nothing new, in fact its traditionally an intel thing

386s and 486s with a defective FPU were marketed as cheaper versions, thier gaming performance sucked though

Xeons with faulty cache were marketed as high end pentiums

And core chips with one core bad were marketed as solos


----------



## zer0_c00l

Well just sold my Intel e8400 setup went back to AMD ..and feeling warm and fuzzy again..maybe its just me but i like the AMD underdogs even with slower clock speeds i see no change.. AMD All the way from now on!! dont hate on my thread guysjust my opinion


----------



## atentora

I've used both, and like intel better.


----------



## Kornowski




----------



## zer0_c00l

kornowski said:


>



:d


----------



## propcforum

Intel


----------



## IrishLard

AMD is much cheaper for good quality and excellent dual cores. the quad cores havent caught up yet, and when they do, i plan to buy one


----------



## Machin3

IrishLard said:


> AMD is much cheaper for good quality and excellent dual cores. the quad cores havent caught up yet, and when they do, i plan to buy one



maybe its cheaper than Intel but when you think about it, AMD is not as good for gaming as Intel is. Intel has much better benchmarks for gaming then AMD does.


----------



## Casie

My intel has been good to me.


----------



## Vizy

Midnight_fox1 said:


> maybe its cheaper than Intel but when you think about it, AMD is not as good for gaming as Intel is. Intel has much better benchmarks for gaming then AMD does.



To some the price isn't justifiable.


----------



## Twist86

I buy AMD...because if they go out of buisness you will see how much intel loves you when their Q6600 goes from 180 to 320 USD over night and their 45nm are 600 bucks each.

Competition is what saves us from horrid prices.


Also I can't tell a performance difference I tried a 9850 Phenom clocked @ 3.2ghz and a Q6600 GO at 3.6ghz and I couldn't see any kind of difference. (friends PCs)


----------



## DjUnity

Intel...but i am not a gamer, which it seems like most people on this site are.


----------



## Machin3

PowerPC, what kind of CPU is that? And what would you list for other????????


----------



## ck923zzz

*Intel or AMD*

My last built was Intel. I'm new to this but my AMD was built 2001 and still working but my Intel is 1 1/2 years. For me it's Intel is better less errors, i am still learning a lot from you guys.


----------



## Machin3

I've never really liked AMD, even though its cheaper. I heard it sucks when it comes to gaming.


----------



## Bartmasta

AMD cause I can't afford Intel

lol


----------



## maroon1

Bartmasta said:


> AMD cause I can't afford Intel


 
You can't afford E5200 ?


----------



## nist7

Midnight_fox1 said:


> I've never really liked AMD, even though its cheaper. I heard it sucks when it comes to gaming.



That's weird.  I've always had AMD and never had any problems gaming, as that's what I do basically on my rig.  Anyway, diff strokes for diff folks I guess.  Although Intel is winning the quad core war and is supposedly better overclocker than the AMDs.


----------



## Irishwhistle

I'd rather have a low end AMD CPU than a low end Inel CPU, but I'd rather have a high end Intel CPU than a high end AMD CPU... that may change with Fusion though.


----------



## memory

I have always been an Intel man and probably always will be.  Even though I have never owned an AMD, I don't like them at all.  I don't know what it is, the way they present themselves, the way they advertise, I just don't like them.


----------



## porterjw

Via ftw!


----------



## El DJ

AMD. I don't know why, it's just something in the back of my mind that says "Buy AMD."


----------



## Mez

I like AMD's Phenom x4 9950 Quad-Core. Very nice.

AMD is also comming out with  AM3 socket cpu's  Going to be 45nm.


----------



## Calibretto

Intel for sure. It's sad that AMD lost the lead. They still make good CPUs for the average PC user, but as far as power goes, Intel leads.


----------



## Irishwhistle

Calibretto said:


> Intel for sure. It's sad that AMD lost the lead. They still make good CPUs for the average PC user, but as far as power goes, Intel leads.



Was AMD ever in the lead?


----------



## just a noob

Irishwhistle said:


> Was AMD ever in the lead?



yes, remember those fx-XX model cpu's? those really kicked intel's ass, until intel brought out the qx6700 which ended amd's parade


----------



## Irishwhistle

just a noob said:


> yes, remember those fx-XX model cpu's? those really kicked intel's ass, until intel brought out the qx6700 which ended amd's parade



You mean the Athlon 64 FX and the C2E QX6700?


----------



## Calibretto

Irishwhistle said:


> Was AMD ever in the lead?



Yeah, a few years ago, they used to be the preferred CPU for gamers.


----------



## Irishwhistle

Calibretto said:


> Yeah, a few years ago, they used to be the preferred CPU for gamers.



That's hard to imagine... what about overclockers though? Because I know like the Athlon XPs would burn if the heatsink wasn't on in just the right way... seems like now gamers prefer Intel, but if they're gonna OC they prefer AMD as it's easier.


----------



## diduknowthat

Irishwhistle said:


> That's hard to imagine... what about overclockers though? Because I know like the Athlon XPs would burn if the heatsink wasn't on in just the right way... seems like now gamers prefer Intel, but if they're gonna OC they prefer AMD as it's easier.



The AMD CPU's OC'd less than the netburst intel CPUs, but the netburst chips just sucked for games.

As of now, Intel chips a lot better than AMD chips. Just look at the phenoms, they can't OC for their lives compared to Intel quad core chips.


----------



## Irishwhistle

diduknowthat said:


> The AMD CPU's OC'd less than the netburst intel CPUs, but the netburst chips just sucked for games.
> 
> As of now, Intel chips a lot better than AMD chips. Just look at the phenoms, they can't OC for their lives compared to Intel quad core chips.



All I know about Phenoms is that they got the box art right... looks nice and "Leopardish."  Anyhow, from what I've heard the CPU I'm getting (in the sig) is good for OCing.


----------



## Cabanaboy

I have had 2 AMD chipsets that were BULLETPROOF.  After research though, I chose the Intel I currently have for when I finally learn to overclock.


----------



## bcoffee20

i choose intel for now because they just have been releasing really good quad cores but i dono whats gonna happen in a few months when the phenom II's come out. i guess we'll see how AMD responds to intel


----------



## FairDoos

Intel for me but im a bit hesitant for my next build because of the Phenom ll so its either i7 or Phenom ll hmm?


----------



## Janck

I would choose intel, for last few years they are really better than AMD. I don't really know why you added Power PC to the poll because they are quite unrecognizable.


----------



## Twist86

AMD for bargains and Intel for higher performance.


Though the Deneb looks like it will be both cost effective AND will compete with the I7.


----------



## FairDoos

Bump* (Just bumping existing threads above the spam.)


----------



## CdnAudiophile

There isn't a single AMD processor out right now that I would buy. I am not biased by any means and only go by the best performing hardware. If you are going to build a new pc, your best bang for money right now would have to be the i7 920. OC's like a dream and crushes AMD in ever aspect.


----------



## ellanky

DirtyD86 said:


> intel reigns supreme



Riiiiiight... its never always been that way..

http://www.techspot.com/vb/all/windows/t-20874-AMD-Athlon-64-vs-Intel-Pentium-4.html


----------



## bamarammin87

Just got a amd phenom II 940. Can't wait to get it goin!!


----------



## DirtyD86

ellanky said:


> Riiiiiight... its never always been that way..
> 
> http://www.techspot.com/vb/all/windows/t-20874-AMD-Athlon-64-vs-Intel-Pentium-4.html



lol... pentium 4...

care to go back any further in history?


----------



## CdnAudiophile

bamarammin87 said:


> Just got a amd phenom II 940. Can't wait to get it goin!!



Why you go with the P2 instead of an i7? Did you already have an AM2 mobo?


----------



## bamarammin87

THERMAL-REACTOR said:


> Why you go with the P2 instead of an i7? Did you already have an AM2 mobo?



Price. To get a i7 it costs more than getting a phenom II AND a nice mobo. Why waste money on that when I can be satisfied for much less money. Intel's too freakin high. They would have alot more i7 sales if they were ddr2.  ddr3 ram is a ton more expensive. And having to get a dang 200 dollar ddr3 motherboard. I got what I could afford. Also I can put the next step up on the same motherboard.I'd much rather get AMD for the price. I didn't have 500 to drop on a mobo and cpu. I got plenty of performance by spending 294 dollars on a nice motherboard and phenom II 940. 235 dollars for the cpu, and another 40 off by buying a motherboard with it. You can't beat that price dude


----------



## mix1009

I am going to try Intel this time


----------



## wilson

I picked Intel this time around, price to performance is great. Got it just this week.

From a Brisbane 5200+ to this E8500 on the popular P5Q-PRO.

Hell of a difference!


----------



## bamarammin87

wilson said:


> I picked Intel this time around, price to performance is great. Got it just this week.
> 
> From a Brisbane 5200+ to this E8500 on the popular P5Q-PRO.
> 
> Hell of a difference!



awesome!


----------



## Aastii

can't beat a core2 quad extreme system with any AMD system even the new phenom II, and seeing as how wolfdale dual core are more powerful than some of the tri and quad core AMD processors for the money you pay, i'm going intel...and ofcourse i am on my fabulous core2 duo right now which is good for...well anything and everything =D


----------



## voyagerfan99

I'm always going to go with AMD. I'm a gamer and AMD always works great for me. I've had my socet 939 Athlon X2 3800+ for almost 4 years or so and it's served me well the whole time. I'll be upgrading soon though


----------



## Laquer Head

AMD Phenom II X4 965

Although it's not in service currently as the desktop is being assembled at a snails pace..


----------



## Gooberman

I like both


----------



## dark666apoc

honestly ive hardly ever used an intel based system i jsut dont like them lol i have an atom and an e6700 in some old computers and ill still choose my 5200 over both  and soon to be getting a callisto 550 

i just run into too many problems with intel they slow down quick with the stuff i like to do


----------



## hondro

My laptop is running an AMD and it works excellent but if I were to build a computer today I'd go with an intel processor if I had the money.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

dark666apoc said:


> Honestly I've hardly ever used an Intel based system I just don't like them.  lol  I have an Atom and an E6700 . . .



The Atom single core processors have very little processing power.  They are slower than Pentium 4 central processing units.

The Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 Conroe processor isn't a bad processor.


----------



## bengal85

I have built 2 computers one with intel and one with AMD which on is still running as strong as ever the one with AMD


----------

