[Kirosia]

I have no idea. Got an amd right now though. Don't matter as long it werx. pancakes.

 

[saturnine]

I've used both in the past, but my next rig will definately be an AMD X2. Current rig has a 3.0 Northwood @ 3.6.

 

[skudmunky]

amd pwnz. Sitting decently happy on my XP 1600+ overclocked to 1800+ speeds. Only problem is my graphics card is to fast, and I get a framerate bottleneck in new games because of the slow cpu. Ah well... At least I can crank the eye candy up without taking a hit.

 

[discord]

AMD. Not really a big deal for me though.

 

[Meifa]

Intel. Sue me. The one AMD-based system I had was too prone to overheating. Plus, the motherboard (Soyo) had some issues with the vid card (ATI All-in-Wonder. I really liked that thing.) I had at the time.

I've been using this P4, 2ghz system for a long while now (2+ years?). I like it.

 

[Kwisatz]

I have built and used computers with both, and while I prefer AMD right now, I voted that I like both equally. Nothing is gained by being a fanboy to one chipmaker or another. When I go to build a new computer I go with whichever is better for my purposes and given pricerange. That said, right here and now if you're looking at an Intel solution for a desktop I question your sanity.

 

[ojnihs]

When i build PC's for other people, I highly prefer using Intel, just as a personal preference. When it comes to a computer that I'm using, I don't like either at this point in time, because I use a Mac and heavily prefer the PowerPC platform. Yes, Apple is switching to Intel, and I'm quite excited about it, can't wait to try out that new Yonah chip.

 

[Skipinder]

AMD is my favourite - they offer awesome performance for good prices, well for desktops anyway

For Laptops, I perfer Intel because of thier much better battery life, I mean the point of a laptop is the ability to roam around free, without any cords.

I wouldn't mind dual Xeons though

 

[MrEcted1]

I must say, my comp is a pentium 4 (yeah, prolly old by now) but I definitely wish I would have gone the AMD route... oh well, life goes on...

 

[ReasonablyLucid]

For almost the past year ive been running a dual core 3ghz p4 @ 4ghz watercooled. Im plenty happy with it

I own both cpus though, for gaming amd gets a bit better performance, everything else that I use a computer for I just use my intel rig.

 

[Jazper]

Whichever gives me more bang for buck at the time that I am purchasing for the applications I am using. I have no alliegance to a brand. (Unlike my father who strongly dislikes intel - and he's 60)

As it stands today, AMD are the best value for what I do. There was a time that Intel were better value (blow for blow) and I had an intel chip at that time.

So, I own an AMD, but don't care either way which chip I go so long as it gets the job done.

(an option not on the poll)

 

[mbriant]

I find that most software I buy, under "system requirements", still usually specify "Intel Pentium" specifically. Sometimes they'll say "or equivalent". Rarely does AMD get mentioned. Is "Intel Pentium" some sort of standard, or is this practice a hold out from the days when they were the only game in town?

I've only owned one computer with an AMD processor ( 1 ghz Thunderbird ) and it and it's motherboard gave me a lot of problems. I've stayed away from AMD since then. I guess I've always considered AMD to be a lesser quality/price substitute for Intel. From the looks of this pole, I guess I've been wrong.

 

[cire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meifa Intel. Sue me. The one AMD-based system I had was too prone to overheating. Plus, the motherboard (Soyo) had some issues with the vid card (ATI All-in-Wonder. I really liked that thing.) I had at the time.

pretty ironic considering netburst TDP is realistically twice that of the A64 cores.

i've got a dual xeon 1.6 LV server rig and an AMD XP-M watercooled and overclocked. can't really compare them as the xeons are in a 6U compactPCI telecommunications server and the AMD...well its standard ATX.
Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant I find that most software I buy, under "system requirements", still usually specify "Intel Pentium" specifically. Sometimes they'll say "or equivalent". Rarely does AMD get mentioned. Is "Intel Pentium" some sort of standard, or is this practice a hold out from the days when they were the only game in town?

its because the vast majority of the population don't know AMD is, whereas intel is a household name. AMD has never been "dodgy". the CPUs were always good (except for the low yield problems in the mid 90s), but "dodgyness" comes from motherboard manufacturers. they've never produced their own motherboard like intel always has and their chipset division is quite lacking. mobos for AMDs would (not saying they are) be bad only because they're built targeted to low end systems (mind you i'm ignoring the overclocking highend boards, just talking about budget boxes here). intel boards are on average much more expensive and the people who can afford (and ignorantly so) to go intel have enough cash to pay for an expensive, no holding back mobo.

 

[Ericx]

I don't mind either. But for games, for sure AMD, so i guess i'm leaning on the AMD side now after my new AMD Athlon venice core system.

 

[lan]

Raw processing power wise, the current AMD processors are better so I use an Athlon64 litely overclocked to about 2.66ghz but I prefer the feel of my old P4 northwood. The P4 with hyperthreading is just more responsive for using the computer. I think I need to go X2. I've always been a fan of SMP so I've always gone the intel route. The P4 with hyperthreading was amazingly responsive enough even with heavy background tasks that I decided to go single CPU. This A64 is just a tad too slow for me. I'll be waiting maybe for X2 prices to drop a bit more. I guess I should go Opteron 165 though. So I'll vote I like both.