mrkryz

First off no flames or rants please. I am not flaming but curious about the following:

I was a HUGE fan of AMD for a good number of years. Since the Athlon / Athlon XP. At that time the dollar to performance ratio was heavily in AMD's favor. But once the Intel Core architecture hit and the differences in actual performance were so significant I jumped ship and havent yet gone back. On a forum clearly about performance, why do AMD supporters continue to choose AMD and negate the cost benifit by buying high end cpu's / cooling etc knowing that Intel based solutions are now more cost effective and yield better performance?

I am all for the underdog , but not nearly as much when my wallet is on the hook for it w/o any real reward in sight?

Again, I am not flaming anyone and those that know they are getting a great cost for a cpu that performs the functions that they need are def. thinking right. But today the cost - performance ratio has flipped tail first in Intels favor, for those that are spending a lot of money on technology that has been underperforming for a few years now ... why? The challenge? LOyality?

__________________

SinX7

Its cheaper then Intel, and a close performance to intel (Some Intel)

__________________

j0z3

Being cheaper its what makes me want to buy a 9850 quad.

__________________

richierich1212

Well personally I went with AMD because I, like you was a big fan of AMD (Had K2, K3, Duron, Athlon, etc.. based systems) before as well. But I got sick of dealing with computer building/trouble shooting that I went with Dell systems for awhile (mainly laptops) for the past few years and they were all intel cpu based.
Now with some of AMD's current releases I see that I can still get decent performance for a very decent price. And I want to support them because who knows what will happen if they ever go. Intel will always have a big marketshare, and I wanted to make sure the "little guy" gets love too.

Slappa

QFT.

And we need to support AMD. They are the underdog right now, and at risk in this wrecked economy.

If we do not support AMD, we are looking at an Intel monopoly. You don't want all your Intel chips to be priced gouged do you?

Also, Phenom II offers similar performance to i7 in games for a much lower price.

sLowEnd

AMD's high end chips (Phenom II) cost less than Intel's midrange chips (Q6600, Q8000 series..etc) and perform similarly if not, better in some cases

AMD's low end (Athlon X2) is better than Intel's (Celeron)

AMD has a better HTPC platform (780G/790GX + 45W Athlon X2) than Intel (G45 + Celeron)

AMD's triple cores offer cheap but good multitasking performance (Cheapest 3 core is $89)

AMD's Phenom I quads are really cheap :O

Uhh. Yeah.
For raw high end performance, AMD can't win right now though

__________________

Blameless

I've had several times as many AMD as Intel CPUs, averaging 2-4 per year from 1999 to 2006, and I haven't found a very good answer for this question either.

I mostly put it down to fanboyism, ignorance, or familarity.

I jump ship/switch sides the second it's in my best interest to. Brand loyalty has always seemed silly to me. It's not like the brands have customer loyalty, at least not on anything close to an individual scale.

Redmist

Because Intel was horrible before Core 2 Duo?

Most people you see around here with Athlon X2s probably got them during the Pentium D times.

__________________

hout17

It's cheap and definitely fits nicely in the market price/performance wise in my opinion. There are some nice deals on their dual cores and I think their newer Phenom II's rock for the price. Plus think of what you would be paying for your future intel chips if AMD didn't exist.

__________________
E8400 E0 4.4ghz 8 hours Prime Stable!

SinX7

I never went Intel in my life.. I been using AMD since i got my first AMD computer (HP Desktop) ever since my laptop and desktop is ALL AMD. I'm very loyal to them, that why i decide to go for AMD products. And i dont want AMD to be gone.. Some of Intel are overprice.

__________________