[yoitxdavid]

Hello guys I'm doing a research paper on benchmarking and the results of benchmarking; but first I need to get data on why Intel is better then AMD in every possible way? If you guys can help me out with some results and data and any suggestions? And it would be helpful if you list how much you got your RIG for.

 

[Full_Tilt]

Its not better in every way, most notably the cost, also the way the multipliers work.

Do some research. These questions have been covered a million times both on this forum and others. There is a search bar at the top right of this page that will tell you all you need to know and more. All this thread is going to do is turn into a pissing match and get locked.

 

[ChronoBodi]

intel pretty much has the R&D funds to improve their architecture. A general trend that we see is that they are integrating basic functions that used to be on the motherboard like memory controller and IGP on-die, making it faster since it doesn't have to go anywhere outside that processor die.

AMD cannot compete until Bulldozer comes out, their Phenom II is clock-for-clock equal to Core 2 Quads.

 

[BlueTac]

Hyperthreading.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk

 

[Buzzin92]

Flamesuit at the ready

Intel:
Higher Performance per watt
Newer architecture designs
Higher/more level cache
Hyperthreading
lower lithography (although AMD is catching up)
Better driver support (personal choice)

Cant think of anything else lol

 

[SpammisT]

Back then AMD was hot stuff (P4s as well), I don't know many AMD chips that ran "that" hot but if you saw the video by Tom's Hardware, the chip burns when the heatsink is taken off while the Intel one just freezes and sits there like a champ. Now, it's different.

Intel more market share, with the new addition of Sandy Bridge and the upcoming announcement about the next Sandy Bridge, I think Intel will keep the crown. See what happens when they bring the Bulldozer first, I wanna see AMD do something atleast for once instead of branding ATi's cards as AMD to win the GPU market.. Which isn't going to happen because they're just gonna depend on the GPU market to get cash? No way.

People like to refer Intel as a "quality" company when AMD is a "quantity" company. Intel is splitting quantity and quality with the Sandy Bridge and i7/5/3 when AMD is trying to stop quantity and go quality. That's what I see in the market so far, their 6-core are surely impressive, but what uses them so far? I think I've made my super-biased opinion lol.

 

[Zarchon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Full_Tilt;13085929
Its not better in every way, most notably the cost, also the way the multipliers work.

Do some research. These questions have been covered a million times both on this forum and others. There is a search bar at the top right of this page that will tell you all you need to know and more. All this thread is going to do is turn into a pissing match and get locked.

Most hostile post so far.

I bought my first i7 because I was told it was by far the best chip on the market. The person telling me this was my best friend and an AMD fanboy for years. He wears an AMD baseball cap as regular attire.

I bought an i7 920. It was great. I have since passed that on to my wife. We built 3 more systems since then for 3 of our sons. One uses a AMD 1055t and X-fire 5670's (this son was low on funds and we went cheap), the second has an i7 950 and a GTX 470 (he bought based on what he thought were the best price breaks for performance), the third won an AMD TWKR Black Edition at Comicon so we built a system around that. He has money but is cheap. He bought a GTX 260 for graphics but did spring for a Gigabyte UD7 motherboard. Using a H70 we OC'ed this puppy.

All of the systems preform well in the games we play. The GTX 260 is a bottle neck when you get a lot of bodies on the screen at once.

The i7 950 cost $200 at the time of purchase (last November at Microcenter), the 1055t cost $180 on eBay at the same time. We did save money on the mother board for the AMD. Bought a really nice MSI as suggested hereon OCN for $100 while the i7 950 uses an Asus which cost $200.

We didn't really save a lot of money building with AMD, maybe $200. Over all we are happy with all the systems. I am looking forward to the summer when temps run in the 110F to 120f range. Looking to see how those H70's preform then (all the systems use the H70).

 

[Pentium-David]

For desktops, you can go either way. Both companies make great processors. For laptops, I would get an Intel based one...They run a lot cooler than AMD's mobile chips. I spent $900 on my sig rig in 2008

 

[KBcobra]

Architecture
/thread

Intel has superior architecture ,no AMD fanboy can deny that. The good people of Oregon and Israel work extremely hard to make Intel chips insane fast.

Inb4intelcostmore

 

[Trippen Out]

Intel is better because it has more letters in its name. unless you use AMDS whole name and then its better because its um. intel.

 

[Mr.Eiht]

All the above. If you look @this:
http://www.overclock.net/benchmarking-software-discussion/55790-official-superpi-1m-top-times.html
then you will see that intel performs better.
If you don`t look @the money which makes no sense if you want to compare CPU`s performance all duos are faster than x2, all quads are faster that x4 and all sixcores from intel are faster than the x6 (even when the x`s got some more GHz)

 

[Calipso]

Not sure if troll....

 

[Zackcy]

My board is $80. My RAM is roughly the same cost. Processor is $180. I have six cores, I play lots of games maxed out, and I can encode video very, very well. Can you give me better price/performance? Maybe with SB, but that came out after the Thubans so it's hard to say.

Also AMD chips are drop in products, don't require new mobo and everything just to upgrade CPU.

For pure performance:Intel.
For price/performance: AMD (well SB threw things out of balance so could be wrong there).