Anyone sticking with Intel for their next upgrades?

Anyone sticking with Intel for their next upgrades? And why choose it over AMD?

Is it the HT? Is it stability? Compatibility? Specs? Is it 'snappiness' and quick responses in certain applications that are important to you? Is it cost?

Its certainly not gaming and FPS. Or is it?

I've never used AMD and would appreciate your opinions as I plan on a new PC within the near future. You see, I'm quite happy with my 2.8 Northwood, but MAY consider going AMD the next time around.

Thanks.

 

I've considered AMD before but I've been always so discouraged by the lack of good solid stability by the system as a whole platform not just brand/CPU itself as many do always like to think that it is just CPU itself.

I've always used Intel but not necessarily completely happy with every CPU they release, for instance the Socket 478 Northwoods were the best for that socket then Prescott 478s were not that great but then LGA Prescotts (5xx series) were not "that" great either and I finally thought it was worth getting a Prescott 6 series because of all the added features over the 5xx series and which it has happened to be a great CPU but it's too late in the game for people to think they're good.

Smithfields were not that good and now the 65nm Cedar Mills and Preslers are just great but again, not necessarily happy with them because they lack certain features I like about the 6 series that at least the 8 series had: EIST and C1E and it's rummored that Intel will release Preslers and Cedar Mills with those features soon but how soon? By then Conroe may be here.

And while the CM and Prelsers lack EIST and C1E they've proven to be excellent overclockers which ALL seem to be doing at least 250xDefault-Multi on air with stock voltages and with a good Copper heat-sink a 2.8ghz can easily hit 4ghz on air with a 1.45 to 1.5v.

I'm thinking yet again on AMD's platform for when they switch to DDR2, but right now with the nForce 4 and DDR I'm not giving it a slightly thought on it. And it will be with an X2 and not an Opteron, some guy at another forum told me that the X2 were faster but everyone like the Opterons mostly because they overclock higher with less voltage and have 2MB of L2 cache but in general the X2s were just a hair faste and linked me to a site were they had the X2 and Opt score #s and I've always had a suspicion that Server CPUs are not for Desktop platforms.

As for AMD CPU's hype of being faster at gamig? here's what two fellas have to say: POST 1 and then POST 2. In any case I'm still considering AMD AM2 + DDR2. And yes! I'd still keep going Intel above all if the other end of the spectrum doens't improve in stability system overall.

 

I'm finished with Intel.

Edit: AMD > Intel for gaming. "post 1" didn't take into account the possibility that his games were being limited by the graphics card and not the CPU. "post 2" didn't take into account that programs like super pi are merely benchmarks. I'd rather have a good gaming experience than get 6 seconds on super pi.

 

Made the point that they made. Gaming is not limited by CPU but Video Card. Wanna have the best gaming experience? a nice GT or GTX and/or X1800XL or XT.

And I'd definitely be finished with Intel if I had a D865PERL.........oh! wait a min. I did have one with a Nortwood 3.0ghz and a D875PBZLK with a Northwood 3.2ghz, good solid and reliable boards but.........can't compared to ASUS's, now I'm running my 650 @ 4.16ghz and it does make a difference from say; 2.8ghz.

I luvd my Northwood 3.2c but the 650 @ 4.1 is much better.

 

northwood here.. nothing to report has been an excellent chip...
next chip core duo or opty

 

Conroe is meant to be coming out relatively soon, I'd expect performance comperable to Athlons. Judging by overclocked P-Ms, it may even beat them in gaming... then the AMD fans can go on the defensive and say gaming benchmarks are all somehow invalid. Conroe is 4-way superscalar (4 parallel pipelines) instead of 3-way like everything else in the market, so it may even have a higher IPC.

In all Intel vs AMD debates one should remember that Tejas was meant to be out, with 1066 FSB, 4-way HT and 2 MB cache, starting at 4.0 GHz. When Intel realized there was no way .09 micron would go that high they scrapped it. So Intel never really rolled out what was meant to be the competition. Then instead of doing everything they could to upgrade their current P4 they reserved features for the EE line like 1066 FSB and HT for dual-core, a big mistake IMO. In consequence Intel comes across as lagging behind AMD. But when Intel gets Conroe out it will be more business as usual.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with Intel. The .09 micron shrink went badly for everyone, but Intel especially needed it to keep up with AMD's brand-new core. When the Prescott flopped, Intel's temporary performance gap turned into a permenant one until they could get a new core out, which of course can not be done quickly.

 

Im quite happy with my prescott core,I will admit it does get hot but its rock sold very stable,got a replacement Zalman heatsink and fan coming soon to replace my stock one Oh and i dont do benchmarks thats just kiddie crap to me:evilgrin: I just turn it on and play.

 

It's not that I have problems with my CPU (just the board because I can't OC) or with Intel, just that I look forward to using AMD in the future.

 

i had a athlon X2 4800+ with a nice abit an8 board and it was fast but also not always the most stabile , my dual core intels never mess up including my ATI crossfire board and intel setup so ill stay with intel ive given amd other chances in the past and they havent been up to my standard i like my systems easy to set up and stabile!!

 

if i get another cpu, it will prolly be a yonah on a deskop board. why? everybody here uses amd, so i get something different. and yonah performs just a bit under an x2 at stock, and i expect it to oc as well as dothan, making it a huge performer.
and if ocz are really going to make that $300 phase-change cooler, no intel proc so far has had a cold bug, its still not confirmed that yonah doesnt have one, but i dont think so.

 

I'm not gonna change brand. Why?

I had never problem with CPU, it is absolutely stabile. As I saw some guys with A64 and DFI boards and I must say, that during our LAN parties their PCs were crashing quite often.

IMO only good CPUs by AMD are Opteron and X2, A64 sucks. It is good just for games.

 

Agree. For those who use your PC to get real work done, use intel!

 

I figure my next build will be AMD tho I have always been an Intel user.I intend on going 939 X2 as I dont want to invest in another 2gig of DDR2,may not be the right move but I intend on making the jump to PCI-E and only want to replace neccasary components(MoBo,GFX and CPU) rather than start my entire build fresh which any new modern Intel would pretty much force me to do.

 

right, now this really sounds like really well founded non fanboism
Been with AMD since I dumped my P3 and have never not been able to get 'real work done' so this is lamo ass rubbish talk.

Excuse me for being so blunt but fanboys are allways wrong in some way and you present yourself like the genuine item

I use AMD simply because it does what I want for the price I'm willing to pay. As soon as Intel starts delivering just that I have no problem building my next PC based on an Intel CPU. And that's the only argument that should matter in any line of thinking regarding the choices at hand.

Intel is not crap, intel is not inferiour and neither is AMD. At the moment Intel CPU's are faster in certain tasks and AMD CPU's are faster in other tasks. This is probably the way it will allways be, it might just be a reality in which the tasks a certain CPU is better equiped to handle will shift from one design to another as designs change.

Please don't make is so sadly obvious that you can only repeat what others have stated before you without even beginning to understand what it's about

Right, that was my rant and trust me, I love to rant like this and I thank you for handing me the opportunity

If I have offended anyone with what I wrote here that's a bloody shame. It may or may not have been my intention to offend but think of this.
Is it really offensive to say the blatant and absolute truth?

 

You are right but IMO Pentium IV is the best CPU for everything with the best price. I like dualcore, but they are quite expensive (in my country).

Of course if I have X2 system I wouldn't throw it through window .

I use my PC especially for 2D/3D Graphics and games.

 

uhum? You're telling me I'm right and at the same time telling me I'm wrong?

You see? telling me I'm right and stating 'but ..... is the best CPU for everything' is telling me I'm wrong

One thing must be remembered here, a butt is to sit on and that's the frigging end of the discussion I should think

The only excuse for not agreeing on what I stated is bein a fanboy so what are you?

 

Through my experiences with Intel and AMD...from the first athlons...and pentium chips...i prefer AMD for gaming...and thats what i do most of. I always have more stability with AMD and gaming. My last intel rig was a P3 800...was great for the time. But till Intel steps up in gaming a bit..im sticking with AMD.

 

Uh, you know I don't think smilies make an otherwise obnoxious message okay...

 

Well i'll be staying Intel, cos my dad bought my pc for christmas 2004 a medion MD8383(one in specs) returned november 2005 and got a Medion MD8800, Pentium D 830(3.0ghz) , 1gb DDR2 ram, 6700. returned as not satisfied. Aldi only sell Medion, and were happy to exchange for new model after a year, my dad got jealous and returned his 2 year one for new one and got £100 price difference back.
So if i'm not happy i will return this one, so unless they change AMD then i'll still be Intel.

In germany they do both, UK Intel only.

 

I am confused with that. Here in the UK Intel P4's are more expensive then their direct AMD competitor.

P4's are good stable chips but unforntunately I think Intel took a step backwards with the Prescott. The long pipelines and relatively weak increase in clock speeds equalled a well bit of a flop for a 'new' processor.

However the new 920 / 930 / 940 series seem to be excellent although still hampered by the relatively slow memory controller and high latency Cache.

Intels main strength at the moment however is their mobile chips. Basically stealing from the P3 architecture which really works at much higher clock frequencies. The Pentium M is a cracking chip and much better than the AMD mobile equivilant.

Overall as it stands I would switch to A Intel desktop system now as it wouldn't be as good as the system I have now and would cost more.

However in the future with conroe and what else who knows!