What Processor Do You Prefer?

bonniecool

Oct 7 2005, 03:18 AM

What processor do you like to use?

These processor has their own functions in every uses which processor do you prefer to use. Even in work or just in gamin?

Edited title's grammar.

Rubyducky

Oct 7 2005, 06:32 AM

If I am gaming, I like AMD. If I'm going to do everyday work, then I'd choose Intel. Intelis more compatable with more programs, but AMD works games better.

E-Sector

Oct 7 2005, 10:38 AM

IBM Power PC IS the Best processors. Then I think AMD is on the second place, intel is so slow.

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07...cw_macvspc2.htm

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

gotenx

Oct 9 2005, 02:28 AM

AMD beats intel and powerpc all the way. Much more stable and fast. Theres nothing else I can say but try it yourself.

yhcln1

Oct 9 2005, 02:38 AM

Amd is better because my notebook has it

So im bias, but it is truly better since its more stable, has more power, but its sad that its not that compatible. Intel is like the internet explorer of processers, while amd is like mozilla

hulunes

Oct 9 2005, 02:43 AM

interesting,after my voting the result is deuce(both are 42.6%).although its huge amounts of transistors make huge quantity of heat...from the market foreground,intel will be the winner furthermore last to the real 64bit time(having to admit that AMD is powerful in CISC family indeed).

mayank

Oct 24 2005, 06:13 AM

I have AMD Athlon 64 bit 3000+ and it is working for me and giving me the performance i want and that too at a lower rate. The only downside of this processor is that it is having less l2 cache and that is of only 512 kb...i would have been better if it was either 1 mb or 2 mb. I dont know how it is possible that processor of speed of 2.0 Ghz is able to compete with Intel's 3.0 Ghz and that is the reason why they call it 3000+..strange huh?

cmatcmextra

Oct 24 2005, 06:51 AM

Malish and tdktank59 both your posts in this topic have been deleted because the majority of the content of the post was clear plagerism. This is your last warning, next time none of you will have this message to warn you.

DreamCore

Oct 24 2005, 09:43 AM

I am using Amd and I agree, I think its more stable with games than Intel. Intel I think its more for work and programms, not games. So I would preffer AMD if you like gaming. And Intel if you are spending most of you time with C and C++ or making websites or other things.

T100

Oct 24 2005, 10:57 AM

I will stick to Intel. Although Athlon outperforms Intel's counterparts in many of the PC mark tests and even Super Pi test, Athlon is not as good in Front Side Bus and memory management. Intel P4 can take up dual channel bandwidth but Athlon is a little bit slow in Ram test. Another bad thing about Athlon is the L2 cache. While intel can provide 2MB cache, most of AMD CPUs only provide 512K, which is only that povided by Athlon. I think CPU's performance depends much on L2 cache and frequency, so I still sticking with Intel.

The worst thing about AMD is that it is trying to market its CPUs by a performance value, say 3000+, but the clock speed is much lower then 3G. I really don't like this strategy. If AMD is so proud of its CPUs, why not compute with Intel on the same ground?

Latest Entries

shadowblade

Oct 8 2007, 02:07 PM

I prefer AMD to Intel....
First, Intel is more expensive than AMD
second, Intel isn't very good for overclocking

but from what I've read from Computer Magazine, using benchmark software, Intel processor performance is better than AMD...(but I think it is because the price->2 intel processor can buy 3 AMD processor)

But actually if you like to change your processor often, you better use INTEL because from pentium 4 until core2xtreme using the same socket(LGA775), AMD uses many different socket(I can't remember it)

infoinn

Oct 8 2007, 11:27 AM

Intel is brand name which i would prefer. The most common reson for this is it is widely popular in the world. People like to buy items of the popular brand in my point of view.

dre

Aug 12 2007, 08:34 PM

QUOTE

The only downside of this processor is that it is having less l2 cache and that is of only 512 kb...i would have been better if it was either 1 mb or 2 mb. I dont know how it is possible that processor of speed of 2.0 Ghz is able to compete with Intel's 3.0 Ghz and that is the reason why they call it 3000+..strange huh?

Really depends on what you're running. Several benchmarks have shown that games don't care too much about cache as long as you have at least 512kb, more than that makes no difference. Also, keep in mind the important fact that AMD and Intel run very differently, so where cache may be important for one, for the other, that might not be the case. The reason why the AMD 2.0 ghz is branded 3000+ is because in benchmarks, it's able to perform better than an Intel counterpart running at 3.0 ghz.

chrispy192

Aug 1 2007, 07:52 PM

AMD ftw!!

Very short posts (under one line long) are seen as spam here at Trap 17. Improve your post quality or a warning will be issued.

Find3r

Mar 25 2006, 01:09 AM

i always used intel, so i voted for it.

Intel Celeron 2.0Ghz

It runs everything i need:
Counter strike 1.6

Condition Zero

Tibia