Clock For Clock... AMD vs. Intel... again?! Yes, right here.

**x51out** · 02-12-2003, 05:50 PM

Interesting article HERE for those that can't get enough. I ate this up, because I'm an AMD kinda guy...

**stix_kua** · 02-12-2003, 05:58 PM

same here...AMD all the way!

**tony_j15** · 02-12-2003, 07:05 PM

Yeah, AMD is faster clock cycle per cycle. But intel makes up with this with faster procs. If AMD ever gets the money to be seriously competitive with Intel and makes a proc as fast or faster it will be nice.

**Jimstep** · 02-12-2003, 07:11 PM

As fast as these processors have become, I'd take either one of them. It comes down to price.

**BiG MiKeY** · 02-12-2003, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by Jimstep
As fast as these processors have become, I'd take either one of them. It comes down to price.

and do forget overclockability

**gibsinep** · 02-12-2003, 10:14 PM

tony_j15- I don't like how you say

and makes a proc as fast or faster it will be nice

If you compare the new Barton 3000+ with the Intel 3Ghz chip they are bascially even. Both winning their benches and coming out around the same.

http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=224

**AlexGee** · 02-12-2003, 10:15 PM

As I see it, it does not matter HOW you get to stellar performance, so long as you get there. So what if AMD has a more performance for the clock? If INTEL makes it back up with faster clock it still comes out even. It's just a different approach to processor design. And don't tell me I'm an INTEL lover cause my 2 top PC's are AMD. AMD has to be cheaper to compete with INTEL market power so cheapscate tech junkies like myself can get more bang for buck with AMD.

**or-g** · 02-12-2003, 10:24 PM

Intel if you want reliability, heat protection, good hsf that comes with retail, easy hsf retention system(with NO chance to crack core), and pretty good overclockability(my 1.8 can get to 3.0 stable).

AMD if you want cheap, and overclockability.

I'm not really an Intel/AMD fan. Just this is basically how things are. I have bought AMD before when the 1.2ghz athlons were much cheaper and kicking Intels ****. Then I ended up cracking one core, was able to return it. Got another, the chip somehow burned itself to death with the stock hsf. Got another one then was only to get around 200-300mhz extra overclocks. 3 of my friends have all cracked atleast one AMD core before.

Bought a 1.8A intel chip last year I believe in march, been running perfectly. I keep it at 2.7ghz though so I can get 200fsb for my ram.

Sure if AMD shapes up and decides to implement throttling, heatspreader, better clip/hsf installation, and lower temp chips, all while keeping their prices, sure I'll switch back.

**gibsinep** · 02-12-2003, 10:29 PM

All of these Intel folk that try and RAM down my throte how much more stable their Intel systems are then My AMD ones.

All 3 of My AMD systems ( all over 1GHZ) have been running for over 25 days ( just checked) and Havent crashed since the Last OS install (all about 5 months ago)

I would love to see the facts on Intel being stablier.

Oh and did I mention all are using Retail heatsinks and under 50C

Then I go and see their Intel systems lock up and I just laugh.

I feel it has more to do with other hadware like the Motherboard and the OS(plays a huge role)

**$1500-P4 gamer** · 02-13-2003, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by AlexGee
As I see it, it does not matter HOW you get to stellar performance, so long as you get there. So what if AMD has a more performance for the clock? If INTEL makes it back up with faster clock it still comes out even. It's just a different approach to processor design. And don't tell me I'm an INTEL lover cause my 2 top PC's are AMD. AMD has to be cheaper to compete with INTEL market power so cheapscate tech junkies like myself can get more bang for buck with AMD.

A man after my own heart right there. Soooo agree with ya. THis is like asking "who is smarter -Dumb or Dumber" from the movie. Who friggen cares their both stupid or in this case of cpu's who cares they both do what ya want. Just pick which like and let the world continue turning.

**leprechaun_40** · 02-13-2003, 12:26 AM

It was nice to see an objective and fair comparison, finally. I'd use either one honestly. My only gripe with Intel is price and the not wanting to admit they had a problem way back with the first pentiums and the FPU problem

**causticVapor** · 02-13-2003, 04:32 PM

...and the PIII 1.13GHz fiasco.
...and the MTH820 debacle.

Not to mention AMD and their Irongrate chipset.

**AlexGee** · 02-13-2003, 04:38 PM

I only recently forgave AMD for the k-6 (1) which was billed as 'near PII" performance. In most apps it was much better than a PI and sort of near a PII but in Floating Point it was MUCH worse than a PI! Which meant bad 3d performance. I bought one to play Quake with

**RamonGTP** · 02-13-2003, 05:05 PM

Everyone knows that clock for clock AMD wins, hands down... There is no secret there, and even the most die hard (intelligent) INTEL fan will admit to that. That only matters however if INTEL's processors were running at AMD speeds, or vice versa. Thats not the case however, and currently intel has the best performing processor.

**Neofate** · 02-13-2003, 06:07 PM

Oh I just wish they would bring back those wonderful

Cyrix based chips!!

Thread: Clock For Clock... AMD vs. Intel... again?! Yes, right here.

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Clock For Clock... AMD vs. Intel... again?! Yes, right here.

Posting Permissions