Proccesor Prices

crazygray1 · Post by **crazygray1** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:11 pm

Why are AMD's processors so much cheaper than Intel's.?

jerryleecooper · Post by **jerryleecooper** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:21 pm

Because they are not as good.

lukem95 · Post by **lukem95** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:24 pm

jerryleecooper wrote:Because they are not as good.

lol. but true.

crazygray1 · Post by **crazygray1** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:27 pm

The difference?

xyzzy · Post by **xyzzy** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:31 pm

Intels perform better than AMDs. Take this as an example - the Core 2 Quad Q6600 performs better than the Phenom 9700 in most benchmarks, and they're roughly the same price (at least, they are in the UK)

Brynet-Inc · Post by **Brynet-Inc** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:47 pm

I've always preferred AMD processors over Intel's.. They work, and no amount of your lies will change that

xyzzy · Post by **xyzzy** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:13 am

I used to say that until recently, as I was disappointed by the Phenom (the bug, performance vs the Core 2 Quad, etc), and bought a Core 2 Quad Q6600 instead, and so far I've been far more impressed than when I've bought an AMD processor.

Zacariaz · Post by **Zacariaz** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:33 am

I have never ever burned an intel processor and i have only experienced trouble with one (my own fault btw) but every single amd processor i've had sooner or later experienced a bad meltdown.

I know how this sounds, but its actually true.

I think i've had around 10 intel and 10 amd (+/-) processors so its not just a coincidens.

It's not that i havent had problems with intel, but i have never been forced to spend money due to faulty cpus as i have with amd.

The question of which performs best i cant really answer, i have never really felt a difference, that is untill core2 arrived, i must say i like it very much, but i havent got any experience with newer amd processors so they might be as good, i dont know. (and dont think so)

Anyway...
INTEL FOREVER!

Solar · Post by **Solar** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:58 am

The relative strengths of AMD vs. Intel vary over the years. The one constant factor seems to be that AMD is cheaper - mostly because AMD works differently, both as a company and technology-wise. (I'd daresay Intel solves problems with a bit more finesse, while AMD is better at throwing more transistors at a problem - the cheaper approach.)

Don't expect Intel's technology lead to last forever. There have been times when AMD embarrassed the living daylights out of Intel. The only constant is change.

JAAman · Post by **JAAman** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:08 am

The one constant factor seems to be that AMD is cheaper

actually this isnt true...

from the time that AMD released the Athlon64 until intel released the c2d, AMD chips were more expensive than the equivalent intel chips -- so much so, that for about a year before intel released the c2d i was highly recommending intel simply because the cheapest chips were 1/3 the price (if you stick with dual-core -- for most people, a low end dual core is better than a mid/high single core) -- however, during this time (for the first time in history) AMD chips were consistently outperforming intel (there was talk about AMD outperforming during the athlonXP era, but that depended on which programs you were running...)

currently, intel chips outperform AMD chips by a very significant margin -- however the AMD chips are less expensive...

and there is nothing on AMDs current roadmap that is likely to change that in the next year or two (however nothing can ever be certain...)

inflater · Post by **inflater** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:34 am

I had a Pentium 4 1.8 GHz w/ MSI 845E Max for 5 years until 2007, served well, everything works even now. But the overclocking was just a waste of time, after adding ~12 MHz to the FSB [gradually], either sound did not work or the system locked up, unlike the "no-name GeForce4" that overclocked pretty well, but that's another story. BTW the CPU was 100% in use - Borland Delphi 7 was open along with two BS player instances, some MS-DOS apps, three instances of Firefox and Opera, and the virus scanner was running.

I don't have guts to overclock this new machine, and it works well too. (AMD Athlon 6400+ x2) ...Maybe after another 5 years?

Solar · Post by **Solar** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:51 am

I don't quite get how overclocking abilities have anything to do with the "quality" of a CPU. For the books, I never had any problems whatsoever with any of the about one dozen CPUs I used myself or to assemble systems for friends and relatives. (PIII, Athlon XP, Core Duo)

JAAman · Post by **JAAman** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:56 am

if oc'ing your FSB caused the sound not to work, then the CPU was probably fine -- but your PCI bus was probably not locked properly -- which is a motherboard issue, not a cpu issue...

inflater · Post by **inflater** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:02 am

JAAman wrote:if oc'ing your FSB caused the sound not to work, then the CPU was probably fine

The system started to hang along with the sound problems. Suddenly the system locked up and I heard static (like if you were tuning a FM radio) from speakers. The CPU was at 65Â°C. Nah I didn't bother to buy a new cooling fan, i just restarted the system and started to overclock the graphics card.
The mobo hadn't any option of locking the PCI bus though

JAAman · Post by **JAAman** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:31 am

The CPU was at 65Â°C

thats really not that high... i have seen them running stable over 80... (though that isnt the best idea...)

most likely it was the unlocked PCI bus... since most PCI devices cannot overclock much -- if at all, and yes, this can cause the entire computer to lock-up, crash, or misbehave in other unpredictable ways...

could also be your ram... that system probably had cheap ram in it, which normally doesnt overclock very well either