Wrong forum, but WTF: AMD v Intel

[oraclesmith]

I buy Intel. I had a choice of similar PC's from a certain supplier a couple of years ago - one range was AMD based and the other one Intel. The Intel ones including mine, are still relatively problem free but the AMD ones are probably all broke by now judging from the customer feedback.

[Mailman]

I think it is a bit of a myth about AMD not being as reliable as Intel. I have been using various AMD cpu's since dumping my over clocked 450mhz celery a few years ago and didnt have any more problems than I did with intel based CPU's.

Mailman

[oraclesmith]

I think the problem was with the build quality rather than the chip itself. The AMD processors were being put into PC's which were built to an appalling standard because they were destined for the cheap end of the market. The Intel machines were poorer spec compared to the AMD for the same price, but they were built properly.

[TheMonkey]

I've had 4 AMD based boxes and none were particularly reliable (even with decent components i.e. Asus nForce boards). I switched back to Intel about 2 years ago (using Intel desktop branded boards, Intel CPUs, Micron/Crucial RAM, Seagate disks, Matrox graphics, Antec chassis) and they are bullet-proof.

Now i've switched to Macs, which are Intel anyway now and they're rock solid too

[Ardesco]

I've just put together an Intel Core 2 Duo box. 2.0GHz 4Mb cache. It consumes very little power and is extremely fast. It will last me approximately 3 years.

AMD have notorious reliability problems and a really bad reputation regarding returns and RMAs etc, whereas Intel don't.

When AMD were running K6's and K6-2's yes but I have not had any problems wince thier Athlon64/Opteron lines came out. All the dedicated servers I run at the moment are Opteron/Dual Opterons and they blow the socks of Xeon's. I haven't tried the new dual core Xeons and I suspect they will give the Opterons a good run for thier money but they are fairly new.

I would say at the moment if you want the fastest possible go for a Duo Core 2 from intel they are aparently very fast, otherwise get an Athlon64 dual core. Chip and cheerful and powerful as hell and I've never had any problems, just make sure you don't get a mobo with a VIA chipset (Every problem i've ever had with hardware can be traced back to a VIA mobo.

[maxima]

WTF! How about Linux vs Mac?!

[cojak]

Look at the OP - Roger wasn't interested in that stuff. If he asked again I'd point him to the pink Sony VAIO...

[BoredBloke]

I've used the whole range and not found any reliability issues on my limited usage. Once had a cryix (sp?) processor. Next had an AMD k6, then a celeron 667.

Currently have 2 pc's on the go. One is based on a AMD 3000 septron which is slow, but my daughter only uses the pc for downloading and MSN. Mine is a Intel core duo 6400, 3gb RAM, 512Mb Nvidia 7950 video and 750gb of storage. It is really quick and was actually pretty cheap to put together - did it in stages to spread the cost.

Shill have my board and processor for my AMD 3200 64 and will be using that to put together a pc for my son. That was easily the best processor/board combination I ever bought as it is still pretty quick and is about 3 years old now.

The only one which ever failed on me was the celeron one.

[AtW]

Cyrix was buggy piece of crap - very slow too as they lied about it's speed in their rating that was supposed to make it comparable with Intel.

I have 5 x2 AMD processors and they work great, but currently Core 2 Duo holds the edge in terms of performance and price.

[Stan]

I don't know about apple macs for the OP I have yet to find a decent video player for it.

Quicktime sucks as much as it did on my windows machines (I 'd expected better ) and VLC has a wierd way of opening files and no keyboard control for seeking through a file. It always to forget to stay on top aswell.