Intel or AMD

**Ainokea** · 10-18-2008 03:52 PM

I did my last build about 3-4 years ago, when Intel was leading with its core 2 duo over amd x2. I didn't realize that AMD had changed from socket 939 to AM2 and are not compatible. So I'm going to build a entirely new one...

I do quite a lot of gaming which back 4-5 years ago, AMD ruled that part over Intel. As intel had better cpus for office type things.

I would like to know the changes and which manufacture is better

***Spartan Erik*** · 10-18-2008 04:12 PM

I'm an Intel fan.. only because all the Intel processors I have seen have higher L2 caches than the AMD processors I've seen.

I imagine they are both equally good, just compare specs and prices before you buy and decide based on that.

**xPlozion** · 10-18-2008 04:23 PM

i picked up a quad core for around $150 from newegg a few months ago. new mobo, 4gb ram, and proc came around $400 iirc.

**Jon.Monreal** · 10-18-2008 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by Spartan Erik

I'm an Intel fan.. only because all the Intel processors I have seen have higher L2 caches than the AMD processors I've seen.

I imagine they are both equally good, just compare specs and prices before you buy and decide based on that.

I read this a lot, and I can understand where this comes from. However, due to the differences between the way Intel and AMD processors are designed, a higher L2 cache in the Intel chip does not always mean it is superior.

At any rate, AMD seems to offer more power for the price. If you want a tri- or quad-core processor at a decent price, go with the AMD. They are reasonable, even compared to dual-core Intel Core 2 Duo processors at the same clock speeds. This is what AMD really has going for them: you can get a great processor for a reasonable price.

If you want the best performance, go with Intel. Their Core 2 Quad and Core 2 Extreme processors are second to none. But you definitely pay a huge premium; a top-of-the-line Extreme can run you around $1000.

For a while after AMD 64 came out, AMD had the performance crown. Intel processors at far greater clock speeds were beaten in benchmarks by AMD processors that by the numbers should have been slower based on the way we used to think about processors. But then the Core microarchitecture led to Core 2, and Intel has regained their performance crown by means of its R&D resources.

Personal preference may also factor in. Personally, I prefer AMD, and have never built a system with an Intel processor. This isn't to say that I won't, I just have not so far.

**Ainokea** · 10-19-2008 01:52 AM

wow thanks for the great info. Personally I've been an AMD fan, I'm just going to compare prices and specs. but I'll probably end up with AMD

**galaxyAbstractor** · 10-19-2008 04:24 AM

*moved to crossfire*

**stunna** · 10-19-2008 12:31 PM

Intel duh!!!!!!!!!

**mralgebra** · 10-19-2008 06:30 PM

In my opinion, intel processors are vastly superior to AMD's, however AMD's are better for their price. I use AMD, but if I had more funding, I would purchase an intel dualcore

**~~compwhizii~~** · 10-19-2008 06:38 PM

Intel. At this moment in the game Intel is winning. They currently have the better product, but as the above post says, AMD is more dollar worthy.

**Ainokea** · 10-20-2008 02:14 AM

well thanks for the replies. I was looking up motherboards at new egg apparently for AMD only goes up to DDR2 1033.. which I'm not too happy with. The price seems good but again I'm about being able to put in a little money every now and then for upgrades. So I guess I'll be looking at Intel later. Dont get me wrong I love AMD, and my current build is AMD. But I want faster ram possibly even DDR3