Intel... does anyone build with them any more?

[0iD]

Now don't flame me for this, I'm just curious s'all.

Strikes me as I browse the odd tech forum or two that very few people who build their own PC do so with AMD. With the advent of 64bit processors and now dual cores they do seem ever more attractive. But what makes the majority of self-builders go AMD's way? Price? Performance? Because everyone else is? A mixture of all?

Personally I'm not anti-Intel in any way. I have on my desk here an Opteron 150 system & a P4 Shuttle. Both work reliable & quickly at the tasks I require of them. There also seems to be a batch of good Intel bords coming out too (reading recent Hexus hardware reviews), but still the buzzword on everybody's lips is '64 Bit'.

Now I have a full-blown copy of 64-bit XP & frankly I was less than blown-away with it. It all seemed a bit half arsed to be anyway & driver support, even after a few months of mainstrem relese is at best sketchy. As far as I can see if you really want to get the best rom your AMD 64 you've got to go with Linux, but that won't suit the hadcore gaming comunity who are the major part (it seems to me), of the self-build comunity.

What does Intel have too do to win it's way back into the self-build/gamer's heart? Price? Performance? Overclockability? Other?

[Mesce]

I build with them. I like them and after my amd64 I prefer my 660 for overclocking and simple multi tasking ability.

[dgr]

Strikes me as I browse the odd tech forum or two that very few people who build their own PC do so with AMD. With the advent of 64bit processors and now dual cores they do seem ever more attractive. But what makes the majority of self-builders go AMD's way? Price? Performance? Because everyone else is? A mixture of all?

Actually, when i was trying to build a low heat system, the Pentium-m came out far ahead of anything AMD can push. Plenty of reasons to go Intel.

but still the buzzword on everybody's lips is '64 Bit'.
Now I have a full-blown copy of 64-bit XP & frankly I was less than blown-away with it. It all seemed a bit half arsed to be anyway & driver support, even after a few months of mainstrem relese is at best sketchy. As far as I can see if you really want to get the best rom your AMD 64 you've got to go with Linux, but that won't suit the hadcore gaming comunity who are the major part (it seems to me), of the self-build comunity.

What's the point? it's well known that unless you are targeting your apps for 64 bit (where the increased # registers will help, potentially a great deal), 64 bit will be a step backwards, performance wise. "64 bit" and "future proofing" has been much more about selling more expensive pcs than anything else.

[Kumagoro]

When intel better AMD then people will switch back to intel, no doubt.

[sawyen]

I guess its just the overall package.. AMD right now is just the best overall cpu to build on.. they run cooler, faster and cheaper than their Intel competitors.. compare 3500+ with Intel 630 on their price and performance offerings and you know what I mean..

I personally run a Dell with an Intel 520 and I can tell you, its freaking hot.. I know it scales well, and its generally much smoother during multitasking.. but I just feel the AMD is just slightly off on that, but makes up lots in gaming performance.. at least thats my thought..

[Jonny M]

On the flipside, I have never found a chipset on the AMD platform to rival an Intel one in terms of lack of hassle and stability.

[specofdust]

How can a chip cause hassle? Alot of IT workers say AMD for home, Intel for work, but why? I mean, their chips. I can't imagine that a chip that runs hotter and faster(Ghz not performance) is more stable, but I don't imagine it's much less stable either. I just don't understand why a CPU is accused of causing "hassle".

Personally the only Intel thing I'd buy right now would be the quite brilliant Pentium-M, since they're amazing wee things. But for pure price and performance, and a few other things, AMD.

[menthel]

My last build, not entirely chosen as a p4, was and it seems fine so far. It plays all of the games I want with my 6800gt and it doesn't get too hot with the artic cooler fitted. However it is a old fashioned p4 pressie on 478!

[oralpain]

There are indeed some bad chipsets, or implimentations of chipsets out there. Still, it's not hard to find a good chipset/board for AMD cpus if you know what you're doing.

Alot of IT workers say AMD for home, Intel for work, but why?

Because being a professional means one thing and one thing only, they get paid. There are plenty of backwards, bigoted, unadaptable, mornic, IT professionals, who are stuck in the mid 80s.

[badass]

How can a chip cause hassle? Alot of IT workers say AMD for home, Intel for work, but why? I mean, their chips. I can't imagine that a chip that runs hotter and faster(Ghz not performance) is more stable, but I don't imagine it's much less stable either. I just don't understand why a CPU is accused of causing "hassle".

Personally the only Intel thing I'd buy right now would be the quite brilliant Pentium-M, since they're amazing wee things. But for pure price and performance, and a few other things, AMD.

I work in IT and say intel for work, AMD for home aswell. Most of teh manufacturers that you get PC's from will only do intel processors and they tend to be more stable. Performance does not matter at all in most cases at work, while machines crashing certainly does!
Its not teh processors that are more stable, its the drivers in general and the rest of the motherboards.

[GuruJockStrap]

Currently have a P4 Northwood and if I was to buy again today, it would probably be another Pentium.

I find the HT on Pentiums great and really make multitasking smoother than AMD.

So if I was to go AMD, my minimum requirement would be the X2 3800+.

But I generally tell myself that I never spend more that £150 on a CPU so that would rule the X2 3800+ out the window.

So I'm left with an AMD Athlon 64 3500+ or an Intel Pentium 4 640 3.2GHz and would choose the Pentium due to HT.

[TooNice]

Intel... does anyone build with them any more?

Dell



I've used Intel before, and AMD now. Almost got a Cyrix at some point. I am not brand loyal, but I still favor building "Gaming PCs" even though I don't game that much nowadays (relatively speaking). It is simply the aspect that I am more likely to notice performance difference of all the applications I use.

[specofdust]

Well, it was more looking for evidence of co-ercian and corporate bribary then just looking for the dell chips. Unfortunately the fact that they build millions of PC's every year with not a single model on AMD isn't obvious enough for the courts.

[Mike Fishcake]

I own a P4. When i next upgrade, if I stick to single core, I'm going with Intel, because they have better performance for video encoding, which is really the only system intensive thing I do.

[mike_w]

Since the Athlon/Socket A, I've found that AMD have provided better value for money. Right now, Intels seem to be slower, more expensive and hotter.

Oh, and dew1911© - maximum siggy height is 100px.

[Lee H]

I build generally what the person wants.

I do tend to ask what they intend to use the system for and if "gaming" comes into the equation then I'm happy to put forward an AMD64 based system over an Intel as they provide better peformance at the moment and better value