I have heard it mentioned time and time again that Intel seems to perform better and be more stable than AMD. Whereas the benchmarks for AMD are always marketably higher than INTEL. I could not understand why people were having processor specific issues. x86 is x86 right? Then I ran accross this today on Slashdot and I thought back to all those AMD vs Intel posts here and on DNA. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/07/12/1320202.shtml?tid=142&tid=118&tid=123 I am a Mac person so I don't favor one over the other. I have heard that AMD benchmarks leaps and bounds above Intel but that AMD has stability issues. It should be interesting to see how this lawsuit plays out.

AMD stabilty issues? Never had any trouble of those kind with my AMD.

me either ...have used 4 amd chips in a row...

You guys must not be running the version of MS Windows that checks the processor manufacturer before running apps! ;0P

AMD are pound for pound faster than Intel and at least as stable in like for like environments. The only issue I heard of is that AMD chips run hotter than their Intel counterparts.

I have run on many of both processors and i can say my mind does not work in nano seconds so the speed difference is very slight in similar processors, and as for rendering in Poser on both processors all i can say is that both take there time (waiting for the 4PicaHz processor) as for stability cant say i have had any problems with either.AMD seam to be cheaper but Intel spend as much on R&D in a year as AMD make, so as for which is better? well that's everybodys choice...

my first pc: AMD 486DX2-100 2: AMD 350Mhz 3: AMD XP1800 my current computer: AMD XP2800+ my next: probably a dual core AMD

The stability and speed issues alleged by AMD are supposedly due to using Intels compiler. Anyone not compiling with Intels Compiler would not have this issue. I just thought those who have experienced this would find the AMD's reason interesting.

The only stability issues that AMD chips have are either a) apps that are coded explicitly to run on an Intel chip, or b)you have a weenie trying to OC the chip and hasn't a clue. Both the K6 and slot A-first run XP K7's had chipset issues, but they were due to the fact that 3rd party companies were just getting into the mix (VIA cut their teeth on the K6; Nvidia smelled the coffee on the K7). Of course there are errata in the chips; but then Intel has them as well (cough divide by zero error cough)....

The temperature myth is just that; the K7's did run hot, but if you pried the heat spreader off of a P3 it would vaporize just as fast as an XP could. The P4's are currently the king of the thermal nightmare; the heat they generate is so intense it led to the creation of the BTX case and form factor....just to get a 120mm fan and a through case mounting point for the heatsink needed. There are a couple of potential tech advantages, but the heat issue is the real reason for the new form (and you'll notice that the 3rd party vendors are not rushing to jump on that bandwagon).

Intel does spend gobs on R&D. But strangely, it is AMD that has been landing all of the talent that DEC once had. Many of the Alpha chip designers are the brains behind the Athlon and Athlon 64Opteron. It was AMD that kept socket 7 alive for more than 2 years and created the Super 7 mobo. Look ho long they supported the socket 462 with the XP; how many times has Intel changed socket during this same time frame? It is AMD chips, clocking nearly a ghz -slower- than an equivalently rated Intel chip, that is taking the cake in all but custom benchmark apps designed to show the Pentium series in best light. And marketing money does not make up for technical BS. The Athlon 64 is a true 64 bit processor that also runs in 32 bit native mode. The '64 bit' Prescott P4 is actually a 40 bit chip with a bus multiplexer; so in addition to the heat, you take a performance hit due to the multiplexing.

As for my history.... ;)

1st PC: Intel 386 SX-40
2nd: AMD 486-120 clone
3rd: AMD K6-2 350
4th: AMD K7 slot A
5th: AMD XP-1700
6th: AMD Athlon 64-3000 socket 754
7th: AMD Athlon 64-3200+(venice) socket 939, and just waiting for the X2's to come down in price.

Message edited on: 07/12/2005 20:21

I use AMD all out, the best. When in design, the engineers take their time. Although for intel, they push out the next chip all the time, without looking at the issues. Intel chips get hotter, than AMD. I always used AMD for a lot of reasons.

My History
Vic-20
IBM XT (8086), Mono Monitor, then CGA. (286 Card, with Toggle Switch back off card, which I could never get the card to work.)

AMD 486-100
AMD 200MMX
AMD Duron 350
AMD Duron 500
AMD Duron 750
AMD Althon 1300XP
AMD Althon 2200XP
Now
AMD Athlon 3200XP+

Future will be of course a AMD 64

Dos was fun.

Message edited on: 07/12/2005 22:29

I've used a lot of different computers over the years. Many were Intel. Then, I married a geek. He refuses to spend money on Intel chips. He uses only AMD in everything he builds. I've never had a problem with any of the machines he's built so I guess you could say I'm pretty happy with AMD.

Same here, apart from my first PC which was an old pentium I always build my own and use AMD and never had a problem with them

My computers so far were Intels, because they ran cooler and thus required less cooling. I can't stand loud computers.

Ditto here. I build myself and chose for a Zalman cooler for my PIV because it was too noisy. My Radeon 9800 has passive cooling. I have friends using AMD and I know of no problems. They don't care about the noise. So once again it's a question of personal preferences.

If you close your case, the noise isn't an issue.

Iused AMD years ago till i saw poser on a pentium machine of the same speed, it was rendering twice as fast so i've used pentium ever since....I had a P2 350 clocked at 450 that i ran with the fan upside done, as you can imagine it cooked, but its still running and still clocked LOL, anyway back to the story :o)...my sister bought an AMD machine, withing 5 weeks the CPU needed replacing, so a week after that i got a friend to build me an old clonker for music and the odd long render in exchange for an old laptop, it ended up having an AMD CPU, i wasn't to happy but gave it a go and guess what, its been fine for almost a year.....since then i bought a HP media center with an AMD 64 3200 in it and the thing flies along, now my other machine in a P4 2.8 so maybe the AMD is faster anyway (this clock speed lark is beyond me) or maybe its because the Pentium machine is badly in need of a format and sort out, but i'm changing my views on AMD....mind the AMD is noisier and has a fan that cuts in when its working hard, which is pretty annoying.....Goning to format the Pentium in a few weeks so maybe could do a better comparison....end of waffle ;o)..........Steve

Oh come on... (wink) Intel and Microsoft are the only way to fly. Keep the faith! (chuckle) Clint