pIED pIPER Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Hi. I would like to comment on several issues that I see appear here and there in the CPU forum. The Intel vs. AMD war about Price / performance Let us compare car purchasing behaviours to Computer purchasing behaviours. Intel can cost 40% to 60% more than an AMD CPU?s. The Intel CPU?s are currently performing better than AMD?s, some say 10% - 20%. Now beside that stupid assumption that Intel?s are more stable and are of higher quality than AMD?s overall, Can you tell me what is wrong with that equation. In my books the AMD is a better buy, hands down. Don?t you talk about O/C, to the masses at large it?s not even an issue. Go ahead think what you will. (AMD is hotter, AMD is losing the speed battle, their cores crack) but the extra money in my pocket is the sign of a person who bought a product based on everything but being a ?fan boy?. You see, only a ?fan boy? would buy Intel, they have convinced you to pay so much more for so little more in actual (not that you can notice in real-life day to day operations) performance that in the end it?s very laughable, and that?s just recently. I?ve seen Intel, before any serious competition charging you the farm $$$. Their CPU?s rose as high as $900 for P2?s? It proves once again that marketing is so powerful and there always going to people who will buy what is popular just to feel adequate. Think about it, would this be your behaviour if you were buying a car? Would the extra 20 HP convince you to spend a thousand more? Go ahead and criticize the guy who bought the alternative? In the end I think you should feel stupid for spending more $$$ and in doing so I believe of course your going to spend most of your time trying to justify it? Now who is the fan boy? Intel?s marketing muscle Intel fanboy or not, you got to give it up for AMD. They are truly amazing. Just think of the uphill battle AMD has been fighting. Intel is truly a giant and has acted the part accordingly. Look at Microsoft; they would kill anyone who would even think about eating a splinter of their market share. Intel has slipped over the years and they just recently caught up. During Intel?s lack of innovations and slow upgrade paths (you know the years they were milking us for every little advancement. MMX?), AMD came in with the kill, Athlon. This made Intel wake up. Seriously, AMD made it affordable and made them better. This is when Intel started pumping money everywhere especially in advertisement marketing. (Blue men and aliens anyone) All the big boys do it. And people do in fact make purchasing decision based on advertisement. Look at our world; do you think Nike or Coke would disagree? Beside what kind of start up soft drink company would be able put a dent in coke?s sales without any advertisement? In our computer world, AMD has done just that. In Canada, I?ve never saw an AMD commercial nor do I think they exist. I?ve never saw a store poster or newspaper ad from them either. You know what. I only found out about AMD through Intel, that?s right you heard me. The people were being as fanatic as they are today, defending Intel at a very similar forum way back when. The Intel fan boys were laughing at the AMD K6-2 users; this of course was before Athlon. And the AMD users were fighting back. Some things will never change. Intel will always keep spreading FUD and charge more $$$ as long as they have the marketing muscle to do so. AMD users will always have the satisfaction that they saved money to buy something beyond the packaged idea of Intel. This is the last point on this subject. All in all, Intel has paid a lot of money to convince people that their products are better then the rest. In fact it really has worked for them. C?mon, they have that ?Intel Inside? sticky logo thing on your box and a 5 note melody that will indefinitely stick in your head. Don?t you feel like they are more established? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeza Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 ummm AMD processors are for hobbyists mainly (they arent too mainstream with commercials and advertising). when you ask someone what made them buy the CPU im sure price wont be the number one answer...in some cases ya but in a lot of cases no, they will flat out say "cause it can outperform a 2.0 ghz p4" or some lame excuse like that no matter how much the minimal boost in performace is that is what i have been saying all along..benchmarks really dont mean anything in a day to day computing experience and once you reach 1.5 ghz it really doesnt matter anymore unless you are doing hardcore encoding or rendering. its mere bragging rights when you talk to a lot of the ppl who have an Athlon "XP" processor " my friend has a p4 and mine smokes his hahahaha " yes AMD is known for heat issues so no one can say they arent....it's already a proven fact. and no. not everyone who buys intel is a fan boy, they buy them for a lot of reasons 1. being a quieter computer 2. a more stable computer 3. higher ghz etc. to flame people just for buying intel when you are obviously an amd advocate is just wrong. as big of a company as intel is, i am sure they could have gone the route of amd....it isnt that hard to construct a processor like theirs when you have a company like that. obviously they saw some flaws with it heat stability quality you pay a higher price for higher quality things..period no matter if someone or something else can match or outperform it. AMD can afford to charge lower prices because of the quality of their processors im sure intel could too but chances are they arent. at the end of the day i will still rather have a Lexus/Mercedes instead of a Ford that looked like one, and even drove faster than one. AMD is like the linux of processors ask someone why they got linux "uhh cause i like it" what for??? "uh cause it is better than windows! evil microsoft!" how?? "cause iti s more secure and more stable!!" umm i've never been hacked or had a security issue with my windows thanks. yes and im sure if it had half the people giving a **** about trying to find flaws in linux as they do in windows the numbers would rack up. "cause it is free! and you can do everything if not more than you can in windows!" k sure buddy whatever you need to make you feel cool hardware issues in linux are like chipset issues with AMD and VIA when i feel ike spending all day drinking cokes and pulling out my hair to get my computer up and running downloading and trying various configurations to get my system up and running i will go AMD. true some people experience no problems at all but some people do and i was one of them so dont go telling me im just using stereotypes for how AMD processors are. i have experienced one first hand i wont be going back until they can deliver better quality and make newbies who dont have a clue what a "1800+" is understand that no it isnt 1800 mhz and no it isnt 1.8 ghz and no, no matter how many times you say the XP is coincidental it isnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malechai Veteran Posted July 5, 2002 Veteran Share Posted July 5, 2002 *grabs thread, runs in* wheee moved to hardware hangout....ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....*runs out of the room* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nosnhojm Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 freeza, your argument is clearly preference based. You are choosing Intel for the same reason others choose AMD, for spite of the other one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeza Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 im choosing intel because of the ****ty experience i had with AMD. i even gave the AMD based computer to my mom so i wouldnt even have to look at the waste of money i invested in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sub Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 I agree. AMD is problems. I have Intels at one job, and all AMD's at my 2nd job. I can tell you that I have 3x the problems from the AMD's then Intel. AMD's freeze, lock and curroupt programs. I still havent had a major issue with the Intels. I've replaced at least 10 machines from AMD. With Intel of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pIED pIPER Posted July 5, 2002 Author Share Posted July 5, 2002 AMD processors are for hobbyists mainly (they arent too mainstream with commercials and advertising).-Well AMD has 20% to 25% market share, I don?t think they are all hobbyist.when you ask someone what made them buy the CPU im sure price wont be the number one answer...in some cases ya but in a lot of cases no, they will flat out say "cause it can outperform a 2.0 ghz p4" or some lame excuse like that -Depends who your asking? If I just bought an expensive Intel, I would not mention that I bought it based on price, I would sound like an idiot. no matter how much the minimal boost in performace is that is what i have been saying all along..benchmarks really dont mean anything in a day to day computing experience and once you reach 1.5 ghz it really doesnt matter anymore unless you are doing hardcore encoding or rendering.-I agree, so why pay more?yes AMD is known for heat issues so no one can say they arent....it's already a proven fact. -Yeah, I forgot, once a kid built his own computer using an AMD chip it turns out that the HSF fell off and his computer caught on fire and burned his house down. AMD chips can tolerate higher heat per operations, so tell me again why this is an issue? And no. not everyone who buys Intel is a fan boy, they buy them for a lot of reasons1. being a quieter computer 2. a more stable computer 3. higher ghz etc. -These statements are pure FUD. P4 run just as hot or if not hotter then Athlon XP-Again, Stability is brought up; seriously, get your head out of your arse, not since the K6 has AMD suffered from stability issues. Don?t get me wrong, there are problems but that's with all new technologies, I could be software related? To flame people just for buying Intel when you are obviously an AMD advocate is just wrong. -We are just justifying our point of views? You shouldn?t be handing out morale seminars. So lighten up. as big of a company as Intel is, i am sure they could have gone the route of amd....it isnt that hard to construct a processor like theirs when you have a company like that.obviously they saw some flaws with it heat stability quality -What route is that, charging $1000+ for a 33 megahertz jump with new instruction sets like MMX? Again you?re just spreading more FUD. Actually the more you go on like this the more my previous post rings true. See section on marketing muscle.you pay a higher price for higher quality things..periodno matter if someone or something else can match or outperform it. AMD can afford to charge lower prices because of the quality of their processors im sure intel could too but chances are they arent. at the end of the day i will still rather have a Lexus/Mercedes instead of a Ford that looked like one, and even drove faster than one. -Really, that?s not always true. Sometimes I regret you pay for things that are hidden. I?ll give you an example. Nike buys some of there shoes from a no name factory and then slaps on their logo and markets the **** out of them sells them for $120.00. Now the same manufacturer who sold the shoes to Nike can go ahead and sell the shoes themselves, of course they aren?t reputable as Nike and they need to slightly change the shoe design due agreements and copyrights infringement, but basically in the end their selling the same shoe for $60 less and under a different name. You won?t have a hard time convincing the punks at school that your Nikes shoes are better. The big corporations are laughing all the way to the bank. If you?re currently writing in forums, surfing the web and checking your email then your CPU is doing its job (maybe 10% slower then the competition) but in the end who cares? See how Intel?s marketing muscle has gotten you convinced your getting a Lexus when you?re actually buying a ford. "Intel inside" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semifamous Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 AMD processors are cheaper?? Not for the same speed, they're not. Go to http://www.pricewatch.com Click on CPU OK... The AMD Athlon XP 2200 ($214), when you click on it, says it is 1.8 GHz.... OK, click Back, look at the price of a 1.8 GHz P4 processor... The high end is only $184? Really? That seems cheaper to me, isn't it? Intel is the better deal if you compare apples to apples instead of the false labels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickedkitten Veteran Posted July 5, 2002 Veteran Share Posted July 5, 2002 um pied piper, you can use quotes, that was hard as hell to read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malechai Veteran Posted July 5, 2002 Veteran Share Posted July 5, 2002 I'd agree about the stability problems with the AMD chip. I moved from an Intel P2 300 to an AMD 1ghz about 2 years ago, and damn did I have problems getting it to work right. I had to tweak this, change that, install special fixes... it was crazy. I eventually got it rock solid but it involved BIOS updates and tweaks. Regardless, it's left a bad taste in my mouth that when I upgrade, I'm moving back to an Intel solution because I never had to do a thing with that. No problems, no tweaking. Just install and go. I disagree though that the AMD chip is issue for instability. I think what the problem is is the Motherboard chipset(s). AMD and Intel cpu's alone are great...AMD's motherboard chipset solutions suck compared to Intel's. Plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickedkitten Veteran Posted July 5, 2002 Veteran Share Posted July 5, 2002 btw its funny as hell how people always have to have arguments on here about what is better: pc people **** on the people using macs intel people **** on the people using amd windows people **** on the people that use linux and ie people **** on the people that use mozilla so I guess as long as you're a windoze person that uses ie on your pc, you should be ok :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickedkitten Veteran Posted July 5, 2002 Veteran Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by Spyder I'd agree about the stability problems with the AMD chip. I moved from an Intel P2 300 to an AMD 1ghz about 2 years ago, and damn did I have problems getting it to work right. I had to tweak this, change that, install special fixes... it was crazy. I eventually got it rock solid but it involved BIOS updates and tweaks. Regardless, it's left a bad taste in my mouth that when I upgrade, I'm moving back to an Intel solution because I never had to do a thing with that. No problems, no tweaking. Just install and go. I disagree though that the AMD chip is issue for instability. I think what the problem is is the Motherboard chipset(s). AMD and Intel cpu's alone are great...AMD's motherboard chipset solutions suck compared to Intel's. Plain and simple. pebcak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilmonen Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by freeza AMD processors are for hobbyists mainly (they arent too mainstream with commercials and advertising). That's why LucasArts did pre-rendering and storyboarding for ACrap of the Clones on AMD server farms. Oh yeah, the people that did the work on Scooby Doo also used AMD server farms. I guess they're "hobbyists" too....its mere bragging rights when you talk to a lot of the ppl who have an Athlon "XP" processor Most of the time that I recommend AMD over Intel is due to price VS performance. When you know which boards are stable & which are not, you can build a good PC. Not every Intel board is stable & by the same token, neither are all the AMD boards. yes AMD is known for heat issues so no one can say they arent....it's already a proven fact. Yeah, and that's also why Intel built in CPU throttling into the P4 for heat concerns. "Well, the CPU could run too hot, so we'll build in thermal circutry that will slow it down until it cools off again..." and no. not everyone who buys intel is a fan boy, they buy them for a lot of reasons 1. being a quieter computer 2. a more stable computer 3. higher ghz etc. 1. I've seen & heard some pretty noisy Intel based machines, & no they weren't overclocked. 2. Stability is based as much in your software as your hardware. I've currently got a P3 "Tualatin" that slows to a crawl, has random application exceptions, & acts like a real POS at times. 3. Higher GHz? If that's the case, why are Intel's "high performance" CPUs 1/2 the speed or less than their desktop CPUs? The reason why is because pure clock speed is only 50% of the performance equation. as big of a company as intel is, i am sure they could have gone the route of amd....it isnt that hard to construct a processor like theirs when you have a company like that. obviously they saw some flaws with it heat <----- have you put your hand on *your* P4 lately? How about taking the heatsink off? stability <----- again this is highly objective & will vary from system to system quality <----- If AMD sucked so bad at quality, major PC vendors wouldn't sell their CPUs in laptops & desktop PCs. you pay a higher price for higher quality things..period No, you pay a higher price for things that you've been brainwashed into paying a lot more for. Are Levi's really built that much better than say, Lee jeans? No, they aren't. Yet people pay $49.99 for one VS $29.99 for the other. Or how about Calvin Klein jeans? They are also $49.99 or $59.99 depending on where you shop. Are they denim? Yep. So why is that denim more expensive? The *name* on it.When the P2 400MHz came out, it was about $850 for only the CPU. You tell me how much it's worth these days. I can build a whole PC for less than that now. (and I *still* regret paying $850 for my p2-400 to this day) AMD can afford to charge lower prices because of the quality of their processors im sure intel could too but chances are they arent. AMD sells their CPUs for less because they have less overhead than Intel, can get more CPUs per wafer than Intel (based on the same wafer size & process --- compare apples to apples at all times) when i feel ike spending all day drinking cokes and pulling out my hair to get my computer up and running downloading and trying various configurations to get my system up and running i will go AMD. Normally the default drivers on the manufacturer's CD should take card of all of that. And Windows XP has most drivers built in for almost all the VIA chipsets.true some people experience no problems at all but some people do and i was one of them so dont go telling me im just using stereotypes for how AMD processors are. i have experienced one first hand i wont be going back until they can deliver better quality and make newbies who dont have a clue what a "1800+" is understand that no it isnt 1800 mhz and no it isnt 1.8 ghz and no, no matter how many times you say the XP is coincidental it isnt. Yes, you're right, 1800+ is *NOT* 1.8 GHz, but really if you want to compare based on clock speed, the 1.6 GHz AMD system is going to totally annihilate the 1.6 GHz Intel machine when they are both using the same types of RAM, HD, video, etc... Just contributing my opinions to the discussion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeza Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 intels processor architecture is made with a higher quality standard than AMD's is...you have to know that seriously. case in point. the processors throttle down in severe heat situations to avoid frying the processor so even if by some rare chance your heat sink fell off or whatever you wont be doomed you dont have to have anything fall off the processor to know it has heat issues.. just look at what everyone reccommends search the boards and find out what kind of heat sink and thermal past and all this other garbage people recommend to run an AMD system as opposed to the retail stock heatsink you get from intel the company has established itself as higher quality thats just the way it is. they are trusted by a lot more companies than AMD is AMD is JUST starting to get real mainstream with companies like HP, COMPAQ, etc. i dont care if i have an intel sticker on my computer or the lame jingle that goes with their commercials..all i care about is having a computer that works. no i dont wanna spend time putting on thermal paste and some heat sink with a fancy name when all i should be able to do is put the freaking thing on with what it came with and not worry about having my computer sound like its about to take off into outer space. or having chipset issues or my room getting hot just cause my computer is turned on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickedkitten Veteran Posted July 5, 2002 Veteran Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by freeza search the boards and find out what kind of heat sink and thermal past and all this other garbage people recommend to run an AMD system as opposed to the retail stock heatsink you get from intel the company has established itself as higher quality thats just the way it is. they are trusted by a lot more companies than AMD is AMD is JUST starting to get real mainstream with companies like HP, COMPAQ, etc. no i dont wanna spend time putting on thermal paste and some heat sink with a fancy name when all i should be able to do is put the freaking thing on with what it came with and not worry about having my computer sound like its about to take off into outer space. or having chipset issues or my room getting hot just cause my computer is turned on. You can use a stock heatsink and thermal paste on an amd chip as well. Most people just like theirs to run a bit cooler thats all, same as people with intel chips that watercool their systems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pIED pIPER Posted July 5, 2002 Author Share Posted July 5, 2002 Thanks for repeating almost everything I said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeza Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 well ok but the ppl who use watercooling are usually overclockers yeah? dont see why you would use watercooling when you're intending to run it at its default speed and another thing search the boards for average temps between the two that will explain the heat :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickedkitten Veteran Posted July 5, 2002 Veteran Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by freeza well ok but the ppl who use watercooling are usually overclockers yeah? dont see why you would use watercooling when you're intending to run it at its default speed and another thing search the boards for average temps between the two that will explain the heat :) search the boards for overclocking athlons and thats probably how you will get why people don't rely on stock heatsinks for their systems. However the fact that most people that overclock their amd chips don't have to rely on watercooling should tell ya something :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malechai Veteran Posted July 5, 2002 Veteran Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by Wickedkitten pebcak pardon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickedkitten Veteran Posted July 5, 2002 Veteran Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by Spyder pardon? Problem Exists Between Chair And Keyboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pIED pIPER Posted July 5, 2002 Author Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by Wickedkitten search the boards for overclocking athlons and thats probably how you will get why people don't rely on stock heatsinks for their systems. However the fact that most people that overclock their amd chips don't have to rely on watercooling should tell ya something :p Don't see why O/C is even an issue? Most AOL / Dell users or even the corporate buying world don't care for that sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malechai Veteran Posted July 5, 2002 Veteran Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by Wickedkitten Problem Exists Between Chair And Keyboard right. any tech place I took it to couldn't fix the problem either, so it wasn't just me. My main problem was the SBlive/VIA chipset issue..which was admitted to (by VIA) 2 months after my move to an AMD solution and a fix implemented 2 months after that by updating the BIOS. Once I did that, my system has been rock solid, like I said in my previous post. Only thing that remains is poor USB performance. pebcak my ass. why do you need to troll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeza Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 i recall someone saying you can easily overclock a 1.6a p4 to 2. something ghz without any extra cooling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickedkitten Veteran Posted July 5, 2002 Veteran Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by pIED pIPER Don't see why O/C is even an issue? Most AOL / Dell users or even the corporate buying world don't care for that sort of thing. yeah but we are talking about people that actually go out of their way to choose a specific chipset for their computer. Not the average user who just uses what everyone else is using but the average joe_blow on neowin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessterw Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by Wickedkitten btw its funny as hell how people always have to have arguments on here about what is better: pc people **** on the people using macs intel people **** on the people using amd windows people **** on the people that use linux and ie people **** on the people that use mozilla so I guess as long as you're a windoze person that uses ie on your pc, you should be ok :D Wait, I thought it was the other way around? :s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts