# AMD or INTEL ?



## tomabounader (Apr 24, 2006)

Hi guys,

I've got around £1100 ($2030) to spend on a new PC, but i'm wondering what peoples views were on choosing between, AMD or INTEL? any preferences + reasons to go either way? The PC I will be getting will be mostly used for gaming.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

AMD is in the lead as far as technology goes right now.
AMD also has the performance per GHZ.

Intel does have the lead with the cheapest Dual Core Pentiums.

Look at benchmarks for the hardware you are looking at, and then choose price VS Peformance.

My preference falls to AMD.


----------



## pc_doctor (Jan 22, 2005)

Get an AMD, is this proforms better and the compactibility issues are reduced!!!

Intel are offering cheap dual cores as they are trying to break even and regain market share. Intel hasnt had a very good year this year...they are expecting mass redudencies!!!! Inside knowledge here in the UK, at the Swindon Plant.


----------



## rebon (Oct 21, 2001)

Another vote for AMD


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

Your price range though, you can for the most part get anything you want from a custom a build.

Another great reason to go AMD.


----------



## InfernoReaper (Jun 13, 2006)

AMD all the way


----------



## ashmo_uk (Jun 12, 2006)

Intel, more powerfull.


----------



## Perfesser (Jun 2, 2003)

I'd have to vote for Intel; I've been using AMD for years, in the old 200-500 Mhz days, but I had a run of bad experiences with AMD fast CPU's on several different MB's. "Flakiness" isn't too technical a term but it describes what I was fighting; random errors, slow boot, etc that did NOT result from bad memory. Appeared to be that the board BIOS did not really recognize the CPU.
The last 2 builds have been fast Celerons on Intel MB's and the one-word description is 'SWEEEEET!' Absolutely stable with 2000 Pro SP4.


----------



## MTDRoddin (Jun 16, 2006)

AMD

I'd say go for AMD for gaming. But it really up to you. AMD have good single tasking per GHz than intel does.

As stated above Intel is pushing out cheaper dual core now, but Benchmarks show that AMD is still out doing Intel by clock speed. One thing you need to be aware of is that Intel runs alot hotter than AMD so u will need to run bigger fans.

In the custom building PC world most people go for AMD becuse there are more options and reliabiltiy.

check out www.xbitlabs.com and you can check out becchmarks there.

hope u enjoy ur build!


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

Perfesser said:


> I'd have to vote for Intel; I've been using AMD for years, in the old 200-500 Mhz days, but I had a run of bad experiences with AMD fast CPU's on several different MB's. "Flakiness" isn't too technical a term but it describes what I was fighting; random errors, slow boot, etc that did NOT result from bad memory. Appeared to be that the board BIOS did not really recognize the CPU.
> The last 2 builds have been fast Celerons on Intel MB's and the one-word description is 'SWEEEEET!' Absolutely stable with 2000 Pro SP4.


If that were the case I would want to know the motherboard MFG and the chipsets.
VIA and SiS make pretty poor chipsets, and Gigabyte for example has never made a good motherboard.
Either easily could explain your flakiness.
BTW, if you do go Intel, make sure to get a motherboard with an Intel chipset.
If you go AMD, get either an Nforce board or an ATI board, depending on single core or dual, and the grapgics cards you want to use.


----------



## ekim68 (Jul 8, 2003)

You know, Gigabyte held a high rating for a long time on motherboard.org. But, I haven't
checked in recently. But, if you're serious about a good system, start with the mobo..
http://www.motherboards.org/ranking/motherboard-rank.html


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

I'd like to know more of where they get those numbers.


----------



## Perfesser (Jun 2, 2003)

Quote:
If that were the case I would want to know the motherboard MFG and the chipsets.
VIA and SiS make pretty poor chipsets, and Gigabyte for example has never made a good motherboard.
Either easily could explain your flakiness.
MB was a Chaintech 7AIA5E; VIA chipset. I got the BIOS flash from Chaintech, upgraded and it got worse...after several attempts managed to roll it back. Right now the board is not being used. It won't run with AMD Duron 1800 if the FSB is set at 133; Windows 2000 fails to install 9 out of 10 tries. It reports the CPU as 'Unknow AMD' (misspelling is on the screen and in WCPUID). It'll run with a 650 Duron at 100 using the same memory or another set of PC133, ID's the CPU correctly. BIOS problem as far as I can see and it's not worth buying another CPU -IF I could find one.


----------



## tomabounader (Apr 24, 2006)

Thanks guys - really good stuff - i'm going AMD!


----------



## jonjoy (May 20, 2006)

AMD 64FX Series Awesome!!


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

For those elite enthusiasts with an extra $1,000 wasting away in their pockets, yep. They are sweet.


----------



## Mulderator (Feb 20, 1999)

I have had both and haven't had a problem with either, but I have to say that AMD is better right now. They seem to be more stable--less likely to fluctuate in temperature significant so they seem to run more consistently. And in the lower end, you get more speed for your dollar. Although you really can't go wrong with either one.


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

Though, only Intel has budget Dual Cores right now. I haven't much good about them though.


----------



## Mulderator (Feb 20, 1999)

loserOlimbs said:


> Though, only Intel has budget Dual Cores right now. I haven't much good about them though.


I have one and its been fine for me other than I did have to install a water cooled system because they run hotter than a furnace.

I got it for video editing and I think for that, Intel is better. Gaming, of course, its AMD.


----------

