Which Brand of Processor: AMD or Intel?
|
I’ve written a few articles over time about AMD’s (so-far-unsuccessful) struggles to stay up to Intel’s market position as the number one processor-builder: But that’s been mainly from a commercial perspective. In this article I’d like to look at the current quality of product and how it would affect you as a desktop-computer-builder. The type of computer you’re building makes all the difference: Intel have overflowing coffers, are in cahoots with Microsoft, and, in the case of most people, one of the first things they think of when the word “computer” is mentioned is “Intel”. Some people conclude that, since Intel have the reputation, the position, and the money, then they must be the best and their processors are far better than AMDs. In some ways you’d be right there; but only in a limited context. Four years ago (2005) it was AMD who were at the forefront of technology; while Intel were lagging well behind with their single-core Pentium 4. Things have come a long way since then, and at a surprisingly quick pace too: We now have quad-core processors from both Intel and AMD, and 12-core chips loom not far away on the horizon. Today, however, the situation is that many tech people are recommending Intel chips for everything: “Windows was originally designed to run on Intel processors.” That may be the case; but it may have escaped the attention of some that we’re no longer using the original version of Windows; neither is everyone using Windows. (OK; Macs will probably always use Intel chips from this point forward, granted. I don’t build Macs. I leave that to Psystar.) The truth of the matter, in a nutshell, is at this point in time, that if you’re looking to build a performance PC than you should always use an Intel processor. For anything else; why waste money on a more-expensive Intel CPU and motherboard when a cheaper AMD setup will fare just as well for everyday general computing purposes? OK there have been a few exceptions to this rule lately, granted: the early AMD Phenoms (Quad-core.) sucked badly, and produced enough heat to cook your dinner with. The current series of Phenoms, the latest release, are competitive with most of Intel’s offerings though. In the dual-core market the AMD and the Intel ranges of late have been much the same performance-wise other than in the realms of overclocking potential, at least as far as general-usage-computing is concerned. So if you’re an ultra-geek and you want to always stay up to date with technology’s leading performance with a highly-overclocked top-spec gaming machine capable of playing all the latest and near-future releases from the games industry, always use an Intel CPU. If you’re a general geek who just likes messing around with anything and everything technical then sure; build the odd box with whatever takes your fancy if you can afford it. If you’re building a machine for just general household or office usage then in my view it really isn’t’ worth going to the added expense of using Intel: use AMD. the processor and also the motherboard will be cheaper and yet will do the job just as well. I currently run 2 boxes; both have an AMD Athlon 64 x 2 processor running at 2.2 GHz stock speed. I have 2GB of DDR2 RAM in each, and a 250MB graphics card in one, a 500MB card in the other. (The one I’m writing this on.) I have a Gigabyte motherboard in this one + a Hitachi hard-drive, the other uses an Asus motherboard with a Hitachi and a Seagate hard-drive. I have thus far had no major problems with either machine, and have been able to do everything I wanted with either. I don’t overclock or play the latest games, (In fact I hardly ever play any games.) and the machines are just right for me.
|
Did you like this post? If so then why not join the Kkomp.com - Beyond community and get a free pdf report?
Use the mini-form below to enter a name + email address to receive your pdf report download location, as well as extra mailings:-
![]() |
Please subscribe to my RSS feed. Click here.
- Confused about RSS? This short video should put your mind at rest: -
.flv (flash) format. (Real Player) - 9.185MB ~ OR ~ .wmv format.(Windows Media Player) - 11.330MB










It doesn’t matter either way, unless you want high performance, and AMD used to be in front a few years ago, as you mentioned. That was the first and only time, so far. It was the only time I built an AMD machine as well (Athlon64 3400+). I usually tend to build Intel CPU/Intel chipset, but I have recently bought a ready-built AMD Opteron HP ProLiant quad core machine, because it was a massive bargain. I am already a little unhappy with the nVidia chipset though.
As a matter of interest I wonder if you’d expand a little on any issues that you have with the nVidia chipset. – Just that I had an Asrock motherboard with an nVidia chipset running an AMD Sempron CPU where I assume from logical guesswork that the chipset failed with a BSOD and then death. (Subsequent reboot attempts showed that the BIOS was unable to locate the CPU; therefore I reasoned that the faulty chipset had blocked access to it.) I rebuilt that machine using a Gigabyte board, also with an nVidia chipset, and am typing this on it now.
I’m running an AMD Athlon 64 x 2, 2.2GHz CPU on the new board. I’m hanging on to the old Sempron CPU, marked as possibly faulty as I can’t be sure that the fault was actually the nVidia chipset rather than the CPU itself, or maybe even both.
Nevertheless; whether the fault lay with the chipset, the CPU, or both, it would be interesting to know of your experiences with nVidia’s chipsets.
No