Intel VS AMD (i need a rec) :D

[Les]

whats better Intel Or AMD- i have 2 uncles, 1 works for amd, and 1 works for intel, My uncle that works for amd says that their chips are greate for the price but the company is struggling...my other uncle says Intel chips do way more math than intel chips, i know that intel is way more competetive then amd, but honestly what really is better ? Duel core/ athlonx2 ??? Im asking this because i have a Intel processor (3.8Ghz) , and i want to get something even faster, any recomendations?

[Zinmasterb]

go for intel, the 2nd caches on each core are shared which allows for much higher performance. plus intel=mad oc, not so sure about amds potential.

[Pedro]

and AMD has integrated graphics acceleration and cheaper than Intel

OC wise, they all practically the same, and shouldn't be used as a reason to promote a brand since not everyone knows/wants to OC since it makes everything heat more and cuts life span.

[Pwnzilla]

Nice place to look for comparisons:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

Ultimately though it comes down to price vs performance. Look at what your budget allows then compare the two camps offerings in that price range.

As far as O/C goes that depends on whether or not you intend to go that route. I run a Opty 170 @ 2.8 (stock is 2.0) on air. Neither "brand" O/C better than the other. Just certain chips from each camp will O/C better than others. My old 4000+ would only hit around 2.6 stable with the same cooling. Most people just run at stock anyway.

[Les]

Thx pwnzilla and pedro, btw that chart does help...

[Zinmasterb]

I'm not so sure they're the same OC wise, I overclocked my E6600 to 3.3GHz with a Zalman $55 CPU fan. My buds tried something similar with an AMD and almost wrecked it.
Anyways lemme explain this Shared second cache thing. Alright for Intels (and I'm only pretty sure AMDs don't have this, there might be a few that do) as the processor is pushed farther and farther it starts to rely on it's later caches (there are normally 3 I believe, but don't quote me lol).
Anyways each core has a certain amount of the processors power partioned for it's own use, so when you're really pushing your first core and the second one is running passivly on an Intel it will get access to a whole unsegregated cache whereas an equivelent AMD processor's core, because it would only gain acess to half of the 2nd cache, would be much slower.

[Dantana]

Toms Hardware tends to lean toward AMD alot because he got in a riff with Intel a few years back. My input, INtel is easier if you overclock but AMD is good for the money. If you buy what you need, there's no need to overclock. The best is Intel but AMD ain't no slouch.

[Les]

ok cool...thx for advise ;D

[PooT]

I'm a big fan of intel; i never got into AMD
although, they seem the same, so w/e
imo its a personal preference :P

[Dag]

Here is my thing, AMD hasn't really released a true new chip for a few years now. The new Athlon is just the older Athlon for DDR2.

This is my first Intel rig in like 10 years, before that I was in AMD's camp. But since I wanted a newer generation CPU I went with Intel as opposed to AMD.