By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Intel or AMD

 

Intel or AMD

Intel 64 43.24%
 
AMD 84 56.76%
 
Total:148
1337 Gamer on 21 January 2010

AMD. Price/Performance is unbeatable. Plus ive ALWAYS had good reliability with all my AMD cpu's in the past.



I mostly play RTS and Moba style games now adays as well as ALOT of benchmarking. I do play other games however such as the witcher 3 and Crysis 3, and recently Ashes of the Singularity. I love gaming on the cutting edge and refuse to accept any compromises. Proud member of the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race. Long Live SHIO!!!! 

Around the Network
heruamon on 21 January 2010

Since Core series...it' Intel 100%.



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder

quaiky on 21 January 2010

Usually using an amd in my desktop for better price/performance ratio. but it really depends on budget and price/perfromance ratio at the time when i buy. Also got an intel in my laptop, sadly amd still has not that good moblie processors especially for power saving so the choice there was no real choice


For graphics its all ati for me for a lot years now. i had a geforce 3 that died just after warranty was over, then replaced it with a cheap used geforce 2 since i had nearly no money at that time and that one died also only a few months after. bought a radeon 8500 to replace it and stayed with ati since then (had a 9700, X850, HD3650 after and now a HD4850) . never had a card die anymore, never had any driver problems with the games i played so was really happy with the switch.



markers on 21 January 2010

I go with intel. My current pc uses amd and it has sucked so much that I would never again go with amd again unless of course it was absolutely the best thing out there.



phnguyen89 on 21 January 2010

Intel's CPU's are way better than AMD's BUT their price/performance ratio is not as good as AMD's.

Go AMD if you want more bang for your buck.

Go Intel if you have money to burn (really not a good idea in this economy).



Around the Network
greenmedic88 on 21 January 2010

Really depends on the purpose of the system.

Generally it's true if you are going to spend in the $200 or higher range, for a CPU, you're willing to budget more for extra CPU performance and will likely be buying an Intel. The vast majority of all dedicated workstations fall into this category because of this.

If it's just for gaming, general purpose use, or even most typical home uses including photo and video editing work, nothing wrong with saving some money on an AMD CPU/chipset.

All three of the computers I currently use are Intel based systems (core quad/nvidia, core duo/ATI, core duo/nvidia). When I build a dedicated Maya workstation, it will be another Intel system based on 1366/i7, most likely ATI video unless Fermi significantly changes the performance playing field.



SnesTea on 21 January 2010
Slimebeast said:

AMD. I buy AMD and ATI regardless of price and performance. I'll never again buy Intel or Nvidia.

Yeah, Nvidia cards really suck.



Garcian Smith on 21 January 2010
Snesboy said:
Slimebeast said:

AMD. I buy AMD and ATI regardless of price and performance. I'll never again buy Intel or Nvidia.

Yeah, Nvidia cards really suck.

NVidia cards aren't bad. They've just continually priced themselves out of the market for the past several years, squeaking by on brand recognition alone.



"'Casual games' are something the 'Game Industry' invented to explain away the Wii success instead of actually listening or looking at what Nintendo did. There is no 'casual strategy' from Nintendo. 'Accessible strategy', yes, but ‘casual gamers’ is just the 'Game Industry''s polite way of saying what they feel: 'retarded gamers'."

 -Sean Malstrom