AMD vs INTEL
Out of context: Reply #25
- Started
- Last post
- 27 Responses
- Boz0
joyride2..no fanboyism here..I'm the type of person that asks for performance..and it has nothing to do with the companies. I own 2 AMD computers, they are both X2 systems and I bought them because they serve their purpose and were faster then Intel for what I needed it to be. I actually don't like my Xeons Noconas, and I was ready to buy Opterons, but Woodcrests are just so good, so I've decided to wait. It's all about the speed.
I'm just stating facts. Chunkfield is a fanboy because despite numerous reputable sites testing new Intel generation processors and reporting they beat the hell out of any AMD, he goes and keeps recommending AMD. The point here is what our NT friend needs and he asked what the best processor for Content Creation is on the market. Currently, it's Intel and everybody in the world agrees, except a few hardcore fanboys that can't get over the fact that there's something out there better then their beloved AMD.
As far as price, please go and look at the pricing for new Intels, they are in the same price range as any AMD processor on the market but one step up performance wise.
Just an example:
New Intel Conroe 2.67Ghz (beating FX60 oc'ed to 2.8Ghz) costs around $500. FX60 is still $700 something bucks, though it's important to mention that 2.6Ghz Conroe is there to match maybe X2 4800+/5000+ in the whole scheme of things even though it beats the hell out of it performance wise. X2 4800+ is still at close to $700. This is for the AM2 version.Woodcrest for example 3.0Ghz 4mb L2 cache, 1333Mhz FSB is $850, while Opteron 285 is around that price range too. Opteron 285 is again no match for Woodcrest.
Here's the pricing for the Conroe processors if you are interested:
So as I said no fanboyism here, it's just common sense. Faster, Cheaper, Cooler, better overclocking..how can you not like it. It has nothing to do with me prefering Intel or AMD.