64 replies to this topic

[Madekatsu]

I've been laying low the last couple days, but to hell with it, I'll bite.

I chose Money/Performance on the CPU side and NVIDIA on the GPU side.


Historically, I sway back and forth on CPU brand. The first gaming computer I built runs an AMD CPU. This last one I built though used Intel. However, I'm getting ready to build another mild AMD computer for a friend. It really boils down to if I'm working with what is already there or starting with scratch.

Personally I'm fairly rooted on the NVIDIA side of the GPU market but that's due to bad experiences with old ATI/AMD cards failing and having poor driver support. After having two burn up on me, I switched to NVIDIA and have yet to regret it. I'm certain things have changed now but I haven't warmed up to the idea of buying one for myself again. That hasn't stopped me from recommending them to other people though; be it due to their preferences or budgetary needs.

[Kuad]

I used to be an AMD fan for processors - back to the 686 days But ever since the Core processors came out, I have gotten 3 intel systems in a row, AMD just can't keep up.

For Vid cards, well I have tried both many times. ATi cards every single time had huge driver/support issues, and when a card died the vendors gave me the finger. NVidia cards - I've had 3 cards fans die, all 3 were rma'd and replaced with a next gen card that performed better, and the drivers have always been leaps and bounds better than my experiences with ATi, so for the past 4 generations I have been strictly NVidia

[Shivus]

Bang for your buck/purpose built machines. If I was building a system with a 680, SLI 680's, or any card up in that range no question I'd go intel. But with lower power GPUs I don't have much trouble going amd.

GPU again whatever is the best price/performance within the budget I set for a system. Nvida or AMD it doesn't matter.

With haswell nearing launch I'd rather go for a budget solution now that offers better multithreaded performance over my core 2 duo, and then see about getting in on haswell with a completely new system when it launches. With an AMD 6 core I'd then just have to up the ram and I'd have a capable server.

[Barbaric Soul]

I don't just pick Intel over AMD. I don't just pick a nvidia or AMD video card because of who made them, and I don't always go for best performance/dollar. I get the best I can afford at the time of purchase, reguardless of the options on these polls.

[Apocalypse4987]

AMD & AMD because I'm ignorant *******

[ElcomeSoft]

I've used all four companies. Had positives and negatives to take from them all.

To me, I go for the best price/performance, bang for buck etc. Brand schmand! Competition between two companies with good reputations and good experiences means I can pick whichever suits my budget the best at the time of upgrade.

[bikerbass77]

AMD graphic cards can often give better bang for your buck but Nvida cards are generally more consistant performers (AMD cards are usually better in some games and not others). Skyrim for example greatly favours Nvidia cards and Crysis seems to be better on AMD even though it says it is designed for Nvidia on the opening screens.

If you are stumped for cash and want really good graphics you can save a load by going the AMD CPU route but if you want really good performance you can't beat an overclocked I5 2500k for gaming.

Edited by Hans Davion, 13 July 2012 - 04:14 AM.

[Kyoshim]

Intel and Nvidia for me .

[Jaroth Corbett]

I have always been & will always be, an Intel & Nvidia man,

[Death Dealer]

Intel and Nvdia for me as well, from a price point and at the time performance on the GPU.

[Arisaema]

I have been a long time AMD fan, but their new bulldozer cpu just sucks pondwater. The next build I do, sometime around christmas I hope, will most likely have an Icore 7 processor in it.

CPU wise, I've strayed away from ATI becuase of their driver support in linux where I do most of my work day to day. For a build where it is primarily windows 7 x64, I will get the best bang for the buck that will allow me to later on do SLI or Crossfire. Multiple monitor support is a must for me so that will be taken into consideration as well.

[Lt Zwicka Greengold]

Intel on the processor.. it is their original technology and efforts that gave us the stable and expanding PC platform and deserve the continued support until they behave badly. They are still producing top quality product with ever increasing performance.

I have always been partial to ATI even though Nvidia has really turned up the science in the last few years.. In the begining ATI was always concerned about image and rendering quality vs their competitor. Those issues have gone away years ago but the loyalty remains

[FSlSlayer]

I use to love radeon then I became bias when my radeon 1k series overheated my 550w psu and melted in someparts of my computer. Went nvidia/intel and never came back.

[Myssi]

What comes to GPU's.. Meh. I don't really care. Currently using nVidia product, before that it was AMD, before that it was again nvidia and so on and so on.

On the CPU side I'm favouring intel at the moment, but have used AMD products in the past. Before deciding wich way to go with my current setup I waited for bulldozer to be launched and hoped that it would do better than it did.

All in all, guess I don't have a preference. Whatever suits my budget and gives best bang \ buck for me.

[Stickjock]

As for Processors... think I'm in the "best bang for your buck" cat now... used to use exclusively Intel... but my new system as an AMD Quad core in it... and have since rethought my Intel only preferences... thing is running like a champ, no problems so...

Now... as for GPU's?? On that one, die hard Nvidia fan... dunno why... have used Nvidia for as far back as I can remember at least... no problems (major that is)... Current GTX 550ti takes whatever I through at it with nary a hic-up....

[Waits]

I've always been a fan of Intel and Nvidia, and have been building my PCs with those for the past 10 years.

[Paralax]

WardenWolf, on 12 July 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

I used to be all AMD on the processor side, back in the grand days when they broke 1GHz first, and when they beat Intel on both price *and* performance. Now, though, they have really fallen behind (in my opinion) - I would only recommend their stuff when someone just doesn't have the budget to get a good Intel chip

On the video card side, I have had both nVidia and ATI (which AMD now owns). I have had better luck with nVidia, and I think they have best option right now in their GeForce GTX 670 video card, but both are perfectly fine options.

Dual 690s..... I WIN!

[Rattlehead NZ]

XBOX360 vs PS3 FIGHT!!! lol

I use an AMD and i max everything and havent suffered bottlenecks or problems regarding CPU usage etc.

I do prefer Nvidia because of there general compatibility. Most game patches i see are massive ATI patches and faults, but don't get me wrong as they are faster in alot of ways.

In the end, if it works...use it.

[Brandenburg]

Apocalypse4987, on 13 July 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

AMD & AMD because I'm ignorant *******

me too!
I have 3 AMD Systems at home, 2 Office and one Gamer. When i change something in my Computer, i can use the old Parts for the other two. All Parts were compatible and there remain some capacities to upgrade. But the next will be my Graphics i think, ATi 5770 Hawk. But we will see. My X3 @ X4 720 BE runs at this time with standart 2,8 GHz, that is good enough for the Games i play today.

[Vitus1978]

My last pc was an amd CPU with a nvidia gpu.... This time around its a intel CPU and a amd gpu.... All depends on where I get the best bang for my buck.