64 replies to this topic

[Alcatraz968]

This a completely friendly poll to see what people think. Don't Try to forces your ideas on others.

What your Favorite/Preferred brand of CPUs and GPUs. Or do you just look at money/performances.

If you want to explain your choices, feel free to comment. BUT do not attack others comment.

[MuffinTop]

There are a few threads with polls just similar to this one. Did you read them already?
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

[WardenWolf]

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.

[Alcatraz968]

MuffinTop, on 12 July 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

There are a few threads with polls just similar to this one. Did you read them already?

I only did a quick search for them. Sorry for repeating threads.

[Samson]

I will buy whatever gets me the best performance vs cost, plain and simple. Buying the "best" usually doesn't equate to being the best one to buy.

[Viper69]

I prefer Intel CPUs as they generally run a lot cooler than AMD.

[SNOWHOUND]

its whatever performs best at the time for the amount of money i am willing to part with.

its more for the case of CPUs (as in the past few years ATI/AMD video cards have always proved cheap but powerful) but i always sway between both manufacturers.

[Kaldor]

Viper69, on 12 July 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

I prefer Intel CPUs as they generally run a lot cooler than AMD.

Bad information is bad.... They have about the same wattage used but there generally within a few watts of each other.
AMD 8 core 125 watts vs Intel 6 core 130 watts
AMD 4 core 100 watts vs Intel 4 core 95 watts

I was an AMD guy for a long time. Then the Core 2s came out and I never looked back. Until AMD gets closer performance-wise, Intel it is.

As far as video cards, Im price vs performance. AMD has led this area for a long time now. The new nVidia 6XX cards are nice, but a little pricey. Ill stick with my lowly ATI 6970s in Crossfire for now and wait for the next generation from both.

[Vulpesveritas]

I'm suprised so few people want price/performance on the CPU front lol.

Me personally i refuse to buy intel due to ethics and prefer whatever graphics card gives me the most bang for my $$$.

[Dymitry]

Vulpes, Intel marketing works wonders. As a matter of fact, I am still convinced that rambus and itanium were the way forward. SHAME ON YOU AMD!

[CeeKay Boques]

I really like CPUs because of how much they help the computer.

[Viper69]

Kaldor, on 12 July 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

Bad information is bad.... They have about the same wattage used but there generally within a few watts of each other.
AMD 8 core 125 watts vs Intel 6 core 130 watts
AMD 4 core 100 watts vs Intel 4 core 95 watts

About the same is not the same. In my experience in building both systems my Intel systems have ran cooler. Take that as you will but dont say its bad information.

[Hellgardia]

As it always has been for me: Best bang for the buck (money/performances)

On a side note, these threads always turn out to be fanboy fights after some pages...

Edited by Aniquilator6, 12 July 2012 - 11:01 AM.

[Romulus Stahl]

Best Bang for the Buck in both cases.
At one time I was overclocking AMD CPU's and getting great results.
Today I'm running Intel in my game box, my HTPC is using an AMD Llano.
I ran a 3DFX Voodoo1 (Orchid Righteous 3d) when it came out, it was shipped without the MW2 glide game (talk about being a founder).
At this point I'm running a HD69XX AMD card, latter this year I'm switching to an Nvidia solution (they have the crown at this time).

Edited by Romulus Stahl, 12 July 2012 - 11:05 AM.

[Stormwraith]

Vaires with build objectives.

Lowest Price = AMD & ATI almost every time

Single GPU Performance = Either proc w/ an ATI GPU

Dual+ GPU Performance = Until the new AMD processor line (6 & 8 series) I would have said Phenom Quad and NVidia. The AM3+ procs have left me scratching my head wondering what AMD is thinking/doing.

[Tannhauser Gate]

Technoviking, on 12 July 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

I really like CPUs because of how much they help the computer.

+1 lol

[Kaldor]

Viper69, on 12 July 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

About the same is not the same. In my experience in building both systems my Intel systems have ran cooler. Take that as you will but dont say its bad information.

Take it as you want, but numbers dont lie. Intel and AMD put their wattage ratings on the CPUs for a reason. They fudge those numbers and all kinds of hell can break loose when the CPU over heats because the heat sink does not have enough capacity to handle the heat output.

Unless you can produce some hard numbers? Unless you have a thermal probe setup that can measure temperature on the top of the chip at full load? Like I said, and I build and overclock my share of systems, at stock clocks they are within 5-10 watts of each other. You can check white papers on the CPUs if you desire, but checking somewhere like Newegg is close enough.

[Der Kopfsammler]

So in my personal opinion...

The only AMD CPUs that actually have better performance rates than Intel ones, and are worth the money we give for them are the most expensive ones... BUT even those in a heat comparisson with Intel... they are freaking heat generators... So Intel wins on CPUs dispist that AMD CPUs are cheaper than Intel's.

No one cant deny that AMD does know how to do something that others cant, and its GPUs... But their standard focus on making them is more in hardware than software/drivers... And thats where Nvidia wins because Nvidia driver developers can make drivers that can put a 512Mb GPU performing better than a 1Gb AMD currently comming out from the factory...

So where does AMD wins here? The answer is Crossfire! Even though Nvidia can do the same with SLi, Nvidia cant do it as well as AMD does because Nvidia focus on building GPUs ready to be performing better on their own than in pairs.

Intel doesnt make GPUs... instead, they do graphic chipsets that are junk... but thats because its the "standard" for every motherboard. And speaking of motherboards, one other reason why AMD looses on CPUs is that theres not that many MBs on market that focus on AMD CPUs.

So IMO...
If you want a good/average CPU that is worth the cost for them - Intel
If youre focusing on buying a GPU without too much crap on it, with good self performance and lasts a loooong time - Nvidia
If youre focusing on buying a GPU and you want to upgrade them by getting another one to make them work toguether and abuse their performance - AMD

[Viper69]

Kaldor, on 12 July 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

Take it as you want, but numbers dont lie. Intel and AMD put their wattage ratings on the CPUs for a reason. They fudge those numbers and all kinds of hell can break loose when the CPU over heats because the heat sink does not have enough capacity to handle the heat output.

Unless you can produce some hard numbers? Unless you have a thermal probe setup that can measure temperature on the top of the chip at full load? Like I said, and I build and overclock my share of systems, at stock clocks they are within 5-10 watts of each other. You can check white papers on the CPUs if you desire, but checking somewhere like Newegg is close enough.

Trust me I believe you. Just going off my own anecdotal accounts. Not worth fussing about for sure.

It could be anything as simple as the heat sinks from the two arent the same weight in grams of copper to the air flow, I surely wasnt testing them in a vacuum.

Either way I think its personal preference. I used to use AMDs but when Intel came out with the Q6600 I switched over to Intel. Thats still currently what I am running. My very first home built system had a Cyrix processor, now that was a real **** of a processor.

Edited by Viper69, 12 July 2012 - 11:38 AM.

[silentD11]

Intel's been ******** all over AMD since the core2's came out. And AMD has failed on every CPU aspect. CPU bug in Phenom, bugs in Bulldozer, and hell their performance per clock actually got worse from Phenom II to Bulldozer.

AMD used to beat intel on price and performance, but AMD is now totally incompetent and doesn't make a good CPU.

That said I still "prefer" AMD for two reasons. The first is that intel's business practices are illegal and they are a pretty evil company. The second is that AMD is still OK on the server side of things, I've got a couple boxes with dual/quad 12 core opterons that work fine for what I need.