AMD vs. Intel rhetoric heats up

In the end, it doesn't matter, Robert.
THe average consumer (99% of the buyers) only care about if it works. My mother could care less if her Toshiba Satellite has an AMD or an Intel. Me, I prefer AMD over Intel because based on what I've read and seen first-hand, you get more for your money with AMD. Intel makes good stuff, but the AMD mobile chips run faster and cooler -- very important for laptops. No one wants a burnt...
Anyway, in the end, does it really matter what your machine runs. I know copious amounts of gamers and they all swear by AMD chips. Gamers drive the upgrade treadmill to a large degree, so their opinions count to me a great deal. It was a gamer who suggested I buy an AMD Turion 64 over an Intel Centrino Duo. Glad I did. The Intel Centrino Duo runs as hot as a Latin mistress.

Deke, I agree with you. Gamers and graphic designers swear by AMD. And the AMD Opetrons run much cooler than what you'd expect from Intel. Intel processors have burned ever since the Prescott range was introduced. I remember a funny flash video showing a guy barbequing over an Intel Prescott processor :)

Intel chips have run hot in the past, but have you seen the benchmarks on heat and power consumption for Conroe (Core 2 Duo)? Much, much lower than before. And much lower than the comparable AMD chips.

A middle-of-the-road Core 2 Duo E6700 (which costs $320) outperforms AMD's flagship $1000 FX-62, and has much lower heat output and power consumption.

I can't wait until "Merom", the mobile version of Conroe, comes out later this year. :-)

Disclosure: I work for Intel.

If gamers/graphics designers swear by AMD because Prescotts run too hot, why is this a knock on Conroe? Those that only care if it works shouldn't have a problem with Conroe (plus it works VERY well), and those that care about performance/temperature would know that Conroe is a different world from Prescott.

Let's just wait and see them benchmarks running Vista in 64 bit. AMD will close the gap. Oh, it took Intel long enough to catch AMD. Hummmm.. I remember the heady days of the good ole AMD 486 DX4-133. That CPU beat the Intel Pentium 75. That was HOW LONG AGO?? It's just a matter of time before AMD takes the speed crown back. I think that will be when Hyper-Transport 3 comes out. How's that Front Side Bus Intel???

Well, in terms of desktop heat-sinks, Intel takes the trophey home. AMD heat sinks, though they are getting better, just dont cool their processors as well as Intels do.

Now on the other hand, AMD's do have an advantage when it comes right down to hard-core gaming. However, when it comes to multi-tasking, the Intel hyperthreading on their Pentium-D processors, take the lead significantly.

So basicly, in terms of cooling systems, Intel wins. In terms of gaming, AMD wins. Unless you are going to be running a virus-scanner/anti-spyware program in the background. Or if you're going to be multi-tasking. Then the Intel wins hands down due to its proficiancy in hyperthreading tech.

Personally, I prefer the Intel just because it doesnt have to be pushed to its limits to get good mileage out of it. Not saying AMD doesnt have its good points. I can see why alot of people prefer it. But I think its unfair to say that Intel stinks while AMD shines.

Yo Deke,
The AMD Turion 64 is a single core CPU. The Intel Core Duo is a dual core CPU. Both CPUs have nearly identical thermal characteristics, but the Dual Core murders the Turion 64 badly even with a single core turned off. Core 2 Duo widens the performance gap even further.

AMD still the best.

Well it's your right to feel that way if you want to, but don't just say "AMD is still the best" if you don't have anything to back up your words with.

I Don't take sides in this battle at all, Both company's prove themselves very well. Right now, i do agree that Conroe has taken intel to the lead of this never ending race, comming out on top in almost every benchmark test, but amd knows this just as well as everyone else here does, and there probobly making some major performance tweaks to the x2 line as we speak. You also have to take into consideration that thats just desktop dual core power, For single core desktop, the amd althlon 64 line destroys pentium 4 and core solo, and the sempron eats up the celeron, and from what i heard has a good deal even on the pentium 4. The turion is also the leader on single core laptop processors. The bottom line is though, both of these companys are good in there own way, They build there product completly different, while both designs are very efficient in there own way. Theres only one thing I don't understand, if they have the technoligy to keep climbing up the performance ladder, why are they doing it so slowly? Dual core should be hitting 4ghz now.

As far as slowly climbing up the performance ladder, some of it has to do with marketing, and other has to do with technology development and heat issues.

At the moment, two cores running at 4Ghz would simply fry the CPU with current die sizes. The trend in performance is not running high clocks, they seem to be hovering around 2-2.8Ghz, it's more multi-core now. Intel quad cores are already out, and later 8-core on-die to follow.

AMD is still WAY behind, and Intels Quad-core Kentsfield still outperforms AMD's version.

By the way, there are core 2 duo CPU's capable of hitting 4-5Ghz overclocked, but that's not without extreme cooling, ie: dry ice, or phase change. Most core 2 duo's are capable of 3.4Ghz, 3.5Ghz OC'd on air. As for AMD? ROLF, AM2's are still having a hard time hitting 3.0Ghz.

I can't wait to see what AMD has up their sleeve. Intel's Core 2 Duo's are much better than most AMD processors, but with AMD's recent purchase of ATI, they must have some good plans coming up down the road. If AMD's new R600 Video cards are going to murder the G80's in performance, then they must have ome good stuff coming in the processor department. I still wonder though, why have they taken all this time for AMD to get even the first few 65nm manufacturing with major core revisions o it out, and they still have no competing dual core, and not a single quad. WHat is going on with AMD these days. By the way, I like both AMD and Intel processors.

Oops, I messed up on my last one. Here: I can't wait to see what AMD has up their sleeve. Intel's Core 2 Duo's are much better than most AMD processors, but with AMD's recent purchase of ATI, they must have some good plans coming up down the road. If AMD's new R600 Video cards are going to murder the G80's in performance, then they must have ome good stuff coming in the processor department. I still wonder though, why have they taken all this time for AMD to get even the first few 65nm manufacturing with no major core revisions to it out, and they still have no competing dual core, and not a single quad. What is going on with AMD these days. By the way, I like both AMD and Intel processors.