Thinkpads Forum

I was wondering what everyone here liked better, the AMD Athlon or Intel Pentium. Or if you have a different choice such as Sparc, Alpha or PowerPC as your favorite chip, choose "Other" in the poll and list below.

AMD for a desktop processor
Intel for a mobile processor

WHAT?!

A set of Forums on the Thinkpads and IBM/Lenovo and there is no POWER Processor option in that poll?

Put me down for the following;

In the first portion;
1.) Intel for mobile processing
2.) AMD for a game rig or PC workstation; not a very huge advance over an Intel chip unless it is an AMD64.

Next, the heavy duty suckers;

1.) POWER Architectue. POWER5 is the latest.
2.) UltraSPARC or an SGI system.
3.) IA-64.

There are many more, but I can't think of many systems that use them that are widespread or non-specialized; i.e. desktop workstations, etc.

Same here:

Intel for Mobile
AMD for Desktop

Hopefully, AMD can make the proper advancements in the mobile arena, as they claiming that they are about to do.

Turns out the Intel stock has been plummeting compared to AMD which could show signs of a successor.

AMD deffinatly, for desktops, the intro of the Athlon FX 2 and AM2 Socket is just enough to make them seem like an almost god like presence in the computing world :p

AMD's mobiles are picking up fast though, the AMD Turion 64 was a pretty good CPU.

Now, moving onto a slight gripe...
Don't the rule's advise against clichéd VS topics?

I'm no veteran... but I'm pretty sure that the old Intel vs AMD war has been surging on for a good while now ;p

With the AM2, AMD is cementing themselves in a defensive position; they aren't charging out at Intel, that happened awhile ago. At first,the market like Intel more than AMD and AMD's stock went down, then that flipped and AMD's stock went up whilst Intel's went down, now it appears to have flipped again. The AM2 is more of a preparation than a really boost, which is what AMD should be doing in the server and desktop market. They shouldn't, however, lose sight of the fact that Intel is already significantly ahead of them when it comes to mobile processor; how long Intel can keep that lead is anyone's guess but it looks like they are rolling out their own lines of chipsets pretty fast.

What I am concerned about is the propagation of codenames and slideware that doesn't, errr, actually exist. I.e. AMD's Torrenza which actually isn't a chip but a partnership with manfacturers. Chip Wars II is coming up pretty fast.

gearguy wrote:Now, moving onto a slight gripe...
Don't the rule's advise against clichéd VS topics?

I'm no veteran... but I'm pretty sure that the old Intel vs AMD war has been surging on for a good while now ;p

That rule was set for those that turn topics into debate wars. If this thread were to get out of control (ie. my AMD would beat your pathetic piece of crap Intel anyday) it would most certainly be locked.

Asking a general question about people's preference is ok. Starting a flaming war by knocking another person's opinion is not.

It all depends on what the PC is going to do.

Multimedia - Pentium Extreme
Games - AMD FX-62
Business Apps - Any of Pentium 4
Basic Home Apps - Celeron (lower cost)
Laptops - Pentium (if cost is factor Celeron)
Gaming Laptops - (I think these are a joke) AMD
PC for under $200 - VIA (hehe)

How fast and stable your PC runs also depends on what other stuff you have hooked to it, i.e. FX-62 with TNT2 vid card = garbage no matter how you look at it.

In my experience, AMD chips, despite having a reputation of giving more value for your money in terms of dollars for PR scores, Pentium chips are alot more solid for much longer time. I have gone through countless AMD chips that just bit the dust after 3 or 4 years while I'm still yet to have an Intel chip die on me at all. While for many hardcore users, the average chip lifespan is much longer than what the buyer plans on having the computer for, the average user and/or budet user needs something that is sure to last awhile and after three dead AMD chips in only a few years, I'm just going to stick to what I've had best luck with and stick with Intel.

It depends what type of chips. For laptops i vote for the intels chips for thier batterylife and performance. For desktops i would go amd all the way. I almost thought about getting the p4
Intel Pentium D 805 Smithfield 533MHz FSB 2 x 1MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Dual Core,EM64T Processor - Retail

and overclocking the hell out of it to 4ghz from 2.66
i saw an article on tomshardware about it and foudn it interesting. Int he old days amd was behind intel but amd has definiatly stepped up to the plate. (they just need the big pc maker contracts right now)

Bgradid wrote:AMD for a desktop processor
Intel for a mobile processor

agreed. i find that combo is the best. amd makes good low cost chips which are stable at overclocked speeds but intel chips are highely effective in the mobile environment making battery life last longer.

Ill go for AMD any day of the week!

Intel all the way. I have seen two (count them two) AMD desktops fail and die right in my face. I have always used Intel machines, and will get nothing else. My next new desktop will use a Core 2 Duo. Intel has been very good to me in the past and will continue being that way into the future.

Stargate199 wrote:Intel all the way. I have seen two (count them two) AMD desktops fail and die right in my face.

Of literally hundreds of desktops, laptops and servers, the only CPU failure I have seen was on a 386/25 that died on my some 20 years ago -- a hot summer day, no AC, passive cooling only.

That's it. No other Intel, AMD, POWER, VIA, Alpha or PA-RISC CPU failures. None whatsoever. So I personally don't believe that there are significant CPU reliability differences.

Intel is getting better again, and does have an edge on mobile CPUs. They shot themselves in the foot in an enormous way with the Itanic (IA64) architecture, though, and only recovered when they adopted AMD64 for their x86 CPUs (and renamed it to EM64T).