Originally Posted By: ConfederateTyrant
I have used both, and they are both great. In the past years, AMD was always far superior to Intel in terms of performance and gaming. Currently, from my experience, Intel Pentium processors have improved and appear to be equal to AMD in the same aspects. This is based on the hundreds of solo and duo core Intel/AMD processors that I have serviced. Celeron processors are good, but don't compare to the higher performance of AMD/Pentium processors.
I'm currently using an Intel Centrino 1.6 ghz processor, and my wife's laptop has an AMD Turion 64 x2. No real reason for the choices, they just happened to be the available options for the laptops we wanted.
1. AMD CPU's have never been "far superior". In the Pentium 4 days, the Athlon was, Mhz for Mhz, substantially faster than the P4. But the P4 scaled a LOT better. This was due to the 28-stage pipe used on the P4, vs the 8-stage pipe used on the Athlon. It allowed the P4 to clock much higher, but performance per clock cycle was affected. These CPU's were NEVER comparable on a clock-per-clock basis, and Intel scaled the P4 at an incredible rate, which is why AMD adopted the goofy "PR" rating for their CPU's. This was a technique originally employed by Cyrix back in the 486 and 586 (Pentium for the Intel boys) days to give an "indication of performance" as to what they FELT their CPU performed like in comparison to it's competitor.
Intel's response to AMD was to adopt an even goofier naming scheme to prove a point. AMD's PR ratings were based on what they felt was a comparative performance level in the P4. Intel's subsequent numbering scheme seemed to have no basis in ANYTHING other than being in sequence. And that's why we now have Intel processor numbers.
The P3 and Athlon were a toss-up performance-wise. Remember, AMD's CPU's were, historically, based on Intel's CPU's. The Athlon and P3 had a LOT in common. Socket 370 vs Socket "A", Slot 1 vs Slot "A"....
AMD's 760 chipset for the Slot A Athlon was a GREAT chipset.... and the last chipset they made until VERY recently after their acquisition of ATI.
And this brings me to my 2nd point:
2. Chipsets. Intel has had this advantage since AMD abandoned in-house chipset production with the 760. ALI, VIA, SiS...etc. [censored]. This has been AMD's biggest detriment, as Intel has continued to provide VERY GOOD in-house chipsets to go with their CPU's. This is why Intel CPU's are the preferred choice for business systems, as the Intel CPU's with Intel chipset motherboards are bulletproof. And Intel even makes their own motherboards!
3. Intel is no where near "equal" to AMD right now. They are kicking AMD's teeth in. AMD is milking an architecture that was cutting edge when the P4 came out.... And as I said, at that time, was clock-for-clock faster, but was never as scalable.
And now we have the Core-series CPU's. The reinvention of the P3, the P3 on steroids. It is scalable, and FAST. VERY fast. Did you know AMD's fastest quad core is slower than Intel's slowest Quad-core? That's not EQUAL, that's PATHETIC!!!
AMD needs to get their butts in gear and develop a new architecture, because Intel just debuted their latest and it's even faster........
The gap is widening and AMD needs to do something. NOW!
Oh, and to answer the original question, I've been using Intel since 1988. I have never had a GOOD reason to switch.
When I build a business workstation, I use Intel. They just work.