Pls which will u prefer?

I prefer Intel because is more powerful and is design for applications and programming.

whilst AMD is for rendering/manipulating 3D images and gaming

deji2009:

I prefer Intel because is more powerful and is design for applications and programming.
whilst AMD is for rendering/manipulating 3D images and gaming

Correct and very true! The computer geeks have a saying that ''don't choose an AMD processor over an Intel unless you're getting it far cheaper than the Intel''.

All processors r same.
Just 'cos Intel has developed monopolistic tendencies (like Microsoft) doesn't make it beta than AMD.

amd works just fine for me

puskin:

All processors r same.

Arrant Nonsense! Very soon you'll be telling me S60v3 and s60v5 symbian platforms are the same

puskin:

Just 'cos Intel has developed monopolistic tendencies (like Microsoft) doesn't make it beta than AMD.

Which monopolistic tendencies you dey talk about? Most of the HP pavilion Dv5's and DV6's I see these days come with AMD processors rather than Intel so wetin u dey talk?

^ Intel hv bin forced 2change when AMD nd other processor manufacturers took 'em 2court over violation of anti-trust laws nd they were heavily fined nd cautioned.

'cos Windows is widely used doesn't make it beta than Linux.

Both are good cos am using both. I hv intel on my HP and Amd on my Dell and found noting wrong wt Amd. As regards d heatness that is peculiar wt AMD is nt noticeable to me cos i normally use my AMD lappy for longer hours wtout any problem.
Intel just made name that's it.

Digriz:

Both are good cos am using both. I hv intel on my HP and Amd on my Dell and found noting wrong wt Amd. As regards d heatness that is peculiar wt AMD is nt noticeable to me cos i normally use my AMD lappy for longer hours wtout any problem.
Intel just made name that's it[color=#006600][/color].

Spot-on.

while i don't have an amd processor i think i'll actually go with amd; all the pcs i've used in recent times are intel
however soemtimes i've had reason to test os images (linux, bsd, opensolaris, even windows) as virtual machines; also if you are
running windows 7 and want to run xp mode, you will need a virtualization enabled cpu. now the thing is that most
intel processors don't have hardware virtualization meanwhile most - if not all - amd processors made in the last 2
years do. this means that running these guest oses on a virtualization enabled processor will be faster; while xp mode
of win7 only works on a virtualization enabled processor;

they are all good

they both need to work on their hyperthreading Technology

I've used Laptops with both processors and I can safely say according to my experience that Intel works better. Both laptops had d same config and OS but the AMD laptop really dragged even after a full format. I've seen 1.7ghz intels work better that 2.0ghz amd on identical rigs. My experience n 2cents.

They are both good on any system they are,but if u are more into GAMING,i'll advise u to go with AMD Athlon or Turion.Thats my opinion

The same as the difference between Coca Cola and Pepsi , they are competitors.

Here are some very simple things that are different between them:

INTEL processors: Intel was the first major brand for desktop CPUs, they survived a lot of competitors. The CPUs they manufacture are always a bit more expensive than AMDs. Because of their market shares, Intel was able to force some "gadgets" onto the market. Until 2002, all CPUs were classified by the speed (for example 2GHz - so 2000MHz). Intel lost some influence on the desktops CPU market because of AMDs techniques - they used not only pure speed but a more specific command kernel. By that the CPUs (i.E. AMD Athlon XP) were slower, but provided the same results as a faster Intel CPU (remember? AMD at 1.666GHz was the same as a INTEL on 1,8GHz). Intel provides most of the "normal" server CPUs today. Private users often choose AMDs for their machines to save costs. Intel supports the classification by the pure speed of a CPU no more. The introduced new numbers for the CPUs which represent the speed, the advanced features, the cache etc. for a certain CPU (and the best for them: you cannot compare them to AMD any longer as easily as it was before , )

AMD: AMD concentrated on the PC and consumer market and cut the costs for their CPUs in order to be more competitive. Nowadays the AMD CPUs are hotter than Intel CPUs, therefore you will need a better cooling and your system will be a bit louder. AMD provides a dual core CPU for PCs longer than Intel and I guess they have more experience with these features.

For gaming systems it is more a question of taste and money than a real difference. I know, there are many people, who would call me a liar, but both platforms have their advantages.

You cannot do anything wrong, as long as you[b] try to get a CPU with a big cache (1mb at least! [/b]- so NO CELERON or SEMPRON) and the rest is a question of RAM and the used video card.

Answer

Both chips are very similar, but due to marketing, they seem very very different from each other. The primary "marketing" difference is the way they claim their speeds.

The Intel chipsets (Pentium, celeron) use MHz as a speed factor. IE "This Pentium 4 chip runs at 3000 MHz" (IE a Pentium 4 3.0).

The AMD chipsets do not use a MegaHertz rating for speed because they believe doing so would make their chips seem slower than their Intel counterparts. This is due to the difference in instruction set handling that AMD uses, and is too technical to really get into here. Instead you may see an AthlonXP 1600, etc. Apply the following formula to determine the "Pentium" equivalent MHz speed.

MHz = (XP rating/1.5) + (500/1.5)

For example, with an[b] Athlon 1600[/b], the math would break down like this: MHz = (1600/1.5) + (500/1.5) MHz = (1066.66) + (333.33) MHz = 1399.99

Which would be equivalent to the last incarnation of the Pentium 3 (at 1400 MHz).

Because Intel has enjoyed longer commercial success than AMD, you can typically find comparable AMD chips for half the cost. This has to do with brand loyalty and advertising costs as well as the types of memory used in both chips. Intel uses more expensive RDR RAM while the AMD chips use DDR RAM. That said, the RDR RAM is faster (533 MHz versus the 333 MHz of the DDR RAM) and helps to soften the blow of the cost of the chips to the consumer.

Anwser

The main difference between AMD and Intel processors are that AMD processors have a 10 step execution process which doesn't allow as fast of a clock but AMD's counter that by being able to do more operations per clock cycle. Intls on the other hand have a 20 step execution proccess which allows much higher clock speeds but they have fewer operations per clock. Thats why a 2.08 Ghz AMD barton can perform at levels like a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4. Another difference between the processors are the sockets they use. AMD's generally use Socket A (462 pins) while Intel generally uses Socket 478 (478 pins). Other differences include supported chip sets, AMD motherboards generally use SIS, VIA, or N force chip sets while Intel motherboards use Intel, SIS, and most recently ATI chip sets. AMD is a favorite for over clockers because with minor modifications the FSB multiplier can be unlocked while Intel multipliers cannot be unlocked (Not to say that AMD is used exclusively by over clockers, because it is not, but this ability to be unlocked is a plus). Also as of now Intel processors have the largest L3 cache at 2mb while the largest for AMD is 1mb.

source: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_AMD_and_Intel_processors&alreadyAsked=1&rtitle=Comparison_between_intel_processors_and_amd_processors

so therefore in my opinion, forget story unless ur trying to be cheap, INTEL WINS.

am sure the newer versions of the intel processors support virtualization too

oops my post did not show, make i try again

The same as the difference between Coca Cola and Pepsi , they are competitors. Wink

Here are some very simple things that are different between them:

INTEL processors: Intel was the first major brand for desktop CPUs, they survived a lot of competitors. The CPUs they manufacture are always a bit more expensive than AMDs. Because of their market shares, Intel was able to force some "gadgets" onto the market. Until 2002, all CPUs were classified by the speed (for example 2GHz - so 2000MHz). Intel lost some influence on the desktops CPU market because of AMDs techniques - they used not only pure speed but a more specific command kernel. By that the CPUs (i.E. AMD Athlon XP) were slower, but provided the same results as a faster Intel CPU (remember? AMD at 1.666GHz was the same as a INTEL on 1,8GHz). Intel provides most of the "normal" server CPUs today. Private users often choose AMDs for their machines to save costs. Intel supports the classification by the pure speed of a CPU no more. The introduced new numbers for the CPUs which represent the speed, the advanced features, the cache etc. for a certain CPU (and the best for them: you cannot compare them to AMD any longer as easily as it was before , )

AMD: AMD concentrated on the PC and consumer market and cut the costs for their CPUs in order to be more competitive. Nowadays the AMD CPUs are hotter than Intel CPUs, therefore you will need a better cooling and your system will be a bit louder. AMD provides a dual core CPU for PCs longer than Intel and I guess they have more experience with these features.

For gaming systems it is more a question of taste and money than a real difference. I know, there are many people, who would call me a liar, but both platforms have their advantages.

You cannot do anything wrong, as long as you try to get a CPU with a big cache (1mb at least! - so NO CELERON or SEMPRON) and the rest is a question of RAM and the used video card.

Both chips are very similar, but due to marketing, they seem very very different from each other. The primary "marketing" difference is the way they claim their speeds.

The Intel chipsets (Pentium, celeron) use MHz as a speed factor. IE "This Pentium 4 chip runs at 3000 MHz" (IE a Pentium 4 3.0).

The AMD chipsets do not use a MegaHertz rating for speed because they believe doing so would make their chips seem slower than their Intel counterparts. This is due to the difference in instruction set handling that AMD uses, and is too technical to really get into here. Instead you may see an AthlonXP 1600, etc. Apply the following formula to determine the "Pentium" equivalent MHz speed.

MHz = (XP rating/1.5) + (500/1.5)

For example, with an Athlon 1600, the math would break down like this: MHz = (1600/1.5) + (500/1.5) MHz = (1066.66) + (333.33) MHz = 1399.99

Which would be equivalent to the last incarnation of the Pentium 3 (at 1400 MHz).

Because Intel has enjoyed longer commercial success than AMD, you can typically find comparable AMD chips for half the cost. This has to do with brand loyalty and advertising costs as well as the types of memory used in both chips. Intel uses more expensive RDR RAM while the AMD chips use DDR RAM. That said, the RDR RAM is faster (533 MHz versus the 333 MHz of the DDR RAM) and helps to soften the blow of the cost of the chips to the consumer.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_AMD_and_Intel_processors&alreadyAsked=1&rtitle=Comparison_between_intel_processors_and_amd_processors

please go to that link and see, the bot keeps swallowing my posts

ahem, i didn't say intel processors don't support virtualization, what i said (or at least meant) is that
most if not all amd processors made in the last 2 years support virtualization while a lesser percentage
of intel processors support virtualization

according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_virtualization): "Only Sempron processors except Sable and Huron do not include support for AMD-V"
while "As of 2009 not all recent Intel processors support VT-x - Intel uses the feature to segment its market"
i'm not saying intel isn't better, what i'm saying is intel deliberately releases processors that don't support hardware virtualization - and that's annoying for me
most so called engineers don't even know about this in pc villa so say i go to pc villa, i want ot buy a laptop
that has vt-x-intel then i have to tell them i don't want a cpu of model xyz 'cos it doesnt support virtualization
unfortunately neither does model abc or jkl , meanwhile for amd it's enough to say i don't want
the sempron cpu and i'm assured of amd-v virtualization. that's my point
for a list of intel processors that support virtualization check this site: http://ark.intel.com/VTList.aspx

most so called engineers don't even know about this in pc villa

na today

guys here are wonderful,

why the heck would one really need hyperthreading technology when you have two, four and eight cores??

or wasnt hyperthreading created so that its would seem as if there were two physical processors??


BYW; intel is the way forward, amd is getting close but not close enough,

D paucity of competent hands at pc villa is simply astounding.

To get anything there is a herculean task.

Anyways all dis processor talk no concern me sef. Na una know wetin una need them for. For me it suffices 2 know what NOT TO BUY.

Lemme just add a little to this thread-
Intel especially Core2duo is enuf for handling windows vista everyday chores.
AMD especially Turion X2 'Dual Core' does EXACTLY the same with a lower price.Note dual core not core2duo!!!
When it comes to net books,AMD Athlon Neo is capable of running Vista superbly than those of Intel Atom. Believe me,Intel Atom CPU is just 4 runnin Xp ONLY on netbooks. Ive seen Vista bein run by Intel Atom,its like watchin Ur favourite action movie in SSLLLOOOOWWWW motion.
When it comes to gaming Intel i7 Series or Xeon leads the way BUT when u combine the recent AMD processor with ATI Graphics card (they work in tandem with each other like randy lovers),u get d same result at a less price.
Intel uses far more power than AMD.Look at Maingear Shift (google it,its damn xpensive ).1.2 KW of power. U want to run it on ur gen,then its either it or (note or not and) ur Household items.Not both!!.
AMD powered Shift uses just 900W and turns out d same result.
So 4 me,Intel is great if u wanna do heavy activity but 4 everyday stuff,abegi, AMD!!!.

Hello! Undoubtedly, yeti processors are both very good and suitable for a variety of tasks. But for my work, something more powerful is needed. I use NoC processor technology, you can find out more here https://sirinsoftware.com/blog/technology/network-on-chip/ Instead of the traditional scheme of establishing direct connections between blocks or connecting all blocks to one or more common buses (in which signals are transmitted over the same lines, but at different times) this architecture involves connecting each unit to an internal network built on switches that will send signals between themselves and operating units.