Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Technology Talk' started by Dickfor., Sep 1, 2011.
Well, let the games... BEGIN!!
I'm an underdog fan, so I choose AMD. Also, it's more value for my $. I don't need the fastest.
If this was 5-6 years ago then we would have had a discussion.
Intel by light years.
AMD is not focusing in the gaming world, they are playing it safe for the few hardcore amd fans.
Intel 100%. I have always been an Intel person and I think I always will be. I have never liked AMDs and a lot of my friends have had horrible luck with them. Overheating, burning themselves out after a few years, ect, ect. I have had multiple Intel cores that have lasted me years and years. I gave one of my old computers away to my buddy and I had it for 8 as it was for gaming and random ass other shit. Constantly on and going all day every day and still works well. I gave that to him 2 years ago or so and it is still a champ
I have an AMD in my gamer, but I voted for Intel. The only reason I chose AMD for this computer was the price difference. Otherwise I am a complete Intel/Nvidia Fan.
i've had AMD's since the k6 came out over 12(?) years ago... but i have no idea how their respective products compare nowadays
I'm happy with AMD because I dont need to benchmark stuff. AMD is wayyy cheaper to keep up to date. Dont get me wrong Ive been Intel for a long time, but I found AMD more bang for my buck at the moment.
good 2 have more than 1 company making CPU's; it encourages competition. AMD is lagging behind the speed contest, but it fulfills a niche in the low-end market. From experience, I never have any problems at all with AMD CPU's. I'm still using my socket939 AMD64 4000+ WinXp, circa 2004, for testing my Linux CS:S server ( AMD64 3700+) and typing this post! I'm just a cheap bastard; that's the bottom line <grin>.
I'm sure there's plenty of $1 cpus out there that can run linux.
intel, intel, intel... If i had to amd. but mostly intel.