Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
I know that there are some very pro-AMD people on this forum. I'm just wondering why exactly. What is better about AMD than Intel?...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Linux Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    542

    Why AMD?


    I know that there are some very pro-AMD people on this forum. I'm just wondering why exactly. What is better about AMD than Intel?

  2. #2
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    1,429
    1. It is the underdog (you can relate this easily to many users preferring Linux over Windows).
    2. AMD has the best technology on the market nowadays. Faster, quieter, cooler, more bang-for-buck.
    3. Related to 1: as a geek, you can't go with the flow - you have to stand out. So you pick a computer brand you know is good but that is not bought by regular customers. That sets you apart from the noobs yelling 'intel all the way' just because AMD back in the days did have some faulty CPUs .
    ** Registered Linux User # 393717 and proud of it ** Check out www.zenwalk.org
    ** Zenwalk 2.8 - Xfce 4.4 beta 2- 2.6.17.6 kernel = Slack on steroids! **

  3. #3
    Linux Newbie deek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fort Wayne, IN
    Posts
    248
    While I won't disagree with any of that, I have always chosen AMD because their CPU's were cheaper...I haven't built a system in a few years, but back when I was, a "comparable" AMD chip was close to $150-$200 cheaper than the Intel chips...

    Also, at the time, AMD chips usually ran games a bit better. Meaning some higher benchmarks in the graphics department...nowadays, the video card is so much more important for games, that it doesn't mean as much as it once did.

    I would still say, cost is probably the biggest pull towards AMD...they perform just as well as Intel, sometimes better, but cost less...
    Join the Open Source Revolution. Support GNU/Linux.

    Find me at: www.deeksworld.com
    Registered GNU/Linux User #395777

  4. #4
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    1,429
    I know especially in the past the cost issue was important. But I think, by profiling themselves as a real alternative to Intel, they also increased their price, so according to me, the price difference for comparable cpu's has decreased.
    ** Registered Linux User # 393717 and proud of it ** Check out www.zenwalk.org
    ** Zenwalk 2.8 - Xfce 4.4 beta 2- 2.6.17.6 kernel = Slack on steroids! **

  5. #5
    Linux Newbie deek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fort Wayne, IN
    Posts
    248
    With that being the case (as I said, I haven't looked at CPU prices in a long time) you have:

    1) People wanting to be different and going against the flow, or
    2) Performance

    I don't put much importance to option one, cause I could care less about that. So, with price being about equal, it comes down to performance, and apparently AMD still has better performance in some areas...

    The only downside I have ever experience with AMD, is some funky compatibility issues with certain drivers and OS's...but I think most newer (meaning last 2-3 years) CPUs, don't suffer from those issues either.

    Generally speaking though, I would say AMD to Intel is going to get you the same argument as GNU/Linux to Microsoft...people tend to dislike the big guys:)
    Join the Open Source Revolution. Support GNU/Linux.

    Find me at: www.deeksworld.com
    Registered GNU/Linux User #395777

  6. #6
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    6
    I like amd's because they don't require those stupid 12 volt connectors, aren't power-hungry like p4's, don't make as much noise/heat, and they do more work per clock cycle instead of making more ticks per clock cycle... my 2.08 ghz 2800+ is rock solid.

  7. #7
    Linux Guru anomie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,692
    Cheaper. And they do the job.

  8. #8
    Linux Engineer LondoJowo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Richmond, TX
    Posts
    804
    I've used both over the years, there's not that much difference between the two. Go with what you can get the best deal on at the time.
    Dell Precision T7400 Workstation
    Dual 3.33Ghz Xeon "Harpertown" Core
    16GB PC5300 DDR2 ECC CL5
    BFG GeForce GTX 285 OC 2GB
    X-Fi Platinum
    HP w2408 24" Monitor
    Dual Boot:openSUSE 11.2/Win 7 Ultimate

  9. #9
    Linux Guru bigtomrodney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    6,132
    A friend of mine always says Amd is like a big wheel turning slow, while intel chips are little wheels spinning faster to do the same amount of work but noisier and using more energy. Not 100% accurate but you get the gyst. Plus Intel made a jock of their 64bit plans, AMD just did it right, and sooner at a lower cost too...

  10. #10
    Linux User
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    369
    more performance per clockcycle and the 64 bit amds run alot coller..even if you dont need 64bit suport get a amd 64 since there cooler and less power hungry than intel
    All i want for christmas is a new liver....a second chance to get afflicted with Cirrhosis

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •