As has been said many times here, three little letters:

A - M - D.

As MS did with IBM a decade ago, the missile gunboat outmaneuvered and outperformed the battleship.

As far as processors go, intel was and remains technologically bankrupt.

And it shows.

Yep--and today AMD released their new Opteron 185, 285, and 885 cpus. Poor Intel :D

This NVIDIA SLI and ATI Crossfire crap is going to make all of the chip makers sink. The first time somebody's kid catches the house on fire with one of these electricity hog burning machines. AMD is has expanded its chip line and if you don't do a good comparison of their chips, you will wind up spending $1000 dollars for a chip thats equals the performance to a chip in their chip line for less that half that price. I am a AMD owner and been one for over 10 years and from what I see, they are acting just like Intel did in the mid 90's when they had the best product around with a huge price tag.

Now AMD is changing their pin configurations like the wind, going from 939 to a 940 pin configuration and supporting DDR2, 800 mHz memory. Have they partnered with Intel?

Socket 939 has been around for a while(almost two years?), but that's not the reason they're updating. AMD has built-in memory controllers on their processors that give enhanced performance compared to off-processor. They need to totally redesign the architecture/socket to update to DDR2/3. Intel just plops a different memory controller on the motherboard and is groovey.

If you don't like them updating everything to compete with Intel, at least learn *why* they're going through so many architecture updates in so little time. In Pre-2005 games, my AMD Athlon XP 2800+ seems to perform about the same as an X2 4000+. Now that games and programs are catching up and utilizing all the features that are getting commonplace, it's no longer the case.

Video encoding is suddenly a lot more efficient with 64bit programs on a dual-core machine(while my Athlon XP was fine until now). Don't even think of playing Elder Scrolls IV (Movie) (Screenshot) without that Dual-Core SLI-wielding gaming machine, or you won't be enjoying it nearly as much as you could.

"you will wind up spending $1000 dollars for a chip thats equals the performance to a chip in their chip line for less that half that price"

Yes this is Very true, The FX-60 For example is pretty much the exact same thing as the x2 4800, but the FX-60 is about $500 More than the 4800. They have Minor Differences in which makes the FX-60 better. But the BIGGEST difference is, the Multiplyer on the X2 Chips are LOCKED where as the FX-60 is Unlocked, I've seen clock speeds up to 3.6Ghz on an FX-60 with Liquid cooling. Where as you cannot do that with your standard X2 4800+. But unless you got that money laying around, and your way into OCing processors, just buy the X2 4800+, it'll do more than most people want a rpocessor to do anyway. I'm still Running a Barton 3000+ It plays all of todays games at high settings just fine.

As an answer to Mr.Kompressor :
First of all if you didn't like AMD processors in 80s and 90s that wasn't so strange cause no one else did and because AMD was even worst(more than today) and your information about why Intel is so rich with billions of dollars revenue and AMD (Toy Producer) just has a revenue in MILLION dollars (it shows the difference) shows that you DON'T know anything even not a little piece about Moore's Law that leads computer technology and we all (Software and Hardware producers and even users) have to thank Mr.Gordon Moore because of his law.
I recommend you to read about it at Intel.com and you'll get that all these moneys come from there
and you said AMD Processors are cheaper it also shows that you are NOT a Professional Computer user because if just compare AMD's most featured Desktop CPU that carries all AMD's puffy extensions X2 Athlon FX etc price with Intel's Pentium XE (with real frequecy not fooling numbers) you'll find out that it's more than $300 (again please) $300 (pardon?) $300 more expensive than Intel PXE (that's where all your calculations just ...)
And why Intel has been successful all over the history and AMD wasn't?
A simple answer to you dumbs :-D Intel has it's golden and #1 partner DELL can you imagine no other CPUs except Intels are being assembeled in world's #1 OEM and it has another golden Partner HP if you wanna see how close are these two company's together you can just look at HP.com these days and you'll HP CEO and Mr.Otellini (CEO of Intel) Webcast :-D (that's where friend gather) and why HP is selling AMD based Laptops and Desktops? Simple answer after that funny lawsuit of AMD against Intel,Intel wanted HP to produce more AMD based PCs and SHUT AMD's mouth :-D
And why Intel CPUs are more impressive?(MAin Question) there's a brilliant answer that never shows up in any of benchmarks (that always AMD followers reveal them) is that Intel CPUs are much much more stable than AMD one as you can see NOT ANY of Servers rely on AMD processors same for Organization even in Middle East (AMD's hottest Market)
and again Computer Pros.No serious business rely on it as you can see even first preview releases on Microsoft Vista(formerly Longhorn) was only tested on Intel based computers in MS labs that shows even Microsoft doesn't rely on AMD Toys
Intel has too many other features that AMD never faced and won't face till end of his life like the temperature of it's Toys (always need toilet's fan) innovations are in Intel labs,just compare : Intel:"Producing 60nm Processors and shortly moving to 30nm" AMD:"leaping to the next lavel and generation revoloution comes (30000 years after Intel,and AMD presents moving to 90nm" wow wow AMD blew Technology,Shame on you AMD,Shame Multicore and Manycore processors the most powerful CPU on earth (as you can see in every single Super Computer) Itanium 2 ,Terahertz technology,Dual Channel,Smart Cache,Centriono Mobile Technology,1066 and beyond that (real) FSB,High Definition Audio (in chipsets),Viiv Technology,Virtualization Technology,LaGrange,HT (not hypertransport),EM64T (not fooling users with title of 64bit like Mr.AMD :-D fooler) and so on if I just want to say why Intel is the best Betanews DB will blow
And now Why AMD is the WORST?
I just focus on one reason we consider there's no power eating Toys no high temperature Toys and ...
one of million reasons : He makes fool of customer (if he continues I'll make a lawsuit against him :-D)
Demostrating : you see AMD's Toy's Box what you see 6GHz wow it blew Intel,so AMD is the leader let's buy it at home with a custom application :-D the core's REAL frquency 2.0 Ghz :d (that's the technology) after 2 minutes,CPU temperature:10000000 Degree (it's normal) and then you have to wait for it's temperature in about 3 more minutes :-D (melting)
back to what is on the Box, adding that you won't ever see it's REAL frequecy on the box (even if you tear ur self) then you'll see full of prefixes and suffixes AMD Athlon FX X2 64 600000000+++++++ (it has some grammars) the best way to full people
nad the the HT is shining over there than just had one reason to put it to FOOL customer and they'll consider it same technology like Intel's HT but they don't even know they stand for diffrent things let alone that they're two far away technologies that are not comparable (Shame on you AMD you just found Customers nothing more than Fool guys)
and one obvious question that always is in my head and I don't know the answe maybe you as the one of the AMD Toys love can answer it, WHY AMD ALWAYS WANT TO PRINT WHAT HE CALAIM IS THE INTEL'S EQUIVALENT FREQUENCY? we have Texas Instruments,IBM and so on comapnies that produce processors Desktopn,server but they don't lie on what is considered as CPU's Frequecy but why (if AMD is better than Intel) AMD always want to be compared with Intel?
Considering all of these obvious reasons Intel is the leader and everything even it's stock value will change with new laptops and specially Vista's release in about half a year
Have good time and talk with obvious reasons not just your own feelings and always remember 3 powerful companies that eat every other companies are: 1.Intel 2.Microsoft 3.Nvidia
Bye

You need to go on a vacation.

Holy s*** that's hard to read.

I think we disagree on a number of issues...but I'm not really sure how to respond to them.\

IBM is the leader of all that processor crap. I mean, their Power6 line(servers) is supposed to be 5-6ghz, while Intel/AMD stuff is usually limitted to around 2ghz(don't want tons of heat).

Via is the leader for tiny no-power-usage processors. Their Core Fusion one is the newest(to my knowledge). I think I read somewhere that it uses 1watt for 1ghz, though obviously the computer has other power drains. They also make nano ITX mobos, 12x12CM(4.8 inches). Their tiniest processor is 15x15mm, or 0.6 inches.

I admit that Intel has created some cool things, but so has AMD(in regards to gaming). Intel has lots of boners behind them too...I thought Intel wanted everyone to use RDRAM(Rambus memory)?

I don't really care if Intel is a great innovator or not. They did illegal stuff(proven in multiple countries), so now I won't buy anything new that's Intel.

First off, learn english, second Intel has a whole lot of cash to do whatever they want with. If they want to make up some great new marketing gimmick then great, they can spend billions on that. They can also move to newer smaller processes such as 45 micron because they have all that cash in the bank.

Also keep in mind that half the features you mention do nothing. Amd has almost a zero R&D budget compared to Intel yet they spank Intel's behind all over in that arena for years now because they are the underdog and Intel has no reason to, it's too bad it took a lawsuit to get Intel to back down from practices keeping Amd down. but in the next few years I can promise you a few things, Amd will continue to gain market share, respect and most of all profit. They will be competing with Intel on the same grounds they will increase their production capacity and that is all she wrote.

I used to love Intel back in the 80s and early 90s and didn’t like the AMD processors, but Intel really started to piss me off, and when the Athlons came out, AMD really started to shine.

I now only buy AMD because it is a GREAT processor (better than Intel in my opinion), it sells at a good price and they are friendly with the community.

Intel, on the other hand, screws the consumer at every opportunity. Their prices were always sky high, they invent lame technologies with cool names to boost prices, they lock their processors keeping anyone from overclocking them, forcing us to buy new processors, they love changing the sockets as often as possible so if you need to upgrade your CPU, you need to get a new motherboard too, and they hold back faster processors to stay inline with Moore's Law.

I see Intel as a despicable company with only money signs in their eyes (reminds me of the RIAA), where AMD is a much more friendly company, and I always try to do business with friendly companies.

Amen Brother! Let's not forget to mention that Intel has kept them down using illegal methods for as long as they have been around. I can almost guarentee the reason for amd's comeback lately is due to the lawsuit. I can also guarentee intel will be found guilty as charged and get a hand slap less severe then Microsoft received. You see it's all about money and odds are the judge has Intel stock.

as an Intel employee I'm glad I don't own any stock, but they claim to have an aggresive roadmap for 2006 and we'll see if the head can see light after being pulled of its ass.

Intel isnt going under or merging. It's being out marketed by AMD and kids selling PC's at the local electronic stores tell users to buy AMD because its cost effective, which is true and thats the problem. I welcome AMD's competition and hope Intel and the PC market is better because of it. In the meantime I stay away from the stock options for obvious reasons. :)

I am one of those "Kids" Recommending AMD Chips to my customers. With that said, MOST of my customers already prefer AMD Chips over Intel Chips.

Example. Today I got two Acer Travelmate laptops in.

1 Acer was a cheap $699 Laptop with a Sempron 3100+ and 256MB Ram SiS chipset etc..

the other one was a $1200 Deal, Intel Core Duo, 1GB DDRII, Intel Chipset etc.

After they were both ready/setup and ready to display and show off their abilites, I had quite a few people amazed, I myself was amazed.

The Sempron Based laptop Booted faster than the Core Duo laptop with the Power cord plugged in, but slower on battery power.

But the Sempron Laptop opened programs such as IE, WMP, Word Pad etc Faster on both AC power and Battery power.

Mind you the Intel laptop is running on 1GB of DDR2 Ram VS the Semprons laptop only running 256MB DDR ram.

Now were talking an Intel Centrino Core Duo T2300 VS AMD Sempron Mobile 3100+

That's sad... All I can say. Intel's 3rd from Top Laptop chip got beat by AMDs low end Laptop chip...

When you removed the Intel laptop from AC power did you check the power scheme to see if it was using a power saving mode and thus allowing less resource usage?

Was the Intel laptop also using fast boot features or did it go through the entire bios post tests etc?

What were the speeds of the hdd's in each laptop.

There are plenty of variables that could be causing the less then expected performance.

Hah, I got ya beat! I know someone with a warehouse that got a couple hundred Sempron 3000+ w/ 512mb mem, SiS Video, 80GB HD, CD-RW DVD-ROM etc. for under $700CND each about 8 months ago. That was about $560USD at the time. :P

It was great, since shortly after 'The Source' started advertising them for $800(if I remember right). We got to flog a couple off on some people for a couple hundred in profit. =D

Acer laptops seem to be setup fairly well, but nowhere near as efficiently as they could. I've personally gotten an IBM Thinkpad 390e (333mhz w/ 256mb mem + 10gb HD) to boot XP in about 20 seconds, using nLite.

I'm no Intel fanboy but I agree with forgie's post below.

I call BS. You, sir, are lying.

At the very least, you are exaggerating beyond any reasonable believability.

Not trying to defend Intel. but AMD chip is always much hotter than Intel. I bought AMD chip twice, and its always much hotter than Intel. When then chip is hot (if you run for a few days), the system slow down until i need to turn off the system and give it a rest for a few hours and the system fast again, Tried that with 2 Different AMD chip. After that, Bought intel and never look back.

If you want to know what happen when the fan of AMD chip is being pulled out, see this website:
http://www.tomshardware....gi-bin/downloads.m?id=1

Its quite old but, but,...... oops...I will never bought AMD...eventhough the price is cheaper.

To be honest I've been considering going back to intel as of late. The latest Pentium D releases and Core Duos have caught my attention.

The battle keeps raging and going back and forth. While AMD Athlon XP's ran hot, Athlon 64's actually gained a reputation for being cooler than anything Intel offered.

Intel is finally updating their architectures to be competative, so finally consumers won't be buying total crap. I'll still support AMD though.

Ok, I'm gonna reply to my own post. How am I exaggerating? When I say faster, I'm talking Split seconds.

I know what I'm doing here, I've been doing this professional for 6 Years.

The power schemes were facorty Acer settings, Yes I checked them, with the AC Adapter the notebooks were running at highest settings, and running on battery Power they both went into "Power Saver mode"

Also, those prices are NOT what we paid for them, I saw a comment below saying we got beat, thats what we are selling them for.

Wow...an Old as Athlon gets tested for Tempurature without a heatseak on.....O M G! AMD's RUN HOTT! AHH!!...

Ok shh, don't bring somthing like that up again. They were demonstrating how Important a heatsink was, not that AMD chips run hot. I saw 2 guys make an AMD Duron Blow up. Yeah, they overclocked it from 1.6Ghz to 3.02Ghz, Pulled the Heatsink off and it blew up. But that must mean AMD chips are bad if you saw that too eh?

You're still lying.

The only possible explanation I can think of if you aren't lying is that both laptops came with drastically different configurations of Windows XP pre-installed.

Maybe the Intel laptop had a million bundled programs that for some reason need to run at startup while the AMD laptop was nLited to be as slim as possible?

I find it highly unlikely. Your story would have been a lot more believable if you were comparing a single core Centrino and only 512MB of DDR memory, but no...

You had to go for the extraordinary miracle performance story. Sorry... not biting.

If he said Win2k I'd believe him. Win2k has insane performance compared to XP. Based on Vista previews it looks like some of that performance will be returning, perhaps performing even better than Win2k does.

FYI memory doesn't boost performance until you run out. I've gotten XP to use < 40mb(nLite extreme), and it boots nice and quick. :P I imagine any properly nLited laptop would fly.

First thing, I agree that little experiment got my attention as well. From that point on amd made changed to fix that problem and it has been long gone. The chips now have heat spreaders and every other safety to prevent that from happening.

Second, the pentium D was a complete marketing ploy for nothing. The performance is weak, the entire product line up is the most confusing pos I have ever seen. So to fix it they change their logo? Intel really does have way too much time on their hands, maybe they should try to simplify things, eh? As far as the core duo's just read up on the latest mac reviews that use them. They are junk, Apple really should of went with Amd on that one.

Wow. And this is while they are beginning the major shipping of Intel Macs too. Ouch.

Maybe Intel should merge with Google--oh yeah, they can't, Google already switched to AMD!

haha.. That's funny!

lol

...oops

Awww.. po wittle putty, fall down go BOOM!

I don't give a flying flip if Intel goes under, it serves them right. AMD is more than capable to pick up the slack.

servers them right and why is that? man you really have the most immature comments on BN i you must be like 15 years old or somthing

If you ask me I think you two are neck and neck in the literacy department

I wouldn't mind AMD being the top seller for a while, but them being neck and neck is goof for the consumer.

If Intel goes under, AMD would have practically a monopoly.

That wouldn't necessarily have to be bad, but it does lend itself to all sorts of bad news for consumers.

At least with AMD on top we'll have tons of innovation, although being forced into buying the newest whatever to get N-Required-Feature is somewhat unappealing. :P

It would take a very long time for Intel to go under, they have billions in the bank and no debt.

Amd is simply chipping away at an ice burg. Not only that but Amd is really overall in a much tighter and scarier postion, it really wouldn't take much to bring them down into bankrupt. They are only recently becoming profitable they are billions in debt and when they are profitable it's on a few million. I mean Intel is literally 10 times bigger then they are. Their profit margin, runs into the billions. Lets put it this way, Amd's total quarterly sales is 1.8 billion with anywhere from 15-200 million in profit. Intel, 10 billion in sales with 3 billion in profit per quarter. Do the math intel isn't going anywhere.

Don't get me wrong, I love Amd and use them all the time and really don't care too much for Intel, they are overrated over priced and sit on their cash cow's just like Microsoft with no inovation and do everything do try and fix their monopoly position. But you have to face facts and look at reality and that is what I just said.