# questions about CPUS



## BettyTheHermCow (Nov 13, 2009)

Hello all, I was wondering I was gonna build a new PC for when I upgrade to windows 7 But people tell me to go with Intel, but I'm a AMD Fan, which one should I go with?


----------



## LotsOfNothing (Nov 13, 2009)

One or the other.


----------



## fwLogCGI (Nov 13, 2009)

BettyTheHermCow said:


> Hello all, I was wondering I was gonna build a new PC for when I upgrade to windows 7 But people tell me to go with Intel, but I'm a AMD Fan, which one should I go with?


Which Intel and which AMD?


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 13, 2009)

Technically, it doesn't matter.  No matter what CPU you buy nowadays, it's blazingly fast.  The only time that brand comes into play is when you're looking for either a specific feature, or the absolute best performer in a certain category.  

For example, if you wanted the fastest CPU of them all (and money was no object), you get an Intel i7.  If you want the most speed possible for the dollar, you get an AMD Athlon Phenom II.  If you like Intel better, get an Intel.  Like AMD more, get an AMD.  Simple as that. 

For a lot of folks, the price is a big factor, and thus AMD has (and usually has) the advantage, but sometimes you can still find deals on Intel stuff that's hard to pass up too.  What might help more is if you can tell us about how much you intend to spend on a new system, then we could probably spec out the various options better for ya.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 13, 2009)

Intel's got the speed crown, but you'll pay twice as much for about 25-30% more performance that you may or may not actually see depending on what you're doing. As far as cost-performance goes, AMD has the best CPU's in town, the Phenom II's. Even their top of the line CPU is under $250, and offers performance more than adequate for pretty much everyone but ultra high-end gamers and people working with CAD and 3D modelling (in which case, it's still more than adequate, but more performance is always welcome).

It depends on your budget and your needs. If it's just a machine for surfing the web and things like that, AMD is the natural choice - Far less expensive. Hell, if you want to do gaming and stuff, AMD's still a great choice. I'm still using an Athlon X2 6000+ and I'm running pretty well, since for the most part, PC games aren't tied to the CPU as far as performance goes. But if you can afford it, and it HAS to be as fast as possible, Intel does indeed have the performance crown.

Personally, though, I recommend the AMD line for most people, and for gamers, the Phenom II X4 quad-core series. The Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition, the cream of the crop, is $239 CAD at NCIX; The lowest-end Core i7 is $339 CAD. One could argue that the Core i5 might outperform it for a similar cost, but the Intel Core i5's are slaved to the LGA-1156 socket, not the LGA-1366 socket of the i7's, precluding an upgrade later on down the road (why in the name of holy hell Intel decided to do this is beyond me). AMD's AM3 platform right now permits you to use anything from early Athlon X2's all the way up to the latest Phenoms, with either DDR2 or DDR3 support. A lot more choice and upgrade options.


----------



## BettyTheHermCow (Nov 13, 2009)

I have been wanting a good cheap Video editing PC I'm not a gamer, but video editing PC's have gaming performance. And I will go with AMD


----------



## Runefox (Nov 13, 2009)

Well, if you did want to game, you'd need a decent graphics card, while (for the most part) it's rather a fallacy that you need a good graphics card for video editing. Video acceleration is one thing, but even the lowest-end Radeon HD's support accelerating HD video, as do (I believe) the lowest-end GeForce cards. You certainly don't need a FireGL or Quadro, nor do you need a Radeon HD 5870 or a GeForce GTX 295.


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 13, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Well, if you did want to game, you'd need a decent graphics card, while (for the most part) it's rather a fallacy that you need a good graphics card for video editing. Video acceleration is one thing, but even the lowest-end Radeon HD's support accelerating HD video, as do (I believe) the lowest-end GeForce cards. You certainly don't need a FireGL or Quadro, nor do you need a Radeon HD 5870 or a GeForce GTX 295.



^--- This.  GPU is more important than CPU in a lot of ways for video and gaming nowadays.  As Rune pointed out, and I said earlier - price tends to be the deciding factor for the CPU, and you can't go wrong with the power yet affordability of the Phenom II quads.


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 13, 2009)

In the computer world, you get what you pay for. You buy a 250$ cpu, you're getting a cheap one, more than likely the parts are sub-par. In my experience AMD chips get hotter faster, require a lot more ventilation and fan. Intel generally faster and better made. None of my intel cores  have gotten over 55c My last two amd cores all get over 60 - 70c and thats running idle.


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 13, 2009)

Sinjo said:


> In the computer world, you get what you pay for. You buy a 250$ cpu, you're getting a cheap one, more than likely the parts are sub-par. In my experience AMD chips get hotter faster, require a lot more ventilation and fan. Intel generally faster and better made. None of my intel cores  have gotten over 55c My last two amd cores all get over 60 - 70c and thats running idle.



Disagreed on the "better made" ideology in that there a lot of design features (past and present) in the AMD chips that are more advanced than the Intels, such as their silicon insulator layers.  I don't think either is made better than the other, just different.  And if you want to go on past track records, Intel CPUs have had more design glitches.

Agreed on the heat thing though - much of the time, AMD's do run hotter, and I also find there is an inconsistency between like chips sometimes (I suppose that might be as a result of the fabrication facility).


----------



## Runefox (Nov 13, 2009)

@Sinjo: They're different technologies, the same as a GeForce is different from a Radeon. They aren't OEM's for the same thing. On that note, my cores are running at a cool ~40*C with stock cooling on my Athlon X2 6000+. I think you might have installed the cooler incorrectly, or if it was a brand name PC, they used a subpar, inadequate, proprietary cooler. AMD introduced the x86-64 technology that we use today (it's still called AMD64), came out with the first consumer dual core processors, and have traditionally offered high performance at a low cost.

That said, a $250 CPU is actually pretty expensive. A couple years ago, $100-150 CPU's were pretty normal, as they still are now within AMD's lineup. Hell, the Core 2 Quads, the cream of Intel's crop (aside from the Extreme series) used to run around $250-300; The Core i7's are just insanely overpriced for the performance they offer (which again at the highest level is about 25-30% more than the highest-tier AMD part, yet costs on the order of nearly $1200 CAD; The highest-tier non-Extreme part is over $600 CAD).

The Core series does run cooler than the AMD parts, but prior to that, the AMD's were chilly compared to the P4 Prescotts. Good god. My Prescott P4 idled at 60*C with an aftermarket cooler (higher with the stock). During the P3 era, though, the AMD chips were extremely hot. Are you sure you've had one since then?


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 13, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Disagreed on the "better made" ideology in that there a lot of design features (past and present) in the AMD chips that are more advanced than the Intels, such as their silicon insulator layers.  I don't think either is made better than the other, just different.  And if you want to go on past track records, Intel CPUs have had more design glitches.
> 
> Agreed on the heat thing though - much of the time, AMD's do run hotter, and I also find there is an inconsistency between like chips sometimes (I suppose that might be as a result of the fabrication facility).


In my experience they run hotter to achieve the speeds they claim. Like and engine pushed beyond it's limits to reach the speeds of others. In the materials section. The four that I've had (two laptops and two desktops) both of the laptops and one of the desktops crapped out within a year. Processor problems. the third stopped running recently, MOBO shat a brick.



Runefox said:


> @Sinjo: They're different technologies, the same as a GeForce is different from a Radeon. They aren't OEM's for the same thing. On that note, my cores are running at a cool ~40*C with stock cooling on my Athlon X2 6000+. I think you might have installed the cooler incorrectly, or if it was a brand name PC, they used a subpar, inadequate, proprietary cooler. AMD introduced the x86-64 technology that we use today (it's still called AMD64), came out with the first consumer dual core processors, and have traditionally offered high performance at a low cost.
> 
> That said, a $250 CPU is actually pretty expensive. A couple years ago, $100-150 CPU's were pretty normal, as they still are now within AMD's lineup. Hell, the Core 2 Quads, the cream of Intel's crop (aside from the Extreme series) used to run around $250-300; The Core i7's are just insanely overpriced for the performance they offer (which again at the highest level is about 25-30% more than the highest-tier AMD part, yet costs on the order of nearly $1200 CAD; The highest-tier non-Extreme part is over $600 CAD).
> 
> The Core series does run cooler than the AMD parts, but prior to that, the AMD's were chilly compared to the P4 Prescotts. Good god. My Prescott P4 idled at 60*C with an aftermarket cooler (higher with the stock). During the P3 era, though, the AMD chips were extremely hot. Are you sure you've had one since then?


That's 'cause hyperthreading, Quickpath and DMI


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 13, 2009)

Go amd.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 13, 2009)

> That's 'cause hyperthreading, Quickpath and DMI



Hyperthreading's one thing, but QuickPath isn't really any different in practice or really in concept than HyperTransport - They achieve the same goals and in fact run at the same bandwidth. HyperTransport beat Intel to the punch by about five years. The Hyperthreading of the Core i7's will probably see vindication in the coming years, but more than likely Intel will have moved on to a different architecture by the time any more than four threads means anything to anyone in the consumer market (four barely means anything now unless you're doing a lot of strenuous stuff simultaneously).

As for the architecture, the Athlons' architecture peaked out at 3.2GHz. As of then, they were pretty much where Intel was with the Netburst architecture a couple years ago. But the new Phenom II's are actually a different architecture from the Athlon series, and as I understand it, they don't suffer from the heat problems - Reports I'm reading put it at around 40*C idle and ~50*C under load, through to a maximum of 59*C with stock cooling.


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 13, 2009)

Sinjo said:


> In my experience they run hotter to achieve the speeds they claim. Like and engine pushed beyond it's limits to reach the speeds of others. In the materials section. The four that I've had (two laptops and two desktops) both of the laptops and one of the desktops crapped out within a year. Processor problems. the third stopped running recently, MOBO shat a brick.



By contrast, in the systems I've had over the last 20 years, about 2/3 have been AMD, and never had one fail.  But that also comes down to case and CPU cooling design too.  My laptop has an Athlon 64 3200+, first gen. and it runs pretty hot.  Fortunately the designers knew this and put a huge heatsink and two fans (one of which runs all the time, the other spins up when needed).  

Now, that's not to say I haven't seen one fail - I have, but I can say the same for Intel too.  I'm not sure why the AMD's run hotter and without knowing the facts, I'm not gonna speculate.  From my own experience, the little bit of extra heat was never a big problem.  

I don't think I have a preference either way - AMD was generally the CPU of choice for me more for cost reasons than anything else.


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 14, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> By contrast, in the systems I've had over the last 20 years, about 2/3 have been AMD, and never had one fail.  But that also comes down to case and CPU cooling design too.  My laptop has an Athlon 64 3200+, first gen. and it runs pretty hot.  Fortunately the designers knew this and put a huge heatsink and two fans (one of which runs all the time, the other spins up when needed).
> 
> Now, that's not to say I haven't seen one fail - I have, but I can say the same for Intel too.  I'm not sure why the AMD's run hotter and without knowing the facts, I'm not gonna speculate.  From my own experience, the little bit of extra heat was never a big problem.
> 
> I don't think I have a preference either way - AMD was generally the CPU of choice for me more for cost reasons than anything else.



My old (two years) HP laptop. It's bottom was entirely metal to catch all the heat and even then, it was hot enough to burn skin, or as I stated in the past, fry an egg. To add, the  thing had vents everywhere.

Intel is constantly breaking the barrier and making new technologies. I stated above. The ability to simulate having eight cores is huge. I also liket o bring up intel's 'skullbone' MOBO, way ahead of it's time, a MOBO with the ability to use two processors. I, In general trust intel more, why would apple use them over amd? You can say conspiracy or some other bs, but the truth is, Intel's chips ten to be a lot safer. You want cheap, quick thrills. GO for amd, but you may end up paying for it in the end.

I'd like to add one horror story. One of my friends computers caught fire using an amd chip. The rubber on the wires melted and proceeded to catch fire. One thing led to another and he found a smoking pile of trash.





Runefox said:


> Hyperthreading's one thing, but QuickPath isn't really any different in practice or really in concept than HyperTransport - They achieve the same goals and in fact run at the same bandwidth. HyperTransport beat Intel to the punch by about five years. The Hyperthreading of the Core i7's will probably see vindication in the coming years, but more than likely Intel will have moved on to a different architecture by the time any more than four threads means anything to anyone in the consumer market (four barely means anything now unless you're doing a lot of strenuous stuff simultaneously).
> 
> As for the architecture, the Athlons' architecture peaked out at 3.2GHz. As of then, they were pretty much where Intel was with the Netburst architecture a couple years ago. But the new Phenom II's are actually a different architecture from the Athlon series, and as I understand it, they don't suffer from the heat problems - Reports I'm reading put it at around 40*C idle and ~50*C under load, through to a maximum of 59*C with stock cooling.



That's not what I find. I'm reading 50+ idle. Intel may be new to that game, but it's nothing. AMD will be copying intel in no time, always do. Intel was the first to dual cores.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 14, 2009)

> My old (two years) HP laptop.


*Everyone* has overheating problems with HP laptops. They aren't really very smartly-designed as far as heat goes.



> I'd like to add one horror story. One of my friends computers caught fire using an amd chip. The rubber on the wires melted and proceeded to catch fire. One thing led to another and he found a smoking pile of trash.


The rubber on what wires? Power supply? That has nothing to do with the processor at all.



> AMD will be copying intel in no time, always do. Intel was the first to dual cores.


Actually, AMD came out with the first consumer 64-bit CPU's, the architecture to which Intel itself is currently using, and the same goes for HyperTransport/QPI. About the only thing AMD's "copied" from Intel has been the x86 instruction set and the multi-core philosophy.

If AMD made such shitty processors, they wouldn't be in business right now, nor would Intel have come up with the Core series of processors - Why should they? Netburst was the best thing since sliced bread, and they pushed it further and further even when it couldn't compete with the Athlons on a cost-performance scale and ran hotter than most furnaces. I have no brand loyalty in the AMD/Intel debate (I'm running one because my employer at the time was willing to eat the cost on the parts and dictated what I got - I really wanted a Core 2 Q6600), and I'll generally recommend (and go with, myself) what's best at any given time, much like I will with nVidia/ATI.

Right now, there is almost zero reason to go with a Core i7 when the price is so outrageously high unless you absolutely, positively need that extra 25-30% of speed. As far as reliability is concerned, both AMD and Intel have had equal track records in my years of experience in retail/repair and in my own experiences. Very, _very_ rarely does a CPU die or otherwise cause problems, and when it does, it generally happens with the same frequency on both sides of the fence. Anecdotal, yes, but so's your horror stories.  I can imagine that brand name computers might have a higher failure rate with AMD parts because they tended to use them for a time with lower-end motherboards/etc since their prices were lower, but I wouldn't blame that on AMD.


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 14, 2009)

Runefox said:


> *Everyone* has overheating problems with HP laptops. They aren't really very smartly-designed as far as heat goes.
> 
> 
> The rubber on what wires? Power supply? That has nothing to do with the processor at all.
> ...


Yup, sure isn't the fault of the processor that it got so hot to melt the wires. It doesn't have anything to do with the processor at all.

You never really touched on why apple would use intel over amd, care to chime in on that?

lawl. AMD could have all the fun they want with one 64bit core. Considering people still use 32bit more than 64 bit and they're having super fun happy time with their dual and quad cores.


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 14, 2009)

Sinjo said:


> Yup, sure isn't the fault of the processor that it got so hot to melt the wires. It doesn't have anything to do with the processor at all.



Processors are designed to run up to 70 to 80 degress C, which is hot enough to melt some wires should they be incorrectly placed too close to the heatsink.  Again, this is a design problem, not a CPU problem and could affect either Intel or AMD systems.



Sinjo said:


> You never really touched on why apple would use intel over amd, care to chime in on that?



I believe the decision came down to heat and efficiency.  The Core2's were able to run much cooler at much lower wattages than the nearest equivalent in AMD.  The only AMD processors that matched the power/temperature were the Turion X2s, which were no where near as good as the Core2s.  One of the Apple's main desires with their laptops was to make them very thin and even fanless, so they chose the best CPU for the job at the time.   Winner: Intel.



Sinjo said:


> lawl. AMD could have all the fun they want with one 64bit core. Considering people still use 32bit more than 64 bit and they're having super fun happy time with their dual and quad cores.



They're laughing all the way to the bank, you realize.  The 64 bit used in AMD and Intel Processors is known as AMD x64, created by AMD.  Back a few years ago, Intel tried to move away from the old x86 instruction set by creating the Itanium processor.  The Itanium used IA64 64 bit architecture and the intent was to create new software that stopped using the old 1980's x86 code and started with something new.  There were several problems though - Itaniums were expensive, and worse yet, they didn't work very well.  But the biggest issue to most businesses was that the IA64 architecture required a custom OS with software written for that architecture.  Faced with having to buy all new software, a lot of companies avoided it.

AMD's approach to the problem was to virtualize the x86 codeset and create a new extention to it that was 64 bit.  Virtualizing it meant they could still adhere to the goofy old quirks of the old architecture in a virtual sense without crippling the code.  It also meant that the chip would be compatible with x86 16 and 32 bit code while also having the ability to go full 64 bit.

The market embraced the AMD solution over time, and the IA64 one fell into history.  When Intel started producing the Core2 CPUs, they purchased the rights to use the AMD x64 in their CPUs, and use it to this day.

You are correct that most OS's are still 32 bit, but 64 bit OS's are rising dramatically each year - Windows 7's introduction to the market will certainly speed that process along, and the various MacOS's are already mostly 64 bit.  I personally run 64 bit on my laptop here and at work as well (64 bit on Core2 Duo is awesome).

On an amusing note, the swing to consumer level 64 bit is at least happening a lot faster than the uptake to 32 bit.  I remember CPUs were capable of 32 bit as early as 1985, but user-friendly OSs that made use of 32 bit as the default weren't around until 1995, and the first CPU to be truely optimized for 32 bit wasn't until the Intel Pentium Pro, and later that year, the AMD K6.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 14, 2009)

> Yup, sure isn't the fault of the processor that it got so hot to melt the wires. It doesn't have anything to do with the processor at all.


It might not have. Cheap power supplies use bad shielding and a very small gauge for their wires; I've seen them go up in smoke on their own when they start to go bad.



> You never really touched on why apple would use intel over amd, care to chime in on that?


Since when does Apple matter? They're a single OEM among a sea of others, and Intel's main source of income doesn't come from them. When they made the jump from IBM PowerPC processors to Intel processors, the deal was mostly that Intel could deliver on a specific set of needs that Apple had for a processor (which the PowerPC chips couldn't live up to), of which power consumption and battery life were paramount, something they saw as a focus in Intel's design roadmap. Had the deal been made earlier, the mobile Pentium 4 series' power consumption and heat (not the Pentium M, mind you) would likely have tipped the scales the other way.



> lawl. AMD could have all the fun they want with one 64bit core. Considering people still use 32bit more than 64 bit and they're having super fun happy time with their dual and quad cores.


Do note that most computers being sold today are being sold with more than 4GB of ram and come bundled with 64-bit OS'es. Microsoft has also stated that the next major release of Windows will be 64-bit only, and most of the people I know are using/planning to upgrade to the 64-bit version of Windows 7. In all the x86-64 processors in the world, AMD's design is what will get them there - Not Intel's.

For that matter, you do realize that the Phenom II's run two to four cores, right? I don't think AMD even still has a single-core design right now. And again, the build quality is identical in my experience, the difference in performance is something on the order of 25-30% between the top-tier i7 and the top-tier Phenom II, and the price difference is nearly $1,000 ($400 for the nearest top-tier non-extreme version). I think the choice that offers the most value is rather obvious.

But anyway, it's quite obvious in this and in past topics that you're irrationally aligned to Intel/nVidia to the point where the idea that anyone would use an AMD/ATI-based system is absurd to you (in other words, fanboyism). Let me just say this: No matter how much a fanboy you are of a certain company, the existence of others in the marketplace is what makes them great. Intel sat on its laurels while AMD penetrated the market, and the only reason we even have the insanely-overpriced Core i7's right now is because of AMD's competition - Same with the GeForce GTX 295; No ATI, no incentive to innovate.


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 14, 2009)

Runefox said:


> It might not have. Cheap power supplies use bad shielding and a very small gauge for their wires; I've seen them go up in smoke on their own when they start to go bad.
> 
> 
> Since when does Apple matter? They're a single OEM among a sea of others, and Intel's main source of income doesn't come from them. When they made the jump from IBM PowerPC processors to Intel processors, the deal was mostly that Intel could deliver on a specific set of needs that Apple had for a processor (which the PowerPC chips couldn't live up to), of which power consumption and battery life were paramount, something they saw as a focus in Intel's design roadmap. Had the deal been made earlier, the mobile Pentium 4 series' power consumption and heat (not the Pentium M, mind you) would likely have tipped the scales the other way.
> ...



I'm biased to quality, sorry :<

I was speaking in a sense that, if we were in a world where technology wasn't given out to other companies. If monopolies were allowed. Maybe I have a curse or something; all the ATI/amd products I've come into have shit a brick on me. These are non modified computers. Straight out of the box. You can say Nvidia overcharges, but it's bs. In a year when the 300 series comes out, the 295 will go way down and be comparable to ati's cheapness.

Also: As much as I hate apple, their products are all quality. So if Intel and amd have the same track record in terms of speed and safety, why not go with the cheaper? 

Also also: I don't see amd developing usb, progressing older technology. Perhaps if intel focused all on processors they'd be cheaper. I can't wait till intel starts working light peak into mainstream :>
Call me a fanboy, I just go off of my experience


----------



## Runefox (Nov 14, 2009)

> These are non modified computers. Straight out of the box.





> Call me a fanboy, I just go off of my experience


... With cheapo box store computers. Mm, great experience. There's all kinds of things wrong with that - Not the least of which being that most box store computers (low-midrange HP's, midrange Compaqs, low-end Gateways, all Acers, all eMachines...) use cheap-ass parts to begin with, like the shittiest, lowest-output power supply they can manage, rejected motherboards from mainstream manufacturers' assembly lines (HP/Compaq are rather good at nicking low-quality versions of ASUS motherboards), the cheapest slabs of metal they can get away with for heat sinks, the cheapest silicone-based thermal compound they can find, and all that good stuff. A brand new AMD processor out of the box comes with a rather good heat sink/fan, with decent silver-based compound - It'd practically never get hot enough to melt wires.

Long story short, build your own AMD system and it'll be solid - I wouldn't recommend buying a PC from a store, anyway, unless it was put together there from off-the-shelf parts. I assure you there are Intel systems that have had just as many problems - eMachines is one particular brand where their computers are so universally unreliable that they're basically designed to break after a year or less.

There really isn't a quality difference between Intel and AMD, nor is there one between nVidia and ATI - It's all in your head. The difference is cost and performance - AMD/ATI focus on the midrange market, while Intel and nVidia focus on the "I've got more money than brains" market. For the most part, AMD/ATI will, currently, give you the best bang for your buck, and I'll continue to say so until Intel or nVidia become a more attractive option in that field, just as I've always done.


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 14, 2009)

Runefox said:


> There really isn't a quality difference between Intel and AMD, nor is there one between nVidia and ATI - It's all in your head. The difference is cost and performance - AMD/ATI focus on the midrange market, while Intel and nVidia focus on the "I've got more money than brains" market. For the most part, AMD/ATI will, currently, give you the best bang for your buck, and I'll continue to say so until Intel or nVidia become a more attractive option in that field, just as I've always done.


See, that's fanboy talk.

Intel is paving a way for _all_ computers. like I said, once light peak hits mainstream in a year or two. It'll be a different story. I wouldn't be surprised if amd and ati came out with a fiber optic something or another around the time intel releases theirs.

AMD is happy with  GPU and CPU production, but without intel, there wouldn't be much use for all that 'speed' they claim.


----------



## Hyena (Nov 16, 2009)

Sinjo said:


> See, that's fanboy talk.
> 
> Intel is paving a way for _all_ computers. like I said, once light peak hits mainstream in a year or two. It'll be a different story. I wouldn't be surprised if amd and ati came out with a fiber optic something or another around the time intel releases theirs.
> 
> AMD is happy with  GPU and CPU production, but without intel, there wouldn't be much use for all that 'speed' they claim.



Some things for you to look at. 

my system temps. http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp197/legacy22t/coldsystemiscold.png Yeah konaskunk is that PC's name. but that's a AMD Phenom X3 with the stock cooler. Suck it. 

Intel has to pay AMD 1.2 Billion dollars because they bribed and payed off hardware vendors (and still do to this day) http://sg.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20091112/tap-intel-amd-c3bb44c.html 

If anything reaks of fanboy here, it's you. your blatant ignorance about both companies in question speaks volumes about the knowledge that you actually possess about the central processing unit.

I've worked with intel, I do business and electronic consulting with my father and I've worked with Intel a lot over the years. The main Intel headquarters is actually only about a 20 minute drive from my house, they are located in Hillsburro Oregon. 

Sure, I prefer AMD over intel. Having worked with intel first hand, there is no way I'd ever want one of their products, sadly I do have one of their products. their ever famous Centrino Duo (it's a mobile Core 2 Duo 2.2GHz) in my laptop, it sucks balls. Editing HD movies on that processor is just a joke, and it can barely handle 3D max. 

You claim that AMD's run so hot. well I just checked my old AMD Sempron 2800+ computer. The Sempron computer uses the stock cooler and it's running at 34c which is normal for the Sempron back in 2005. my Phenom ranges from 13c - 30c under a really heavy load weather it's gaming, video editing or image creation. 

R.I.P. 2X Intel Xeon (quad) from my mac pro, 4X Intel Pentium 4 EE 3.4Ghz, 1X Intel Pentium 4 2.2Ghz, 1X Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz

R.I.P. AMD Opteron, 2X Athlon XP 2400+

I'm sorry, but intel really doesn't make the best product. Saying spending under $250 for a CPU is a bad idea is retarded. My $35.00 Sempron has gone 5 years of video editing (non HD) then I moved to a mac pro and in that time wasted two intel Xeons over a two year period. I am a PC gamer, editor and I do a lot of "workstation" stuff weather it's auto cad or just office suite, but intel's have a lot harder time tolerating a lot of heavy work where my AMD's don't really care. 

Intel however seems to work a little nice on a laptop platform, but I have seen my Core 2 Duo approaching 70c at times, something I've never really seen anything but my P4's do. 

Anyway, I assume you'll have a retarded response to this and I will just laugh. your argument is like watching a retard fall down a flight of stairs. Do some reading and learn up on your shit before you babble nonsense out of your mouth. I also suggest you look into IBM, Sun and Motorolla as they have made processors in the recent past as well and most still do to this day.


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 17, 2009)

Hyena said:


> Some things for you to look at.
> 
> my system temps. http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp197/legacy22t/coldsystemiscold.png Yeah konaskunk is that PC's name. but that's a AMD Phenom X3 with the stock cooler. Suck it.
> 
> ...



lololol, saying laptop cpus are hot is like saying the sun is going to rise. Sounds like you've had a bad run with intel, sucks for you. Sounds like you're a fanboy though, wait... oh you're just going off your experience, but my experience makes me a fanboy, wrrrryyyyyyy :<



> Shares of AMD jumped 22 percent on Thursday on news of the payment, which analysts expect the* money-losing chipmaker to use to pay down some of its $3.2 billion of debt. Intel shares edged higher*.





> AMD said it will drop all *pending* litigation against Intel, including a case in the U.S. District Court in Delaware and two cases pending in Japan.


wat?
All those say is that intel bailed them out over some _pending_ legal suits.

I'd just like to add: you need to get the stick out of your ass and stop nerdraging


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 17, 2009)

Hmm... guess we'll have to add CPU manufacturers to the list of "Bwwwaaaahh!" topics to avoid.  Original question answered - probably time to lock things up.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 17, 2009)

It's been a long time since I saw such a thing.

Wish granted.


----------

