What brand of processor do u prefer?

[Nitrate]

Intel is purely use for encoding or generating salted encryption hashes. Also Prefer intel so i won't have to beat around the bush to get a simple shellcode to work just cuz one dumb instructor differs.                    

[W1nTry]

Hey now now @MD is not only a poor persons processor, they have managed to get into the bragging rights catergory with the FX line of A64 processors, so I think its more like

"@MD is the brand for ALL uses from the less financially secure to those who can blow it all on the HIGHEST performing 32-64bit x86 processors SAVE NONE!!!"

@MD RULES ALL!!!                    

[Czar]

Well said W1nTry

Haven't had an Intel processor in my PC since my old Pentium 200 MMX Moved up from that to an Athlon Tbird 1.1GHz and now on to my AthlonXP 2600+ No regrets whatsoever.                    

[TriniXaeno]

way, real AMD lovers in GATT iwmc.

*Baego is a lover of price/performance and as far as CPUs are concerned, more often than not in recent years, the winner has been AMD.
                     

[Synth]

I own both. Each has its strengths and weaknesses (as with all hardware). My general rule is that whats best, is what suits YOUR NEEDS (AND MEANS) BEST, and not what others claim to be technically superior.                    

[coldstorm]

if u willing to spend the money Opertron own intel in encoding                    

[trinigamer]

I have an Intel P4 now, but just bought and Athlon 64 3000 socket 939. It doesn't matter to me. AMD just has better chips right now. Intel stiil has most market share. The competition between the two is good for us.                    

[cereal_killer]

agreed competition is very good
if not for the amd 64 intel may not have started development of its new 64 bit processor                    

[Hitman_Jim]

i love the AMD'S

my pc's all run amd chips and they work just fine with games and encoding.

There rock solid and runs cool all the way                    

[Xel_NagaOvermind]

the only reason intel sellin more than amd is cuz the masses r not wise to the choice they have and intel have the oem,s on lock down                    

[MASTER_RAGE3]

amd all the way                    

[unimatrix001]

Intel is best for power                    

[TrinireturnofGamez]

intel WAS better for power :

 the latest intel prescott cores eat 100 w of power
 
AMD 64s don't suck more than 60 in load .  


AMD mobiles can be happy with 35 w of power and still pawn 2.8ghz P4s

 and if you are talking about PERFORMANCE and not ENERGY,  a dual AMD 64 running a 64 bit server OS will do seroius damage to any xeon .  


with the Athlon XPs , the AMD chips could process alot more data alot faster than intel [ good for most games] , but sucked at memory access and had low FSB, but with the A64 cores , they have  BETTER memory access due to an integrated memory controller , and the multi tasking performance is soo close you can't tell the difference .
  Even DELL is seeing the light and offering AMD cpus in their PCS and workstations . [ in the future ]                      

[vinion2000]

trini leave the guy to his own. remember that owning an Intel cpu means more to some ppl than speed. Its like buying a LCD monitor even though you know that a CRT is cheaper and better its about all owning one. i loved my AMD 800 system the same why i like my intel 2.8ghz. im pretty sure ill love my dual core system when i finish build it early next year.

fact are fact right now. its about preference cause the specs that are present today no matter if your AMD, INTEL, NVIDIA or ATI youll get good performance on gaming or regular computing.

what even funny is that while we argue about Intel vs AMD theres an Apple G5 owner who is laughing.                    

[Czar]

fact are fact right now. its about preference cause the specs that are present today no matter if your AMD, INTEL, NVIDIA or ATI youll get good performance on gaming or regular computing.

Most sense I see you talk dey oui...                    

[unimatrix001]

and a 64bit operating sytstem on a xeon with that 64bit em thing (i forget de exact name of de technology) go mash way any athalon 64...a opturon on de other hand...i eh tink nun cud compare to dat...and dat is someting i would love to get my hands on, especially dem quad processor opturon mobos with dual-core opturons... mmmmm.... DAT IS POWER... wen i get big wokk i go get someting like dat...                    

[W1nTry]

I don't agree with u unimatrix001 on the Xe0n with EMT64 being able to own a A64. Rem the A64's are variations of the Clawhammer aka original Opteron achitecture. They are also NATIVE X86, 32/64-bit processors as opposed to Xe0ns which have 64-bit extensions, which so far is predominantly for extended memory allocation ability. Add to that the Athl0n 64 FX is practically an Opter0n without support for ECC memory and yuh get even more cut-arse for de Xe0n.                    

[DeadEyes]

BAW WINTRY
yuh hear dat unimatrix?
take dat an cool it
AMD AMD AMD AMD............BAAAAAAAAAAAW                    

[W1nTry]

Dread I just read a review on toms hardware about the new 3.8GHz P4 and dread its was interesting to see the power consumption of the new 90nm SOI Athl0n 64's like the 3500+ here is the link in case u interested in teh article:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041115/...um4_570-20.html

As DeadEyes put it, BAW AMD!!!!
31.4 WATTS UNDER FULL LOAD!!!!!!!!
As opposed to 104.5Watts for the new 570 P4 or 3.8GHz P4 as the case may be!!!!!!!                      

[Zard]

running a amd64 3000 and loving it.

No probs with intel just can't afford it.