[shinhbang]

i'm gonna get a laptop soon so i just want to know what you people think about these two processors.. which is has better performance? pick one and tell me why you chose it..

INTEL? or AMD?

[SONEE DELITE]

If you read any reviews out at the moment Intel Core 2 Duo's (Centrino for laptops) have a huge advantage in processing power, heat reduction, and battery life than any of AMD's current processors.

Intel Core 2 Duo's and Windows XP on a laptop will make you a very happy computer user. Problem is unless you buy from a company that will still offer Windows XP, you'll be stuck with Vista. Vista eats more resources thus making your battery life lower.

Windows Vista = Windows ME? Both are and have been complete failures.

[boka]

most of the time, Intel has the upper hand when it comes to processing power (they are, after all, the source of the x86 platform). in any case, whether you buy Intel or AMD, you always get your money's worth (or thereabouts). Intel is going to have superior performance for a while to come i think.

i admit i like AMD though, they're constantly coming up with good ideas like 64-bit architecture, multiple cores, integrated memory controller, modular power management, low power northbridges, on-die GPU etc. but whenever AMD brings out new technology, Intel always hits back with the "anything you can do i can do better" response. you can see this in Intel's next generation of chips (nehalem) - Intel says it'll be a massive performance jump and when you look at the specs, you'll see that they're planning to implement all of AMD's good ideas, and probably do it better than AMD can.

[effudee]

intel for sure, amd fell off.

[TrainDriver]

amd was better last generation of chips, but this generation intel has performed better.

[iamsars]

Didn't Amd just release a stream processor?

AMD announces FireStream 9170, first dedicated stream processor
http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/08/amd-ann...ream-processor/

[Chaoz]

It's not even a competition. Intel wins hands down.

[白い雲]

If anything, consider whether or not you will be using this laptop as a desktop replacement or for mobility. If anything, like what has been mentioned above, Intel has a better battery life and faster processor but it is more expensive. However if you do decide to go with intel, you want to go look for one that has a Core 2 processor. Not one with a pentium dual or anything like that. The performance differential on those two models are very apparent.

It is true that when you purchase computers in retail stores (buying it from the vendor directly will sometimes give you options to put XP or Vista), they will come pre-installed with Windows Vista (Home premium would be the most general version). However if you really wanted to, you can Put XP on it. Just make sure that if you are, you look up and see if there are any available drivers for your laptop on XP (because not all laptops are backward compatible). It would be pretty worthless to have XP on a laptop but cant fully function correctly. Be sure to do your research before you proceed! Most likely there will be NO RECOVERY DISCS when you buy your laptop unless it is a Toshiba or Gateway laptop. HP does not come with one but allows you to create your own.

[Shiwen]

From what I read about 2 years ago. AMD was better for gaming, and Intel better for office work.

[ZiGeNX77]

Overall the Intels are better, but it doesn't mean AMDs suck by any means. AMDs are generally better bang for the buck.

[白い雲]

AMD is good for overclocking but since laptops are not designed for any kind of overclocking it does not apply. I would suggest AMD if say someone were to build a desktop.

[apparition]

IMO, both are good. but intel has a better chipset and cpu for mobile. seriously though, they both provide good value and it would be hard to regret getting either.

From what I read about 2 years ago. AMD was better for gaming, and Intel better for office work.

that applied for the P4 and athlon XP debate. no longer true with the newer stuff.

[effudee]

amd does suck. amd isn't better for overclocking either. it's just cheaper. the intels are better overall, thats why they cost more. in terms of laptop, the intel processors would provide better multitasking and better battery management. it lasts longer. you really do get what you pay for.

[白い雲]

I agree with "You get what you pay for" but AMD is much easier to overclock than an Intel processor. With any kind of AMD processing board, the BIOS itself allows you to have the option to adjust overclocking speed and temp. manually or have the BIOS do that for you (without causing any damage to any hardware). Known fact.

One of the reasons why AMD is cheaper, is because it took them longer to produce their new lineup of processors and even longer to produce compatible boards in the very beginning. Intel immediately found a vendor that could quickly manufacturer compatible boards with their processors. So in the heat of competition, AMD allows their processors to be sold cheaper just to have an upper hand in the market.

[Issey]

IF you have the cash,go for Intel..otherwise AMD is good enough for any college student..

[Melitus]

Amd can die...i love intel processor!11 hands down

[au_revior]

AMD - gamer, Laptop- Intel. Is simple as that, from my experience those who build their own desktop and if their are gamers they prefer AMD because is easy to overclock. The only reason Intel is cheaper is because AMD has been putting pressure on Intel to lower their prices hence you intel lover should be grateful for AMD coz with out them Intel would have a more handsome profit margin at your cost. And not to distance to the future ATI & AMD will be better for games because of better compatibility.

[Adionik]

I agree with "You get what you pay for" but AMD is much easier to overclock than an Intel processor. With any kind of AMD processing board, the BIOS itself allows you to have the option to adjust overclocking speed and temp. manually or have the BIOS do that for you (without causing any damage to any hardware). Known fact.

One of the reasons why AMD is cheaper, is because it took them longer to produce their new lineup of processors and even longer to produce compatible boards in the very beginning. Intel immediately found a vendor that could quickly manufacturer compatible boards with their processors. So in the heat of competition, AMD allows their processors to be sold cheaper just to have an upper hand in the market.

Do you have any clue as to what you're talking about?



There are so many different models between the two companies, that it's really apples to oranges. You would never compare an FX-74 to a Celeron D. AMD wins. You wouldn't compare a Sempron 2800+ to a Penryn. Intel wins.

VERY few AMD CPU's can touch Core2Duo right now, stick with that if you have no "real" computer knowledge. I suggest you check out [H] and some other sites to get a real grip on the computer world. You'll come out a more intelligent consumer and save yourself some cash.


MANY people have the thoughts that:

AMD - OMFG GAMES!
Intel - OS! APS! MULTITASKING

This might have been true years ago, but the current is that intel can do it all...and is owning. I'm not a fan boii here, my ONLY rig is an opteron 165. Not trying to troll here, just get your facts straight.

[Tepper]

Anyway, I put in my vote for Intel, especially because this is a laptop we're supposedly talking about. The core2 architecture wins out across the board on the mobile platform. Turions, Semprons and X2's just can't compete anymore.

To Au Revoir: I am no intel fanboy, but I have a gaming rig right now that contains an Intel E6420 (Stock 2.13GHz) overclocked to 3.2GHz on air at stock voltages. Soooo, they can overclock too, at no damage to the cpu itself. I can post pics of my rig. =3

[4ever_sweet]

AMD is way better than Intel, just that intel has the advantage of always coming up w/the latest technology first.

But the truth is, there is a flaw with Intel's architecture and they know it too!