amd .vs intel....

Gilboa Davara gilboada at
Fri Dec 9 04:34:18 UTC 2005

On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 16:42 -0800, Ezra Nugroho wrote:

Eeeek! Not Tomshardware.
In my experience, his views always seemed to follow how-ever advertises
the most on this site. (Which is usually Intel)

Entry level computing:

Mid level:

Performance level:

Dual core & servers:

Let me start off by saying, I'm an AMD man. However, I've got enough
experience with the P4/P4 Xeon (including the machine I'm typing this
message on) to be considered objective.

In the end, I'd say:

Entry level:
Rather even field. The Sempron64 is faster the Celleron D, but at least
currently, the Celleron is a bit cheaper. 
Oh. AMD's 64bit performance is better.

Mid level:
AMD has (much) better performance; Intel has (at times) lower price.
(See a pattern emerging?)

Performance level:
AMD. Period.

Dual core:
The Athlon64 x2 and the Opteron x6x/x7x/x8x are (much) faster then their
P4D and XeonD counter-parts. If you want the best performance, go AMD,
*However*, while much slower, the P4 820D which starts at around 240$ is
a very interesting deal if you looking to go SMP for cheap. (The closest
AMD, the 3800 X2 starts at around 320$)

As I said, I'm an AMD user. However, if I had to get Intel, I'd get the
820D or go rock-bottom-cheap and get a Celleron.


More information about the fedora-list mailing list