AMD or Intel ! Poll

[Mindf!3ldzX]

You'll come to realise,lerster is a paranoid extremist. like mel gibson in conspiracy theory!

[Spoon]

Foq knows what he's talking about. Lerster, you make it sound like you have to buy all this extra equipment to OC a chip. I bought a better cpu heatsink/fan for like 30 bucks, and with that I'm able to OC my i7 past the level of another i7 chip that costs a grand. No voltage increase at all, therefore no threat of overheating and reducing its' lifespan.

[foq]

I overclocked my 2.8GHz Athlon II 240 2.8GHz to 3.5GHz. That's a 700MHz boost, and I didn't even have to raise voltage on anything. Temps stay low with my Arctic Freezer 64 Pro I bought on sale for $20 years ago when I was still using a Athlon64 x2 5200+, and I'm sure temps would still be acceptable on this cpu even if I had the stock cooler.

My basic point is it's so easy to do if you know how to do it and do it right, and it doesn't really cost anything unless you go nuts on cooling, so why not get that free boost?

[R00k]

I'm with MH, I dont OC. Though, in the past I've used more AMD cpus than Intel. And AMD my cpus didnt like being overheated. Either way, the only time to overclock is on old hardware. This way if it fails u just burnt up a $15 cpu
But then, why overclock a pentium 3 to 1.8ghz when you can just buy a used pentium 4 for less than $20?

[Disco]

Ive had my intel chip OC'ed by about .8Ghz for 2 years now, No issues.

[foq]

I've always liked intel chips more, as they are already optimized to be stable.

I always felt, overclocking chips, leads to instability, i recall trying it back in the P2 slot 1 days, and found that although there was a burst in performance, it lasted a week or so, and then instability followed by operating system crashes, etc.

I understand some people would scoff, that intel isn't made for OCing, and also would scoff that if you had appropriate cooling, it would be stable.

However, if you think of it your spending money on extra fans, headsinks and who knows what else, to just get a lil' tiny increase of performance out of your chip? why not just buy a chip that has the performance you want that is stable?

No.

[Mindf!3ldzX]

I've tried oc'ing w/ the supplied hsf with my 955be, and its cooling capabilities are less than adequate. stock 3.2 is sufficient.

and MAN,is it fucking annoying between 50%-100% speed. its the stuff migraines are made up of
,honestly.

[Spoon]

I never overclocked until a couple years ago, when I started playing newer games and doing what I could to keep the minimum frame rates as high as possible. It's not essential, but if you do it right, it can help a lot. I bought the i7 920 for around $280 and overclocked it to around 3.4ghz which is faster than the 3.3 ghz i7 they were selling for a grand at the time. With a good third party cpu fan/heatsink, the rise is temperatures is incredibly small and won't impact the lifespan of my processor. If you run demanding applications, why wouldn't you overclock?

[MH]

I've never overclocked. Never felt the need to and probably never will. I know that there's a subculture where overclocking is seen as an essential thing to do, but I don't personally subscribe to that particular ideology and I believe that seeing how high one can drive one's clock speed is an end in itself rather than a means to an end for many (most?) people who do.

See also: The John Carmack Archive - plan archive and There's an awful lot of overclocking out there - The Old New Thing - Site Home - MSDN Blogs.

[Lerster]

I've always liked intel chips more, as they are already optimized to be stable.

I always felt, overclocking chips, leads to instability, i recall trying it back in the P2 slot 1 days, and found that although there was a burst in performance, it lasted a week or so, and then instability followed by operating system crashes, etc.

I understand some people would scoff, that intel isn't made for OCing, and also would scoff that if you had appropriate cooling, it would be stable.

However, if you think of it your spending money on extra fans, headsinks and who knows what else, to just get a lil' tiny increase of performance out of your chip? why not just buy a chip that has the performance you want that is stable?

Anyways, for me it's Intel, and likely always will be.

However, duely note i started out with INTEL chips as well, i've only used amd a few times... and only have one old 1gb AMD, pc, or i had one i might've e-recycled it now that i thought of it.

It ran soso. I always heard AMD performed better at games, but lacked at operating system/appz.

It may be why i like intel more but i'm not sure.

Anyways votes still for intel. ^^

[MH]

8-core Intel i7 here. I've also got extensive experience with Xeons so I'm in the Intel camp, but I think it's great that AMD do exist as an alternative, and if it wasn't for them we wouldn't have x64, so hats off.

[Disco]

Sorry guys but Intel is the 9ton gorrilla. I am an intel fanboy but that aside they make better chips.

[Baker]

AMD laptops always come with a better video card. Some people knock AMD, but they provide Intel competition and my last few notebooks have been AMD and really great.

[inkub0]

Intel are better, but AMD are cheaper

[foq]

bFeared, wait for Bulldozer... hehe