Good point. But all other things are not equal. And 10% faster at what? Everything? In every situation? And does that translate directly into a 10% happier me?
It's never that cut and dry, ever.
There are many considerations to make when building a machine, and the variables change sometimes drastically every month. The choice of CPU brand is often times a secondary consideration when building a machine to suit your needs. I, for one, tend to look at motherboards and chipsets first, regardless of whether they're designed for AMD or Intel processors.
Point being, the bang for the buck argument in favor of AMD processors is not nearly as worthy and clear cut as it was a year ago. A person buying an Intel based machine isn't necessarily making a poor decision and getting ripped off.
Well, it's all about availability. Bump one step down to the 3.6Ghz and the prices are fairly comparable again. I must admit that I'm not a person who would purchase a CPU that high up on the price/performance curve.
Intel has become competitive price-wise. We can thank AMD for that for sure.
Last time I looked (just now!), Intel processors are only $20-40 more expensive than comparable AMD processors. The big price difference isn't so big anymore.
I'm no Intel fan...I find it silly to be a "fan" of a corporation. In fact two of my three current systems are AMD based, including the one I'm writing this on. However, I must say that buying a machine with an Intel chipset is considerably more idiot proof than buying AMD - mostly because there are just too many AMD chipsets to choose from, many of which (esp. from VIA, SiS) turn out to be pretty quirky. I'm glad that I've found at least some consistancy from nVidia (nforce2 and >).
It's fun to hate Intel because they're the giant, but I for one still have not forgiven AMD for the K6-x processors and all their marketing BS that amounted to outright lies in my opinion. I also think they're stretching it a bit right now with their current "intel comparable" numbering scheme.
Good, fast, reliable systems can be made with both AMD and Intel at this point, and the total cost difference is really minimal. I certainly find strange that anyone would be bashing either company in this regard at this time.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but the last time I built and Intel machine, the names VIA and SiS didn't even enter my mind. Why would they?
Good point. But all other things are not equal. And 10% faster at what? Everything? In every situation? And does that translate directly into a 10% happier me?
It's never that cut and dry, ever.
There are many considerations to make when building a machine, and the variables change sometimes drastically every month. The choice of CPU brand is often times a secondary consideration when building a machine to suit your needs. I, for one, tend to look at motherboards and chipsets first, regardless of whether they're designed for AMD or Intel processors.
Point being, the bang for the buck argument in favor of AMD processors is not nearly as worthy and clear cut as it was a year ago. A person buying an Intel based machine isn't necessarily making a poor decision and getting ripped off.
Well, it's all about availability. Bump one step down to the 3.6Ghz and the prices are fairly comparable again. I must admit that I'm not a person who would purchase a CPU that high up on the price/performance curve. Intel has become competitive price-wise. We can thank AMD for that for sure.
Last time I looked (just now!), Intel processors are only $20-40 more expensive than comparable AMD processors. The big price difference isn't so big anymore.
I'm no Intel fan...I find it silly to be a "fan" of a corporation. In fact two of my three current systems are AMD based, including the one I'm writing this on. However, I must say that buying a machine with an Intel chipset is considerably more idiot proof than buying AMD - mostly because there are just too many AMD chipsets to choose from, many of which (esp. from VIA, SiS) turn out to be pretty quirky. I'm glad that I've found at least some consistancy from nVidia (nforce2 and >).
It's fun to hate Intel because they're the giant, but I for one still have not forgiven AMD for the K6-x processors and all their marketing BS that amounted to outright lies in my opinion. I also think they're stretching it a bit right now with their current "intel comparable" numbering scheme.
Good, fast, reliable systems can be made with both AMD and Intel at this point, and the total cost difference is really minimal. I certainly find strange that anyone would be bashing either company in this regard at this time.