id say AMD right now cause i have a AMD CPU on my computer and its pretty fast and Intel cause all the other computers in my house are Intel.

I like G5 (IBM)

uhh i mean as in AMD and Intel, CPU companies not like computer companies.

G5 is a CPU made by IBM.

i'd have to say AMD, atm Intel has the faster CPU's but i prefer the setup/stability etc. of AMD since speed really isn't everything with normal personal use

Intel. That's what CNET labs recommends.

What's the best Processor that intel makes? The Quad Core Extreme?

For me it's all just 6 of 1 half a dozen of the other.

Currently on an Intel core 2 duo and its working like a peach so I'm happy with that.

Both are great companies. AMD is known for gaming and Intel is known for being able to do Windows / Media Encoding well. AMD CPUs are cheaper than Intel CPUs, but I don't play many games so I would rather have an Intel CPU.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html

ya i think its the quad core extreme or the intel core 2 duo extreme. and also good thing with AMD is u can over clock like crazy opossed to intel which u cant overclock that much.

Oh shut up, Tecumseh!

You don't know a damn thing when you say Intels can't overclock. Saying that, you're showing me that you haven't updated your view of the CPU market in the LAST FOURTEEN MONTHS. A lot has changed--Core 2 is out and that's king. Look at the high-end AMDs (if you can find any--retail AMD chips now max out at $200, last time I checked)... they're CRAP compared to Intel's similarly-priced and similarly-preforming chips, not to mention that every chip based on Intel's Conroe and Kentsfield core should have absolutely no problem going up to 3GHz! Not to mention once you upgrade the cooling--they'll go beyond 4GHz with relative ease. AMDs don't overclock well on stock or even with upgraded cooling--the K8 microarchitecture is nearly useless above 3GHz. Not to mention the amount of energy they eat at their high speeds (3.2GHz at 120+W). Intel can go just as fast while consuming half the energy.

Anyways--AMD was known for making good gaming CPUs and overclocking well--will this surprise you? Intel holds the preformance crown for gaming, encoding, overclocking, media solutions, and basically everything else! The only thing AMD holds onto is faster memory integer and float point. That's all--any the differences there are basically unnoticeable by any user.

Anyways--back on track, tearing your post apart. The latest Athlon X2s (6000+ and 6400+ at 3.0GHz and 3.2GHz, respectively) are absolutely horrible overclockers. The only "reason" they are at or past 3GHz is because of the fine-tuning AMD is attempting. Now, they're the best processors at 90nm, but Camp AMD hasn't gotten particularly far or fast on 65nm.

dont blame AMD for losing they have ATI too u know

i read a book on overclocking guess its a bit old i think its like from pentium 4s and amd duron or sumthing cause its said in there intel cpus were bad and amd could like over clock like crazy. its a o'reily book i think.

intel processers are the best i think by 2010 i think they will have 80 is what it said on there website but doubt it sometime in 20-00-50

That book would be outdated. Northwood wasn't bad at overclocking--but that was the best-designed core for Netburst. Other then increasing core instability above 1.7V (iirc--it was 1.7V or 1.8V I think), Northwood was the best it got for Netburst. As for the AMDs, they overclocked particularly well for quite a while. This was first really shattered by Pentium D 805's that would clock in at 4.1GHz (up from 2.66GHz stock) and beat the high-end FX-60 processors--oh and for only $130 at the time. Since then, AMD had kept the crown until Intel released Core 2 processors. As of June 2006, AMD has lost the crown. In order to compete with Core 2 processors, they had to really factory overclock their Athlon line--making adjustments to the core as necessary. The Windsor core comes in F2 and F3 steppings--F3 stepping is required to go above 2.8GHz at stock. Those processors cannot go much above 3.3GHz--which is where they met their limit.

Intel, because it is faster (for me).

I had an AMD, but it was slower.

amd= better batery life on laptops, and built in bluetooth. plus its chepaer. Intel= faster, better overclocking, hotter cpu, more expensive. i have a dual core amd turion 64 bit processor, at 1.8 ghz, on my laptop, and it works great for games, even over a wireless network, almost never any lag. o, and btw, this is not a gaming notebook.

whered you get that from? i have an AMD. guess what? no bluetooth

are they the same speed? and architect? i think not, well i guess my book is a bit old time to hunt for the 2007 version! i think AMD is like losing the CPU market cause they have ATI now and they have to fight NVIDIA and INTEL at the same time now.

I thought my processor wasn't very good because my laptop was only 600, but after checking, my processor can run most new games. It's an AMD Turion X2 Mobile Technology TL-56 (1.8GH, but there's two processors). It was cheap and works great (for my laptop).

its 7v7 right now a collective tie, i wonder whos going to break it!

My first computer I actually owned had an Intel in it, and ever since I upgraded my computer and put in AMD, I've noticed a big perfomance boost. I know there are some very good Intel's, but for people on a tight budget, AMD is best.

I'd have an AMD anyday

-Sam

nooooooooo u forgot to vote AMD, quick before the intel people vote !!!

Spam?

I already voted .

I'd say AMD, i have it on my desktop pc and it suits me fine.

Intels are better processors at this point and time. When AMD releases it's Barcelona-based processors for desktop and mobile computers, then I might reconsider. Other then that, Intel is expected to start the release of its high-end Penryn-based desktop parts in Q4 as well.

At the moment, Intel are ahead, it's pretty clear. I know this, but I still prefer AMD. I just have always used it, and thats about it. If I wanted top performance then I would get a Intel, but I don't.

Let's see.. what was the record overclock again? 8.32GHz on an Intel Pentium 4. The Q6600 has been overclocked from 2.4 to 3.6GHz on AIR cooling, etc.

You can't say Intels aren't overclockable. Besides, the stock clocking is the best one to go with anyways if you want a longer lifespan and stability.

I personally prefer Intel because I feel it's more stable and fast than AMD.

My uncle is actually an engineer for a cable company--accord to him (I haven't tested it yet), the company won't use AMDs because they're less stable. I've never had a problem with the AMDs, but he absolutely hates them.

Stability isn't the highest priority for some people - so it depend on what you look for in a processor I guess.

It's a very important factor actually Instability can cause data to be interpreted wrong and can lead to dramatic events such as hardware failure or inreadable memory.

However, price may be a more important factor in comparison to stability for example.

To some people, but for business stability is a top concern. I have never run my computer for longer then a week without reboot--it just gets annoying with WinXP. They plan to reboot their *nix computers every time a new kernal is released--every 6 or so months. When you're running thousands of systems, one going down could be a major concern.