signmeup
New Member
I didn't think your statement was elitist.. I just thought it was dumb.
-
I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...
AMD vs Intel
- Thread starter Pinfinity
- Start date
njshorts
New Member
i can't directly relate it to you, but it's like asking me to switch to signcut because of a product improvement in contour cutting despite the fact that flexi handles the same thing and more plus printing. pointless. (add in bad experiences with signcut, not that I don't have a few with flexi...)
the day ati makes strides that haven't already been covered/surpassed or at least quickly caught-up-to by nvidia, please publicly blast me on the forums and call my shop to tell me- I'll eat crow.
njshorts
New Member
Because as someone who has seen claims left and right for years, I need proof. I can't find any on the net with recent data.
kffernandez
New Member
you seem like a person who likes technical details. well, i personally go to www.anandtech.com for in depth benchmarks, architecture breakdown and analysis. you'd have to spend quite a bit of hours [or even days] tho looking at each family of processors and finally deciding on what you actually want.
but for the sake of answering the original question: for the same price/budget, AMD will ALWAYS be faster than intel. BUT speed isn't necessarily the beginning and end of it all. if you don't know anything about taking care of your computer's hardware - i will suggest intel. intel processors are more generally tolerant of user use and abuse.
it's just like buying a branded computer and assembling one from scratch. branded computers are generally less of a headache since they are supposed to have been tested exhaustively. but if you like troubleshooting, know how to choose your parts, and would like to save quite a bit of money for the exact same specs. assemble your own. - at your own risk.
fyi, the past 90 or so units of computers that i last owned were all AMD units. and given that i have personally maintained each and every one of them... they all worked great.
kelly
njshorts
New Member
kelly- yes, I nerd out and go over info there... however i'd like to see proof of this 'well known fact', since obviously he knows what he's talking about. I'm not dead set on one vs the other overall, but when cost-shopping, the AMD has generally been a better value. If there's merit to Intel for what we're doing- please tell me and back it up with fact... I'll switch in a heartbeat! It's only fair to back up your statements when giving advise...
Joe Diaz
New Member
I'm actually with njshorts on this. I've never been loyal to just one brand, however if there was research or some sort of study that showed that Intel is better for design, it would play a big role on what I purchase in the future. Because I can't really tell from my limited experience, but like I said earlier I've never had similar builds at the same time that I could compare. I'm not near as techy as some of you. I know enough that I can build my own system, but I don't follow the trends like some folks do.
I did just try to google a definitive answer to this question with no luck. The local computer guru I turn to when I can't figure something out, the guy who builds my systems at work, is an AMD man, but he isn't a designer. So for someone like me, who isn't in the know, it would be interesting to know for sure. Just for curiosity's sake.
I did just try to google a definitive answer to this question with no luck. The local computer guru I turn to when I can't figure something out, the guy who builds my systems at work, is an AMD man, but he isn't a designer. So for someone like me, who isn't in the know, it would be interesting to know for sure. Just for curiosity's sake.
choucove
New Member
There are so many factors in the Intel vs. AMD debate that it's really almost impossible to answer. I've assembled several systems lately of both and it's pretty much impossible to tell one from the other. Here is what I have gathered, though. This is based on my personal experience as a custom system builder as well as general consensus from a lot of technical reviewers and online computer publications.
AMD offers better performance per dollar when compared with Intel systems. This is mainly because Intel processors are higher priced AND also have higher priced motherboards. Just as a comparison, the entry-level Sandy Bridge Intel Core i3-2100 processor, which is only a dual-core model running at 3.1 Ghz, is about $125 on Newegg.com. For about that same price you can find a more powerful mid-range AMD Phenom II X4 945 which is a quad-core processor running at 3.0 Ghz.
For the overall best value at a lower cost, you're probably going to be looking more at an AMD system in general. HOWEVER, it depends also upon what kind of usage you are planning for that specific system. For example, yes Intel is known for higher performance clock-for-clock in heavy workstation tasks such as rendering in Maya or 3DSMax, CAD, etc. when comparing the Core i7 processors on the LGA1366 sockets with the AMD Phenom II processors on the AM3 sockets, but again there is a pretty good price difference there.
Now, while AMD does offer the best price/performance ration in general, if money isn't a problem then I'd say go with Intel. They have higher performance capabilities at their top price range than what AMD can offer currently. An example is recently I upgraded my home computer to an Intel Core i7-2600k processor. Why? Because AMD didn't offer a processor that was capable of matching its performance, even though it was slightly more costly than the top-of-the-line AMD Phenom hexa-core processors.
But again I want to emphasize that there are MANY factors to consider, which is why I have used both AMD and Intel lately, just depending upon the situations and needs. For instance, will it be for gaming, or light office work, for multipurpose or even server use? Will noise and heat be a major concern to minimize? What are the budget needs? What other hardware will be needed in the system? All of these things play a part.
So with all of that, if you just ask, "Which is better, Intel or AMD" the answer simply can't be given. Neither is flat out better than the other, it all just depends on the circumstance.
AMD offers better performance per dollar when compared with Intel systems. This is mainly because Intel processors are higher priced AND also have higher priced motherboards. Just as a comparison, the entry-level Sandy Bridge Intel Core i3-2100 processor, which is only a dual-core model running at 3.1 Ghz, is about $125 on Newegg.com. For about that same price you can find a more powerful mid-range AMD Phenom II X4 945 which is a quad-core processor running at 3.0 Ghz.
For the overall best value at a lower cost, you're probably going to be looking more at an AMD system in general. HOWEVER, it depends also upon what kind of usage you are planning for that specific system. For example, yes Intel is known for higher performance clock-for-clock in heavy workstation tasks such as rendering in Maya or 3DSMax, CAD, etc. when comparing the Core i7 processors on the LGA1366 sockets with the AMD Phenom II processors on the AM3 sockets, but again there is a pretty good price difference there.
Now, while AMD does offer the best price/performance ration in general, if money isn't a problem then I'd say go with Intel. They have higher performance capabilities at their top price range than what AMD can offer currently. An example is recently I upgraded my home computer to an Intel Core i7-2600k processor. Why? Because AMD didn't offer a processor that was capable of matching its performance, even though it was slightly more costly than the top-of-the-line AMD Phenom hexa-core processors.
But again I want to emphasize that there are MANY factors to consider, which is why I have used both AMD and Intel lately, just depending upon the situations and needs. For instance, will it be for gaming, or light office work, for multipurpose or even server use? Will noise and heat be a major concern to minimize? What are the budget needs? What other hardware will be needed in the system? All of these things play a part.
So with all of that, if you just ask, "Which is better, Intel or AMD" the answer simply can't be given. Neither is flat out better than the other, it all just depends on the circumstance.
BLUE vs RED
[There are so many factors in the Intel vs. AMD debate that it's really almost impossible to answer.]
Quite right. There seems however one shortcoming with the AMD's they appear to run hot and can overheat more easily.
After building many AMD and INTEL systems over the years, I have found that the AMD's are more prone to this, they are great for about 2 years then start to get hot and noisy, requiring more case fans - which adds more noise.
This is not due to dust build or overclocking but but probably due to the heat sink and the thermal grease being cheap and nasty .
My conclusion after building my latest system ( sandy bridge core i7 2600K ) is that
INTEL wins , leave the AMD's for the those that just want to pay less. ( you get what you pay for.) but if you do buy AMD get a decent heatsink.
[There are so many factors in the Intel vs. AMD debate that it's really almost impossible to answer.]
Quite right. There seems however one shortcoming with the AMD's they appear to run hot and can overheat more easily.
After building many AMD and INTEL systems over the years, I have found that the AMD's are more prone to this, they are great for about 2 years then start to get hot and noisy, requiring more case fans - which adds more noise.
This is not due to dust build or overclocking but but probably due to the heat sink and the thermal grease being cheap and nasty .
My conclusion after building my latest system ( sandy bridge core i7 2600K ) is that
INTEL wins , leave the AMD's for the those that just want to pay less. ( you get what you pay for.) but if you do buy AMD get a decent heatsink.
trakers
New Member
You should buy AMD for the same reason I do, if AMD goes away Intel will become the sole vendor for CPU's and will RAPE all of us.
I have ran AMD exclusively for years with nary a failed processor. Just built 4 new machines for the office here. They have AMD processors, SSD hardrives and a butt load of DDR3 memory and they are screaming mee-mee's.
I have ran AMD exclusively for years with nary a failed processor. Just built 4 new machines for the office here. They have AMD processors, SSD hardrives and a butt load of DDR3 memory and they are screaming mee-mee's.
choucove
New Member
Anything that runs on an Intel processor will be compatible with an AMD processor for design software. Period. There's no worries about "cohesiveness" or "compatibility" with software with design software on one or the other. And even though I did myself mention that Intel has higher performing parts, in general when you are comparing similar processors of the same generation on similar platforms, this is going to be your relationship:
If you're spending exactly $X, then AMD will net you slightly more performance than spending exactly $X on an Intel platform. HOWEVER, there comes a point where Intel offers more performance than what AMD offers at the hightest of pricepoints. What I mean is if you've got $2000 or more to put into a design system, you're probably going to get more performance from Intel because you can buy the highest-performing processors that AMD doesn't have counterpoints to match performance-wise, but it's also going to cost a ton.
As for the comments, though, about AMD systems dieing too quickly or running too hot, this is not something that can be said definitively. I've run multiple AMD systems on a range of platforms for nearly ten years and have yet to have a single processor fail, especially from overheating. Are the stock CPU coolers included with AMD fans recommended for more than just light computer usage on low-watt CPUs? Probably not. That's why I recommend highly to anyone who can go with a custom computer to be sure you figure in an aftermarket cooler as it will make night and day difference. However, the stock cooler will work. The same thing can be said about Intel stock fans, they are not designed to handle heat as well as an aftermarket cooler and I'd never recommend that someone using a design computer use a stock cooler. But it's definitely not "normal" for AMD processors to run hotter.
My old desktop was using an AMD Phenom II X4 955 with a Cooler Master V8 CPU cooler and Arctic Silver 5 thermal compound. At full load the CPU ran an average of 60 to 65 degrees Celsius after four hours of running. That is a 120 Watt processor which is on the higher end, meaning it utilizes more power and runs hotter than most of your average processors. My new desktop, running a Core i7-2600k at stock speeds with a Corsair H70 water cooling unit and Arctic Silver 5 thermal compound, however, runs about the same temperature under full load after four hours of running. The Core i7-2600k is a 95 Watt processor, meaning noticeably less power usage and even a more-efficient and cooler running architecture (32nm fabrication vs. the Phenom's 45nm fabrication) and has a much more powerful water cooling unit on it. But the temperatures are the same. AMD doesn't necessarily run hotter than Intel.
In the past two months I have built 11 computers using the AMD Athlon II X4 640 processor, which is a 95 Watt processor (same as the Core i7-2600k in my desktop, remember) with a Cooler Master Hyper N aftermarket CPU. On all of those systems, even in a very compact microATX computer case with a much simpler air cooler the systems did not get over 35 degrees Celsius while under full load after four hours. That is amazingly cool compared to similar Intel systems.
If you're spending exactly $X, then AMD will net you slightly more performance than spending exactly $X on an Intel platform. HOWEVER, there comes a point where Intel offers more performance than what AMD offers at the hightest of pricepoints. What I mean is if you've got $2000 or more to put into a design system, you're probably going to get more performance from Intel because you can buy the highest-performing processors that AMD doesn't have counterpoints to match performance-wise, but it's also going to cost a ton.
As for the comments, though, about AMD systems dieing too quickly or running too hot, this is not something that can be said definitively. I've run multiple AMD systems on a range of platforms for nearly ten years and have yet to have a single processor fail, especially from overheating. Are the stock CPU coolers included with AMD fans recommended for more than just light computer usage on low-watt CPUs? Probably not. That's why I recommend highly to anyone who can go with a custom computer to be sure you figure in an aftermarket cooler as it will make night and day difference. However, the stock cooler will work. The same thing can be said about Intel stock fans, they are not designed to handle heat as well as an aftermarket cooler and I'd never recommend that someone using a design computer use a stock cooler. But it's definitely not "normal" for AMD processors to run hotter.
My old desktop was using an AMD Phenom II X4 955 with a Cooler Master V8 CPU cooler and Arctic Silver 5 thermal compound. At full load the CPU ran an average of 60 to 65 degrees Celsius after four hours of running. That is a 120 Watt processor which is on the higher end, meaning it utilizes more power and runs hotter than most of your average processors. My new desktop, running a Core i7-2600k at stock speeds with a Corsair H70 water cooling unit and Arctic Silver 5 thermal compound, however, runs about the same temperature under full load after four hours of running. The Core i7-2600k is a 95 Watt processor, meaning noticeably less power usage and even a more-efficient and cooler running architecture (32nm fabrication vs. the Phenom's 45nm fabrication) and has a much more powerful water cooling unit on it. But the temperatures are the same. AMD doesn't necessarily run hotter than Intel.
In the past two months I have built 11 computers using the AMD Athlon II X4 640 processor, which is a 95 Watt processor (same as the Core i7-2600k in my desktop, remember) with a Cooler Master Hyper N aftermarket CPU. On all of those systems, even in a very compact microATX computer case with a much simpler air cooler the systems did not get over 35 degrees Celsius while under full load after four hours. That is amazingly cool compared to similar Intel systems.
signmeup
New Member
Joe, you would produce stunning designs on an old 486. It ain't the computer folks.
Joe Diaz
New Member
:Big Laugh yeah I know that, but if design software were to work better on a system using Intel, that would save me some time and headaches. But I'm still not convinced that is the case. I was hoping someone would convince me as I would prefer to have the right tools for the job.
signmeup
New Member
Joe, all you need is a pointy stick and some dirt to design.
Take a bunch of these chip experts and set them up with an AMD and an Intel chipped computer (identical otherwise) and see if they can figure out which is which just by using some design program. I'll go out on a limb here and predict a 50/50 outcome.
SignBurst PCs
New Member
Like a few of the others familiar with system building here, I have noticed some serious generalities and misconceptions. At any given point in time, there is going to be one manufacturer (Intel or AMD) that is going to have a higher performance level. But, it is not a constant. There have been times in my career that AMD was slightly ahead and there are others that Intel has been ahead. One generality that does seem to hold true is that AMD is usually less expensive. Does that make it a better deal for a designer? SOMETIMES. It depends on what you expect out of your system, what your budget is, and where manufactures sit in terms of release of new technology.
Personally, since the release of the "Nehalem" series a couple years ago, I have had a very difficult time considering anything other than Intel (especially now that Sandy Bridge has been revised). Yes, I do pay a couple hundred dollars more for Intel, but for me it is worth it. For a system that you are probably going to keep for at least 3 years, that couple hundred dollars breaks down to a few dollars every month and pennies a day. The time I can save with that extra performance will easily pay for itself.
I can honestly say that we test system after system on multiple architectures and you can tell from the computers we sell that I have been very impressed with Intel in the most design software. I test more systems in design software that probably anyone that I know. Even the performance techs over at Adobe are familiar with what we do and sell and can even tell when one of their customers is using a SignBurst. With that in mind, if you are doing some CPU crunching design work, you might consider that.
Only time will tell, but there is sure to be a change in the tides eventually and my current opinions will change. But for now, I am sticking with Intel until the numbers prove otherwise. You may see benchmarks on CPUs here and there, but those are just guidelines. To be sure about what you are testing, you have to test in real-word applications on the exact same hardware as you are going to be using. From experience, I can tell you that benchmarks in other software don’t necessarily parallel benchmarks in design software.
Is AMD more prone to overheating and failure? Again, that depends. Overall, I have experienced a higher ratio of AMD failures vs. Intel, but if you take the proper precautions, AMD processors can be very reliable. Keeping them cool is a big part of the solution. But then again, if you have to pay $50+ for a CPU cooler, you are chipping away at the cost advantage of AMD. Along those same lines, proper system building, cable management, and system airflow can affect the temperatures of every chip on the board. There are so many variables here that it is almost impossible to label one “better” than the other for everyone.
As I have seen soooo many times on this forum, “leave it to the experts”. I would no more expect a sign shop owner to be able to keep up with all the variables in computer hardware than I would a real-estate agent consider themselves experts in graphic design. Yes, that real-estate agent might be able to throw something together, but is it in his best interests to do so? You guys (and gals) would be able to answer that question better than I would.
Personally, since the release of the "Nehalem" series a couple years ago, I have had a very difficult time considering anything other than Intel (especially now that Sandy Bridge has been revised). Yes, I do pay a couple hundred dollars more for Intel, but for me it is worth it. For a system that you are probably going to keep for at least 3 years, that couple hundred dollars breaks down to a few dollars every month and pennies a day. The time I can save with that extra performance will easily pay for itself.
I can honestly say that we test system after system on multiple architectures and you can tell from the computers we sell that I have been very impressed with Intel in the most design software. I test more systems in design software that probably anyone that I know. Even the performance techs over at Adobe are familiar with what we do and sell and can even tell when one of their customers is using a SignBurst. With that in mind, if you are doing some CPU crunching design work, you might consider that.
Only time will tell, but there is sure to be a change in the tides eventually and my current opinions will change. But for now, I am sticking with Intel until the numbers prove otherwise. You may see benchmarks on CPUs here and there, but those are just guidelines. To be sure about what you are testing, you have to test in real-word applications on the exact same hardware as you are going to be using. From experience, I can tell you that benchmarks in other software don’t necessarily parallel benchmarks in design software.
Is AMD more prone to overheating and failure? Again, that depends. Overall, I have experienced a higher ratio of AMD failures vs. Intel, but if you take the proper precautions, AMD processors can be very reliable. Keeping them cool is a big part of the solution. But then again, if you have to pay $50+ for a CPU cooler, you are chipping away at the cost advantage of AMD. Along those same lines, proper system building, cable management, and system airflow can affect the temperatures of every chip on the board. There are so many variables here that it is almost impossible to label one “better” than the other for everyone.
As I have seen soooo many times on this forum, “leave it to the experts”. I would no more expect a sign shop owner to be able to keep up with all the variables in computer hardware than I would a real-estate agent consider themselves experts in graphic design. Yes, that real-estate agent might be able to throw something together, but is it in his best interests to do so? You guys (and gals) would be able to answer that question better than I would.
jayhawksigns
New Member
I had been 100% AMD for years, all the way back to a K6-2.
I personally have been in situations where an AMD system actually failed to function properly. One was with our sister company that installs camera recording systems, an AMD based system just would not give us as smooth recording as was capable with Intel and so Intel is all that we build with now. The second was in our own shop with our CNC router. Built an AMD system and it would actually lose steps during the transmission to the router controller. Installed a rather inferior spec'd Intel system and the problems went away.
Had to replace our ripstation this year due to a motherboard failure and went with an i5 760. Had been running an Athlon X2 6000+, and I know there are some generational differences but wow. My design station is a Phenom 9850 and the i5 still blows it away.
For personal use though, I can't justify the extra for Intel and use only AMD at home. For business use now though its all Intel. And for the life of a computer, if you can't cover the few extra hundred for the Intel setup then your profit margins are a lot lower then ours.
I personally have been in situations where an AMD system actually failed to function properly. One was with our sister company that installs camera recording systems, an AMD based system just would not give us as smooth recording as was capable with Intel and so Intel is all that we build with now. The second was in our own shop with our CNC router. Built an AMD system and it would actually lose steps during the transmission to the router controller. Installed a rather inferior spec'd Intel system and the problems went away.
Had to replace our ripstation this year due to a motherboard failure and went with an i5 760. Had been running an Athlon X2 6000+, and I know there are some generational differences but wow. My design station is a Phenom 9850 and the i5 still blows it away.
For personal use though, I can't justify the extra for Intel and use only AMD at home. For business use now though its all Intel. And for the life of a computer, if you can't cover the few extra hundred for the Intel setup then your profit margins are a lot lower then ours.
Si Allen
New Member
I agree with Casey!
I get the latest and greatest Intel based computer every 4 years on the average . The cost difference means nothing on a daily basis.
You spend tens of thousands of dollars on a plotter, printer, laminator, etc. and then take a chance on an outdated or a cheap computer?
That is like a trucker buying a gas engine for his big rig because a diesel is more expensive.
A computer is the most critical piece of equipment in your shop ... unless you are a paint brush guy like me!
Techman
New Member
Want to see a perfect example? I have several computers here. Some are AMD and some are Intel. Personally I have no preference in either chip. The AMD runs all same software as the Intel. Same settings same every thing.
Both appear to run software just fine. That is until there is an actual test. The result of that test is the AMD machines sit under the desk unused for CAD / CAM work. The Intel machine run all the time. They are the first choice when driving machinery with CAD / CAM software..
You can see for yourself when using these boxes to run computer driven machinery such as a router table. Strange goings appear when the AMD chips runs. You can hear the changes in the the motors on the router. You can see the results in the output. You can see the results in the time spent to run a job.
The Intel driven job comes out flawless first time every time. It runs the code faster and consistent and smooth. The AMD computers sit under the desk ready for use as desk top machines.
There is a reason why Intel can charge more for its processors. Some users know the difference because they see the difference. It all comes down to compatibility. Some software developers took advantage of Intel's techniques for data processing.
Both appear to run software just fine. That is until there is an actual test. The result of that test is the AMD machines sit under the desk unused for CAD / CAM work. The Intel machine run all the time. They are the first choice when driving machinery with CAD / CAM software..
You can see for yourself when using these boxes to run computer driven machinery such as a router table. Strange goings appear when the AMD chips runs. You can hear the changes in the the motors on the router. You can see the results in the output. You can see the results in the time spent to run a job.
The Intel driven job comes out flawless first time every time. It runs the code faster and consistent and smooth. The AMD computers sit under the desk ready for use as desk top machines.
There is a reason why Intel can charge more for its processors. Some users know the difference because they see the difference. It all comes down to compatibility. Some software developers took advantage of Intel's techniques for data processing.