Some reading on amd/intel can be found from Tom’s Hardware guide can be found firstly here (first article) and then very entertaining reading here as a follow up. 
It just goes to show why extremist views are such a bad idea what ever they are in, not only politics, but even computers. :eek:
I don’t understand the point of his articles? Eek, AMD has a big fanbase… How dangerous… Or does he actually like AMD, but doensn’t like the atmosphere around it…?
>AMD-fanboy mode ON<
The writer of this article is EVIL! He is consumed by Intel!:a :a :a
£r@g h|$ p@nt$!!!
>AMD-fanboy mode OFF<
I like my AMD… 
Tom’s Hardware guide
Which is famous for its objectiveness, and well-thought out tests.
While it’s true that the fastest Intel is faster than the fastest AMD, you can buy two AMD’s and get a multi-processor system going for about 20 bucks more (for the motherboard enhancement). That’ll blow away any single processor Intel.
Indeed…
The extreenist coment probably wasnt really justified, i just htought some people might be amused to read the artical.
BTW I am an Intel man but i also find things like this funny - i was thinking of sticking a copy to my case 
So if AMD stops and some other small cpu companies too, Intel will own the whole market and can ask whatever price they want fore there hw. Yeah thats the situation you really want. What a dumb naive idiot…
I stopped reading his stuff after he claimed that you need a special compiler to use the SSE2 instruction set. rotfl!
This showed me that he sometimes writes about things that he doesn’t know anything about.
Of course, I’d never give away my BX chipset! Have you ever tried capturing some video from a dc10+ @ 6 MB/s to a raid-0, while copying 3 CDs (from 3 drives, 1 channel each) to the same array? Works fine for me…
As usual ,The reviews without much technical info or pictures of solder irons in it , are a little bullcrap on Tom’s HardwarePage.
I did buy an Amd Athlon Thunderbird B 900 MHz (9 x 100) about 2 years ago. Why ? Because it was CHEAP.
Yes… cheap … I am truly sorry Intel , but AMD was just then cheaper.
Now all my other systems are Intel based Pentium 1 systems (and one Celeron 500 system). Why ? Because they were CHEAP. Amazingly cheap and amazingly funny what you can still do with them on Linux or just Windows 98 SE. One’s an FTP server , another one is a firewall and another one is the pc with the 2 burners in it. Sorry AMD , but Intel P1’s make perfect bargain systems. Hell , even Celeron systems are much cheaper than Durons.
It’s not about being fan of Amd or Intel , or Liteon or whatever brand. Its about functionality , performance and price. And price comes first for me.
So , shoot me for not having super duper CAS2 memory in my systems , burn me for not using 80 Gb harddisk everywhere and loathe me for using Windows XP and/or Linux on all systems.
They all have their particular purpose.
For me, price is only the second important thing. If I can’t afford something, then I don’t buy it, and neither do I buy a cheaper alternative which is likely to cause trouble.
I will use that BX chipset until
(a) VIA makes a working one, with working drivers, as good as BX
(b) I have enough money to buy a faster Intel
Originally posted by alexnoe
For me, price is only the second important thing. If I can’t afford something, then I don’t buy it, and neither do I buy a cheaper alternative which is likely to cause trouble.
I will use that BX chipset until
(a) VIA makes a working one, with working drivers, as good as BX
(b) I have enough money to buy a faster Intel
I agree wiht most of what you say but not about VIA.
VIA make working chipsets… i have had my Asus PV3X4 (a via chipset based motherboard), if remember right, for over 2years with my PIII733 in it, no problems at all great piece of kit. And i dont see any need to upgrade yet. But when i eventually do in the next year it will be new intel gear all the way, as VIA dont ahve a P4 bus license, unless AMD have a really good alternaitve.
Originally posted by alexnoe
I will use that BX chipset until
(a) VIA makes a working one, with working drivers, as good as BX
(b) I have enough money to buy a faster Intel
I will never understand this argument. I’ve been using an AMD system with a VIA chipset (T-Bird 1.0 @ 1.4 on Iwill KK266) for the past year and a half. I ran it with Win2K for a year, and have been using XP Pro for the past 6 months. I’ve never experienced a crash or have had anything happen that would lead me to believe VIA chipsets are no less stable than anything Intel offers. So, if you have Windows 2000 or lower on your computer, you have to load a few drivers. Well, if you have a board with any of Intel’s latest chipsets, you have to do the same. With XP, it’s a different story. They’re not really necessary, as I’ve never installed any 4 in 1’s on my system, and have enjoyed an extremely stable system since day one.
I can understand how VIA got such a reputation, with the 686b southbridge problems, but with patches and BIOS updates…none of the previous problems exist. And if you’re gonna argue patches…never, ever run Windows…the entire OS is one huge patch over another…hehe
The problem is that I have 5 PCI cards (and one ISA which had to be replaced if I upgraded).
Due to their problems with IRQ sharing, VIA would never work for me.
And neither does my DC10+ capture card work reliably with VIA.
You need chipset drivers for intels, that’s true, but they don’t release updates every 4 weeks…because there’s no necessity to do that.
And you shouldn’t forget that P4 1,6A runs at 2,1 (and one out of two runs at 2,4), and 2,2A usually works at 2,93. And THEN it is fast. 
Originally posted by TechMastex
amd 0wnz y00:bow:
Well if that is the case at the momentits not likely to be for much longer judging from how deep into the red their balance sheet is…
poor amd - they’ve been in trouble ever since dell said ‘we proudly use intel pentium 4 processors’.
I don’t care what THG says… this ain’t the first time they are posting quite “extreme” texts in order to get more pagehits…
About Intel vs AMD? I’ve got both branders here. On the momeny, I am running:
2x Intel Pentium 1
1x Intel Pentium 4
1x AMD K6-2
1x AMD Athlon A
1x AMD Athlon C
I also had an AMD Athlon B and an Intel Pentium 2.
My conclusion: they all worked fine. If it comes to speed+quality/performance, AMD is clearly a winner. If it comes to chipsets, the BX was very good, better then any other.
When comparing my 2 topcomputers (Athlon C @ 1,2Ghz and P4 @ 2,0Ghz) I strongly prefer the AMD, since the CPU isn’t hardly any slower, but much cheaper and older.
Right, P4s of a speed equal to an AMD are much too expensive. But you can overlock them to fix that…
Originally posted by alexnoe
Right, P4s of a speed equal to an AMD are much too expensive. But you can overlock them to fix that…
Sorry, my laptop does not support overclocking
besides that, that a CPU can be OC’ed is nice, but in the real (proffessional) world, OC-ability is a worhless pre…
I don’t understand!!
Why are people saying that it’s the price that makes the difference. I hear a different shit with SCSI. Even though SCSI is way more expensive setup and the HDs are not that much faster than 7200 IDE HDs, people still prefer to pamper about SCSI and even suggeting it’s not that much more expensive. I have friend’s who have 7200 SCSI setup and they feel cheated because it not that much faster - okay 10,000 HDs are faster but way to pricy.
So if I’m not mistaken most people will still go for AMD even if Intel Pentium were considerably faster because of price difference.
As for AMD being of higher quality, how did you measure that - heat generated?
If so, shouldn’t Intel be of more quality - generates less heat?