The CPU Poll
 

I couldn't find a thread that asked what type of CPU people prefer, so I started this poll thread.

The poll is about which CPU you prefer and not what you recommend to others, if that makes any sense.

[EDIT] Forgot to add my own preference.

Intel - Stable, high performance and durable.

AMD - cheap, reliable, fast.

I'll second that.
I've had no trouble what-so-ever with my AMD chip, and it didn't cost me the earth.

AMD has historically been cheaper than it's Intel counterpart for the most part, while still being just as reliable so I prefer them. With Conroe coming soon though, it seems the tables may shift a bit.

Conroe? Merom? Even Yonah's pretty badass. Why would you choose anything else? Intel.

Undecided.

What you want a machine for makes a big difference as to what I recommend to people. Depending on one's budget and intended use, I'll recommend Intel, AMD, Via, PPC.

For the most part I'd go with Pug's answer when building computers for other people. For myself, I think I'm on AMD's side. They do cost less in many cases and they're pretty damn stable.

I stopped caring here.

Referring to processors by their codename is a) not very helpful, b) not very informative, c) not very relevant.

All I know is that those are the Core2 chips. Nothing else.

San Diego. Why lie?

Yankees suck! Er...what were we talking about?

Hey, they came back from a 9-0 deficit last night. If you're going to throw around blanket statements like that, at least back them up with some facts.

I can't imagine why not, considering that's what people have been calling them since just about forever now. They only got "names" last week. Yes, they are Core 2 Extreme and Core 2 Duo respectively. They are the first chips based on the new Core architecture and are both dual-core. Conroe is the replacement for the Pentium 4, and is faster than the Athlon 64. Merom is the replacement for the Yonah "Core Duo" and obviously provides for a modest performance increase over that chip.

As to why I refer to them by their codenames, that's because it's easier to distinguish which actual chip you're talking about, especially when Intel's actual product naming scheme is so non-descript.

From what I've gathered, you don't actually need a reason to hate the Yankees when you live in New England, but I could actually care less about baseball.

I'd say "Expensive, reliable, fast". Current processor prices are overkill, taking into comparison the prices of the Athlon XP era.

If we're just talking the CPU itself I would have to choose AMD at the moment. However, you still need a chipset to use the CPU and AMD chipsets still just don't compare to Intel based chipsets.

I have both a Pentium 4 running an Intel based chipset and AMD 64 box run an nForce chipset and I tend to have various stability and reliability problems with the AMD box due to known problems with the nForce chipset. And sadly even with its problems, nForce chipsets are still the best choice for AMD CPUs.

Until the AMD chipsets are on par with the Intel chips, I will prefer Intel based systems.

Intel, it just works, and well. HT built into computers is extremely useful as well. Plus, theres no real price difference anymore.

And following in the tradition of totally random product names, Intel's making the Core 2 Duo name cover BOTH the Merom (mobile) and Conroe (desktop) cores. Only way to tell them apart is the model number. The Meroms will use the E5000 and E7000 series numbers, and the Conroes will use the E4000 and E6000 series numbers.

The only one called Core 2 Extreme will be the Conroe XE core, which I suppose is a replacement for the Pentium 4 EE (rebranded Xeon). Though, it's not a Woodcrest, which is the actual Core successor to the Xeon...

Son of a bitch, Intel. Props for making awesome new chips, NO props for your confusing-ass product lineup.

I selected AMD simply because since the debut of the Athlon, AMD has had a superior desktop architecture. I've also never had stability or overheating problems. If you know how to build systems and use properly selected parts, it shouldn't even be an issue.

Now that Intel is really taking advantage of its leadership in process technology and has resurrected the Pentium 3/M in the form of Core 2 Duo, they will have power and performance leadership in a few months. There will be some lag before AMD manages to catch up again through their K8L core which, despite the name, appears to be a heavily reworked K8 core. The new co-processor architecture that AMD is quickly maturing (where you can plug a dedicated microprocessor specialised for your particular needs in a spare CPu socket, directly accessing the same Hypertransport bus as the CPU), is a very exciting divergence from usual trends. Also remember that the Core 2 Duo architecture is aimed squarely at 1P-2P systems. They still have a big problem using an ancient bus architecture that doesn't provide these great cores they've desiged with enough data past a certain point. No doubt nVidia will help them out with that though someday.

For the last few years AMD has been more innovative and better at following through with their promises than Intel; hopefully they won't waste their hard-won gains.

I like my computer's Motorola processor. Is this too much? I like it becuase it makes no sound and little heat. ure it doesn't have the gizzmondles that these whatever brands have but it runs spreadsheets pretty fast.

Intel - Stable, high-performance, durable.

Perfect summary, so why change it?

Yes, I realize that I've been recommending the Athlon XP/Athlon 64 chips for years, and that I've called Intel chips overpriced junk (though that only really applies to their top of the line chips and the bottom-end Celerons) a few times...but the Core Duo and Core 2 Duo chips are a ton better than the Pentium 4. The current Core Duo T2600 rivals the FX-60 and beats the nasty hot expensive Pentium Extreme Edition chips at stock speeds, has a lot of overclocking headroom, costs $350 less than the FX-60, and uses less power than the AMD chip even when it's overclocked. If the Yonah chips are any indication, Conroe is going to be amazing when it comes out. o_o

Intel motherboards are better than AMD ones, too. VIA chipsets are just not very good, SiS chipsets test well but never show up on good boards, and nVidia ate ULi not too long ago. nForce 4 and XPress 3200 are good chipsets, but even they are prone to annoying little glitches, which the Intel chipsets never seem to run into. The only letdown is that there aren't a lot of Core Duo desktop motherboards right now.

CyrixInstead 4 lyfe, tho.

AMD. It's a cost thing. At least it was, the last time I looked. Things could have changed now.

I dunno, I was browsing Newegg and it seemed like all the AMD chips were pretty high up there, at least if you wanted anything over 1.8 Ghz. Is it Athlon64 or nothing now? I was hoping to snag a Barton so I wouldn't have to replace my motherboard in order to get a faster chip, but it seems like they're no longer on sale.

Well, you can still buy Socket A Sempron chips and (basic SiS748) motherboards. Of course, if you're looking for a speed boost, Semprons probably aren't going to do it for you.

Actually, the Socket A Semprons are kinda a rip. The Sempron 2800+ costs the same as my Athlon XP 2500+ Barton (a better processor in all ways) cost two years ago. o_o

Currently I'm using a Duron. I read reviews that say you're supposed to overclock it, but at the time that I bought it I was just looking for a cheap replacement to a broken CPU. I don't know the first thing about overclocking, though I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to read about it.

Undecided - I have had success with both brands. I currently have an AMD, but i have had 3 Intel's before it.