Favorite x86 CPU manufacturer for...

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I was going to create a poll for this, but then I thought - hey! a favorite or recommended CPU manufacturer may vary widely depending on the intended application. So, instead of me creating countless permutations and combinations, I'll just list some options and let it go from there.

For the CPU manufacturer itself - I am only aware of three companies that currently make x86 CPUs - Intel, AMD, and VIA.

Which do you like for the following applications:

desktop
workstation
server
laptop
gaming
multimedia intensive applications
embedded
...the choices are endless, feel free to add them


Feel free to add more choices, combinations, commentaries, etc., etc. And if you are adamant about some other architecture for a particular application, don't feel shy about expressing that.

[BSDfan666]

I've always been fond of AMD processors, they seem quite durable and tend to preform slightly better.

Note, this is based on my own experience, I don't own any *very* recent processors from either manufacture.. Intel may have cleaned up their act, I wouldn't know.

[vermaden]

desktop
intel e2xxx seris / amd x2 series

workstation
intel e2xxx seris (with OC) / amd x2 series (with OC) / Intel Core 2 Quad / AMD Barcelona

server
check workstation and ann xeons and server opterons from AMD Barcelona

laptop
Intel p8400 (25W TDP) and low voltage ones from Intel Montevina (Centrino 2) platform.
Dual Core Atom with HT (1st half of next year)
Dual Core VIA NANO (Isaiah) (1st half of next year)

gaming
intel e2xxx series (with OC) / amd x2 series (with OC)

multimedia intensive applications
any of the above from AMD or Intel Core 2

embedded
ARM / PowerPC / VIA NANO / Intel Atom

[TerryP]

Well, personally I don't give a darn as long as it is reliable and meets my needs but I tend to favor Intel by experience.


Over the course of my life, on computers I've had 7 Intel chips, 1 AMD chip, and 1 Motorola chip.

Intel 8088, Pentium I, Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium 4, Pentium D, Celeron D, AMD Sempron Mobile, and a Motorola 6809* chip.


I've also used other peoples machines with AMD Athlon XP and K6-3D chips without being very impressed.


I've mostly had Intel CPUs and I've never had bad things to say, if I was going to buy a new computer I would probably aim for an Intel chip in the E6600 or E6400 range along with a gig of ram.



I would love to try a good AMD box for a gaming machine though.


As far as AMD/Intel goes, given suitably similar hardware I would love to test compile times on AMD and Intels comparable mainstream chips.

Compile a FreeBSD kernel, Linux 2.6, FreeBSD (kernel+world), GCC4.x, and Qt4.x on each machine and note the time it takes from start to finish each one.

[DrJ]

workstation
intel e2xxx seris (with OC) / amd x2 series (with OC) / Intel Core 2 Quad / AMD Barcelona
A workstation for me still uses ECC/Reg memory. I'd go Intel, with a board like this one: http://www.tyan.com/product_board_detail.aspx?pid=560
HP sells pre-packaged version as their xw8600:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF06a/12454-12454-296719-307907-296721-3432827.html

[TerryP]

My word DrJ, that board must cost an arm and a leg plus interest :\


But it's certainly to drool over...

[DrJ]

About $400. The processors, if you want any reasonable speed, are about $1K each, and you should have two of course (for eight cores total). If you need any more power you really should be running on a cluster.

Workstations traditionally have been used for applications where you can't have an error, so not using ECC memory is just not a good idea. The registration comes in for the large amounts of memory some of those applications they consume. They really are servers with one or more good video cards.

If you don't meet those requirements, I'd call it a desktop. But that's just me. I remember back in the old days when people were running MS-DOS with 640K memory. I had a Sun (with a 68020!) and 4MB memory. It was considered a monster then. Today's workstations should count as such too.

[phoenix]

For desktops, it's pretty much all the sme to me.

For laptops, you really can't beat Intel's Core2 Duo-based Centrino platform.

For servers, I won't touch an Intel setup. Opteron all the way, especially the 3rd gen ones (K10/Barcelona, all the 4-digit model numbers). When it comes to hardware virtualisation and 64-bit support, Intel has dropped the ball too many times. Not to mention their prices are exhorbitant for quad-core setups, the memory requirements are ludicrous, and they have a habit of changing sockets/ram with minor cpu speed bumps.

The only good thing to say about Intel in the server room, IMO/IME, is that their chipsets tend to be rock-solid. But that's not enough for me to recommend them to the higher-ups.

[mfaridi]

when I buy computer I use AMD and after that AMD* again and I will use AMD again all times
foe Desktop and Server , sometimes I think AMD is much powerful than INTEL

[ephemera]

for desktops i stick with intel. also, i only buy the boards made by intel.

for laptops, core2 duo/centrino.

[drhowarddrfine]

You can't say unless you investigate it. It's easy to just say Intel or AMD based on past experience but past experience is no guarantee of future happiness. For a while Intel and AMD would leapfrog over each other in the gaming area. Intel seems to have captured that area now. To really know which is the better one to use, you need to either test or read performance and reliability reports.

Personally, I preferred that Motorola 68K line over anything Intel or AMD ever came out with.

[roddierod]

I use AMD Opteron for my machines now. I use those because a group of engineers that designed the Dec Alpha chips put alot of what that did and wanted to do with the Alpha into the design of the 64bit Opterons.

The 64Bit Opterons seem to perform better than the Xeons.

[ninjatux]

I don't care. Just give me something that works well for my needs, and I'll be happy.