Nickname: JD

Review: I think AMD is still a bit ahead of Intel in power but it's getting a little blurry.

Date reviewed: Jan 25, 2007 5:11 AM

Nickname: haz

Review: How can you say that AMD wasn't around for the 1 GHz race? From what I recall (as someone below also does) they had it before Intel, and much better too.

Date reviewed: Sep 25, 2006 10:17 PM

Nickname: aFortune300Company

Review: The newest Intel CPUs reduce power consumption and Intel does a lot of crowing about the efficiency, but the architecture required to support those CPUs cause the entire system to use more power than the AMD system architecture. A more efficient Intel CPU by itself is useless, but Intel has to have something to feed its marketing machine.

Date reviewed: Sep 25, 2006 6:35 PM

Nickname: intel/amd fan

Review: I buy what is the best speed/value at the current time and so far have bougt 3 intel and 2 AMD CPU's. I still have the 3 Intel computers and only one of the AMD computers. What people don't understand is that many businesses use Intel because their warranty is much better than AMD. Intel doesn't hassle you when you make a claim while AMD is a little more difficult to deal with. Both make decent processors but Intel has the money and manufacturing to be cutting edge once they wake up to a competitive reality. AMD on the other hand may once in a while produce something exceptional like the Opteron/X2 but to be always on top takes lots of money of which Intel has and AMD doesn't.

Date reviewed: Sep 25, 2006 3:51 PM

Nickname: foo

Review: So when Woodcrest comes out are they going to count backwards?

Date reviewed: May 31, 2006 4:41 PM

Nickname: performancegeek

Review: If you have ever noticed, in libraries, schools, and other public buildings, the computers usually have an "Intel Inside" sticker on them. I run an AMD sempron. I haven't had any crash problems. Meanwhile. I have a friend that has Intels, as well. And they always call me for tech support because Intel processors are retarded. They run slower and have a higher tendancy to crash. So while Intel machines are in the shop I'm happily playing Quake 4 on my AMD system.

Date reviewed: May 19, 2006 3:54 PM

Nickname: Spidey

Review: I don't understand why everyone is saying that AMD wasn't around for the 1 Ghz race. AMD's Athlon was the first x86 processor to hit 1 Ghz and Intel caught up later to 1 Ghz clock speed shortly after. It's inevitable that Intel and AMD will have a relationship similar to ATI and Nvidia.

Date reviewed: May 17, 2006 9:03 PM

Nickname: Intel insider

Review: It's funny to hear someone from AMD touting their SOI and SiGe. About one generation behind unfortunately, and I recall the papers from two years hence published. And it's unlikely that a miracle has occured that will get your yields high enough to really matter. Allow me to state that the sleeping giant has been awoken after two development cycles going down the wrong path.

Date reviewed: May 16, 2006 10:10 PM

Nickname: Kam

Review: AMD has always been touted as the miracle underdog by all kinds of business articles. They always have these great designs followed by great marketing. Than AMD consistently follows it up with execution errors. Factories were always not producing enough, properly, or what-not. But hey, it's always fun to watch the AMD ticker talked up by "enthusiasts" and than fall like a rock as the smart ones collect on the short positions.

Date reviewed: May 12, 2006 5:11 PM

Nickname: AMD Test Sample

Review: There is one thing to be said here. The only thing that somebody is going to say about a inferior cpu is a fan boy. Both Intel and AMD are the best. No cpu company makes inferior cpus only in the fanboys mind really. Now we are working on 65nm(SOI)(e-SiGe)(SMT) on 300mm wafers at fab30 and will continue at fab36. And I will tell you right now. We are more then ready to combat Intel with our Rev G products. We just need time to mass produce them.

Date reviewed: May 10, 2006 8:20 AM