Preferred Processor

Obviously at this point Intel has the better quad core processor. It is said that the Phenom (AMD's quad core) is temporarily weaker and AMD does realize this.

So excluding quad cores, who do you feel is the best processor company? Give specific reasons, not just "Because Intel tends to be the first choice of manufacturers" or "Because AMD has a larger socket".

Intel FTW!! :p

Intel up, AMD down... hmm and Sony up!

Because... Intel vs AMD

Performance is better with Intel
Thanks to the new core'sability to clock high, Intel has retaken the performance crown awayfrom AMD and doesn't look like they'll be losing it any time soon.Iknow AMD loyalists will scream this "Ya, Intel has the performancecrown, but their CPU's run 700-800 MHz higher then AMD's! That's notfair, also you can overclock an Athlon to beat a P4." First, life's notfai r- that should be pretty obvious and so what if Intel CPU's need torun 700-800 MHz higher in order to beat an AthlonXP 2200+ (1.8 GHz)?Faster performance is faster performance and Intel's wearing the crownat the moment. AMD CPU's do overclock well and they're more fun to playwith thanks to the ability to unlock the multiplier but you can alsooverclock P4's. Almost all 1.6A's out there can hit 2.4 GHz withouteven breaking a sweat, and many even can do 2.7 GHz! Then again, whatsthe point in overclocking, when the game probably doesnt even need thepower?

Cooling is better with Intel
This is a placewhere Intel is far and away way superior to AMD. Of course, as they area much larger company Intel can hire more dedicated engineers to designcooling solutions for their CPU's - but have you actually looked at theheatsink/fan's that come with retail boxed P4's and AMD processors?

Theretail Intel heatsink is just designed so well. Not only does it have amassive amount of surface area to draw away the heat a P4 produces(highly clocked P4's can generate close to what high end AMD CPU's do),it also acts as a huge EMI shield! They're so good that evenenthusiasts are using them to cool their overclocked processors!Another nice thing is just how quiet the fan is. In an enclosed caseit's often almost impossible to hear it.

AMD could learn a thingor two from Intel on this, of course though I do understand that AMD ismuch smaller and cannot devote their engineer's time to designingbetter thermal solutions. They're moving in the right direction though,from those cheap generic heatsinks to Skive based models, to nowrequiring heatsinks to have a copper base in order to get AMD approval.

Ive even heard this...
Idon't frequent forums much myself anymore but whenever I see peopleclaiming that the benchmarks being used are skewed towards Intel, itreally makes my blood boil. That has got to be the most uninformedthing I've ever heard. Yes, there's a huge conspiracy against AMD andall the hardware sites are secretly being paid off by Intel to run"Intel based benchmarks", that's the only reason why Intel beats AMD...ludicrous!

And then theres this....
AMD or Intel

But Sun and VIA....?

hmm

I would have to disagree with a lot of that - keep in mind that everything I'm about to say is either stating what is just plain false or I'm trying to set an argument. I'm NOT trying to favor AMD in this.

Performance, I really don't know which is why I posted this topic in the first place so it could be possible that Intel's dual cores are better than AMDs but I've never seen solid proof, so to me both companies are equal, especialy since they both have around the same stats that they provide. For example, a 2.4GHz dual core AMD is a 3800+. A 2.4 dual core Intel gives the same number. (I noticed Intel took AMD's idea of what the processor actually performs like.)
Also adding to your other comment, Intel's fastest FSB is 1033MHz. I haven't checked in a while but AMD's is 1000 but due to Hyper Transport, they claim its actually 2000.
With overclocking, I'm assuming AMD is better for that since Intel was previously known for bottleknecking (I'm not sure if it still is) and AMD used to have larger pipelines (again, I'm not sure if it still does). You can't overclock well when you have bottleknecking and with more and wider pipelines, its almost like you're supposed to which is why so many (older) AMD users could overclock without raising voltage.

Cooling is the only thing you said that I feel was entirely wrong or made up. I constantly hear people complain about Intel's cooling system because "its so massive, extremely hard to install, and you can't tell if its in right or not". I'm not stating my opinion of what I think of it. If you have proven how well these heatsinks cool off then great, you're correct about what you said. But due to the empty gap in the 775 and a smaller die, Intels automatically get a disadvantage towards cooling, even if they're less than 40C. What makes a processor so cool is not so much of how large the heatsink is but how well it disperses heat (which is more than how big it is), how large the die is, and how much air is caught in between.

Anyways, about Sun, I haven't trie it but I heard that their latest processor, the UltraSPARC T2, is actually significantly better than both Intel and AMD for server processors. That is a quad core (acts as 8 though) so obviously that can't really work for this survey, but maybe the T1 is almost as good, I'm not sure.

Again, other than the heat topic, I'm not saying you're entirely wrong. I'm trying to put up an argument.