Posted: 11/11/2008 7:43:42 PM EDT
|
I'm getting ready to drop $500 on a laptop. Seems like I can get more AMD for the money. Is there any reason to avoid them? Heat? Battery life? I've never done a laptop, so I'm pretty clueless.
I need it tomorrow, so I sorta have to stick w/ the box stores. |
|
I have no scientific data to support my opinion. I heard in several circles the the Intel Duo Core 2 is the way to go over the AMD processor.
I have two laptops. I went with the Intel Duo Core 2 1.8gb processor for both of them and they run great. They both have Vista and lots of RAM. If you're stuck with Vista, spring for as much RAM as the motherboard will support. A minimum of 2gb. |
|
i have a compaq with the 1.7 gig amd and the wife has the satellite with the 1.6 gig intel.
they both run good. battery life on the compaq seems to last a little longer, but not enough to make a difference. the intel seems to run a little hotter. based on that...... i can't help you.... |
| You can get a decent performing CPU for less with AMD. Sure the Intel processor will technically run faster than an equally clocked AMD, but in a cheap laptop being used for email and internet, you wouldn't really notice a difference. The cheaper AMD processor will allow more memory and accessories than an Intel. |
| I've always gone with AMD because of the price and a genius buddy who says they are comparable except where heat is an issue. AMD's run a little hotter. But 2 years on this laptop with an AMD dualcore running it all day with lots of PS renders and it's still cooking. AMD was $200 cheaper than intel when I bought it and it had a better MB. |
|
Quoted:
You can get a decent performing CPU for less with AMD. Sure the Intel processor will technically run faster than an equally clocked AMD, but in a cheap laptop being used for email and internet, you wouldn't really notice a difference. The cheaper AMD processor will allow more memory and accessories than an Intel. +1 laptops suck for graphics work in that price range. |
|
Quoted:
When 64-bit processors became the norm, AMD was ahead. Now, I think Intel has rebounded. Just be sure to get a warranty with that PC and backup your important data, and you should be fine. +1. AMD was the shit and far ahead of the curve a few years ago but Intel has retaken the lead. I personally would still rather have an AMD...I can't stand intel for some reason. I'm sure AMD will be back on top soon enough, then Intel will take the lead again...it's a never ending cycle. Just get the one that suits your needs the best. IMO AMD is more bang for hte buck for sure. |
|
Quoted:
When 64-bit processors became the norm, AMD was ahead. Now, I think Intel has rebounded. Just be sure to get a warranty with that PC and backup your important data, and you should be fine. This. AMD had some razors edge technology a couple years ago, but Intel has pulled in the lead since then. |