some articles on that :
http://www.directron.com/i
here the winner is AMD : http://reviews.cnet.com/45
here the winner is Intel : http://www.pcstats.com/art
here the cpu comparison charts : http://www.cpubenchmark.ne
Main Topics
Browse All TopicsI would like to hear peoples opinion about the following question.
Would you use Intel or AMD, and why?
Thank you.
This Question has been solved and asker verified All Experts Exchange premium technology solutions are available to subscription members.
Experts Exchange has been collecting answers to technology questions since 1996…3 million and counting! If you have a question, chances are we already have your answer.
If you can't find the exact answer you're looking for, ask our exclusive community of 50,000 experts. You’ll get a personalized answer from a trusted professional.
Thousands of free tech tips, tricks, how-to’s and tutorials are available in our peer reviewed articles section. See for yourself how smart our experts are, no login required.
Access the answers to your technology questions today.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Members of the expert community talk about why the experience at Experts Exchange is different than what you will find anywhere else.

Try it out and discover for yourself.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Join the community of experts here and help other tech pros by answering question in your area of expertise. You can earn FREE access to all Experts Exchange's premium features and resources.
some articles on that :
http://www.directron.com/i
here the winner is AMD : http://reviews.cnet.com/45
here the winner is Intel : http://www.pcstats.com/art
here the cpu comparison charts : http://www.cpubenchmark.ne
"Intel has been problem free since day one" - so long as math wasn't important to you...
I'm fairly certain that Intel was the only processor company to issue a recall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wi
Now, that said, I agree with dbrunton - it depends on the task. For GENERAL servers that may not do a lot of work, I would suggest AMD since they tend to use less power than Intel when idle (which translates into lower costs).
As for reliability it's unwise to make a blanket statement for all processors as each model processor varies - just like each model car could have a better or worse repair record, each model processor could have issues - whether it's intel or amd.
My own experience, I had an old AMD K6-2 system that ran reliably for years, save the occasional BSOD on NT4 (roughly once per month).
More recently, I found the most SOLID system I've ever built and used runs on an AMD Athlon X2 that's about 2 years old. My previous best - with ANY version of Windows was about 3-4 months of uptime. Recently, I had my Windows Server 2003 Enterprise system (running SQL, Exchange, IIS, File and Print services) was up and running for MORE THAN 10 MONTHS and I only rebooted it because I installed software I forgot about that broke Outlook Web Access and I thought a reboot might resolve it.
>>save the occasional BSOD on NT4 (roughly once per month).
Errr... guess you haven't seen that much server accion do ya!!!
there were one time were I would have pick Intel over AMD when AMD didn't had the thermo "sumtin" that intel had for so many years... if the fan failed in an AMD you could had to bought a new CPU and maybe a new MoBo... with Intel that wouldn't happen!!!
By the way, that box the blue screened one a month on average - it was a Compaq Presario - not a server class system. And just because it had blue screens once a month doesn't mean it was the CPU's fault - a faulty NIC driver could have been the cause - as could dozens of other reasons.
And the point about the system that ran for 10+ months is that CLEARLY the CPU is not a problem for stability.
Which one I would choose depends on the timeframe and what I intend to use it for: I have both AMD and Intel cpus in my machines. Back when the Intel Celeron 300a was around, I chose that because it overclocked easily and I achieved 450 by just changing the FSB. When the Athlon XP came out, I got that because it was less expensive and could overclock to give it an advantage over the Intel equivalent. When the P4 1.6 and 1.8 came out, I got those because they could run 50% faster with just an FSB increase, again. The Athlon64 and Opteron was my choice over Intel when it clearly outperformed Intel's Netburst architecture and ran with less power. After Core2 Duo came out, I switched to it because it easily outperformed AMD's offerings by a wide margin. AMD's Phenom II is making some inroads now as a decent performer for a much lower price than Intel's quad cores. Finally, the i7 is top performer bar none right now, but it comes with a stiff price for both the processor and the X58 chipset motherboard.
I'm using mostly Xeon 5148. [One has 5138 instead.]
Core Architecture
Dual Core
Enough umpth for my needs now [boards are upgradable to quad cores if I need to]
64-bit
Less $$ than some other options
Only use 40 watts [Not much more than a P3] <- Power use was a biggie for me.
The systems have either 1 or 2 installed depending on what it's used for.
.
I also have some thin clients and a NAS that are using Pentium-M for low power consumption.
Business Accounts
Answer for Membership
by: dbruntonPosted on 2009-06-06 at 22:15:23ID: 24565408
This really depends on what you are doing.
You choose the processor for the purpose also looking at the cost as well.
Factors to consider, processor speed, bandwidth, power consumption, addressable memory, no of CPUs per chip, upgrade ability, reliability. Pick your own factors.
At the moment the Intel chips offer more bang for the buck. Good overclockability if you need it and generally all round good performance. The AMDs may have better bandwidth.
There is a new crop of AMDs coming which may match up to the Intels.