>>if it's not intel, i don't run it.>>>>i can't stand their misleading naming scheme for one.>>seiously.. xp1800, xp3200++++++ azzzxdfd223232+!!! and so>>forth all just numbers corresponding to nothing. Fx64..>>ZMx3343 >>>>i never bought into the hype of amd because it is mostly>>vapour. and hardly cheaper if you really want to have a good>>system. also the resale value of intels can't be beat. 3>years>>later they still have value. >>>>yes i've used AMD. no, never going that route again. >>>Intel also uses a numbering naming scheme now, Intels numbers>are actually less meaningful than AMD's. AMD's have always>been cheaper when buying a new system for me, usually by up to>20% for the same performance. As for resale, I don't think>most computers enough value left after 3 years for resale to>even be a factor considering they'd probalby sell for 1/10th>the original price.I am talking about the CPU. computers as a package never have any value. that's why you build them, and don't buy them. one processor i bought 3 years ago for 200$ today it is worth 90 on ebay. i would say that is something. it's better at resale than my car. scary.

>My last 4 FS computers have been built with AMD chips and I>have never had a problem. I wonder how much money I have saved>and how much better my performance has been?>>Hope this helps,>JimI'm afraid to say, theres something wrong with your systems since they work without problems......then again running notepad never does strain a system....I wonder why you had to build 4 AMD machines to get 1 Intels power? :((Dry sarcastic humour here :) )

Well Intels duel core processors are cheaper then AMD's duel core processors. Maybe they are trying to show that FSX can look great on a budget as well so they went with Intel.

Uhm..your comment about Intel being the professional brand was very try in the K6-2 days..which was about..8 years ago...

I've been using AMD for aprox 7 years now and have never encountered any incompatibility issues or performance problems either...yes, I've been through a few CPU's over that time, but only due to upgrading; never from problems!The AMD 'nonsense' numbering system that has been in place for a few years now is used as an indicator as to the effective performance of the chip, even though it's core atually runs a lot more slowly....my current (and soon to be upgraded!) Athlon 3000+ is roughly the equivalent of an Intel P4 3.0ghz CPU.... Now then, Intel have also recently introduced their new numbering system, but what on Earth does it mean? What is a D805? Or a D920? etc.....there's nothing there to indicate that the D920 is running at 2.8ghz x2! And you call AMD's numbering nonsensical..!!However, having said that, I must confess that I DO like the look of the new Intel Dual Cores, and if when I'm ready to upgrade, the performance/

Duel core? Interesting given the topic here :)Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

This is sounding like a couple of rednecks debating Ford vs. Chevy.Don't get hung on any one brand. Here's an over-simplified history of who's best, and when...Intel started the x86 series and lead the way... AMD followed with K5, K6 and K7 processors.Both manufacturers ran into serious overheating limitations when trying to push the x86 architecture performance any further than around a 2 Gig P4... neither one could resolve it because it was a limitation of the design.AMD was first to break tradition, investing several years in R&D while they sucked hind teat....Then AMD released their new architecture a couple of years ago... an architecture that didn't suffer from the x86's heat issues.At the moment, AMD has been kicking Intel's butt for a couple of years and, as of three years ago, the estimate was that it would take Intel 5 years of R&D to come up with a completely new architecture that was compatable. Oddly enough, 5 years is around the same amount of time that AMD spent developing theirs.So for now, fortunes have reversed. P4 machines are getting glitchy because the architecture can't handle the strain and Intel's next generation isn't ready yet. AMD, on the other hand, has had their next generation out for a couple of years now.In 3 years, who knows what the state of things will be. Both manufacturers will press their new architecture for every CPU cycle they can squeeze out of them before breaking off in a new direction again.The only thing that I think can be predicted is that Intel will not make the mistake of riding a horse way beyond it's limits again. They're currently loosing a lot of market share to AMD because they made that mistake a few years ago. Both manufacturers will be proactive when it comes to developing the next-next-generation, if for no other reason than to try to stay ahead of the competition.Don't get hung on a label... "Intel Inside" means nothing. Look at what's inside the chip, no matter who made it.I own 2 PIII's but when P4 came out, AMD was pulling ahead... so I also own an XP2000+ and now a Sempron 2600 class 4000+. I've been happy with them all... because I stayed away from any processor that was pushed too far past it's solid performance envelope.Scott / Vorlin

Same here. Only molten or fried CPUs I've seen were AMDs (at least from the Intel compatible lines).

>I used AMD for many years, then switched to the professional>brand - Intel and that solved many hours of frustration each>week.>>Intel is perhaps priced higher than AMD, but then again, you>mostly get what you pay for.>Intel might also seem a little 'dry' to some 'gamers' compared>to AMD that seem all glitzy about their products, but then>again, whats better? Fact (Intel) or fantasy (AMD)?........... FOR YOU!!Why is it people have to "assume" their experience is the be all/end all of experience? I've used both and AMD performs perfectly for me at present, but we'll see what the future brings. Sorry you have had a bad experience from AMD, but obviosly not everyone has. :-rollProfessional brand, yeah right, I'll pass that on to the techs at work so they can replace the AMD systems that we use (along side the Intel ones), LOLRegards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

>Why is it people have to "assume" their experience is the be>all/end all of experience? I've used both and AMD performs>perfectly for me at present, but we'll see what the future>brings. Sorry you have had a bad experience from AMD, but>obviosly not everyone has. :-roll>In the past, I bought a new Intel about every two years; and no real problems. And these days, I'm still running this AMD 1900XP for what must be about five years now. It has been absolutely NO problem either, but time to upgrade I suppose. Wouldn't hesitate to go the AMD route again.L.Adamson

I have been with AMD since my good ol 1500. I now run an AMD 4000 and I have had 0 issues with it and cost much less than a similar Intel CPU. ...............Randy J. Smith................CAUTION! My views represent no one but my own. While I do help companies test products - this in no way means I represent them in ANY fashion.[h4]Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations[/h4]

>>>if it's not intel, i don't run it.>>>>>>i can't stand their misleading naming scheme for one.>>>seiously.. xp1800, xp3200++++++ azzzxdfd223232+!!! and so>>>forth all just numbers corresponding to nothing. Fx64..>>>ZMx3343 >>>>>>i never bought into the hype of amd because it is mostly>>>vapour. and hardly cheaper if you really want to have a>good>>>system. also the resale value of intels can't be beat. 3>>years>>>later they still have value. >>>>>>yes i've used AMD. no, never going that route again. >>>>>>Intel also uses a numbering naming scheme now, Intels>numbers>>are actually less meaningful than AMD's. AMD's have always>>been cheaper when buying a new system for me, usually by up>to>>20% for the same performance. As for resale, I don't think>>most computers enough value left after 3 years for resale to>>even be a factor considering they'd probalby sell for 1/10th>>the original price.>>>I am talking about the CPU. computers as a package never have>any value. that's why you build them, and don't buy them. one>processor i bought 3 years ago for 200$ today it is worth 90>on ebay. i would say that is something. it's better at resale>than my car. scary. >>>AMD has around the same resale value as Intel. My 2600M was bought at 99 dollars in 4/04 and now seen at 80 dollars. My 1700+ bought in '01 for 170 is around 45.

Same here Randy. I find this whole thread and some "proclamaitions" here laughable.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

I honestly don't know which is better.But I will say this:AMD stock is up 51% since January ;)Pretty good performance at least on that note.Andrew

>I honestly don't know which is better.>But I will say this:>AMD stock is up 51% since January ;)>Pretty good performance at least on that note.>AndrewHmmmm, Ford stock is up, whilst Ferrari stock is down.I know which is better..........