Intel vs AMD long-term
 

A good friend told me that on comparable systems, a new AMD cpu was much faster than a new Intel cpu, but that, after a year, the Intel system would run better. Has anyone any experience with this?

Not trying to start a war, I'm going to re-build an old computer, and I want it to last.

I can see no reason for an AMD cpu to slow down over time in comparison to an Intel cpu. Choice of cpu is in my opinion a totally personal thing. I make no secret of the fact that I generally choose AMD when building systems, but if the customer chooses Intel then that is not a problem.
I can only think that your friend misinformed as my home systems run both AMD and Intel and I have never seen this phenomena.

No, I can't think of any reason why an AMD would slow down, but this wasn't something that he read on a website. This was an observation from years of work. I just haven't ever heard anyone else say that, and I was leaning toward AMD myself.

I'd ask your friend to back up his stories with some factual evidence from a reliable source. I'll guess that what your friend is describing is simply a matter of perception, and which happens with all new computers: when they're brand new, they seem a lot faster than the old machines that they've replaced, but given Moore's Law, after a couple of years, the older CPU's seem pathetically slow.

Personally, I'm using both Intel and AMD CPU's, and consider AMD's to have a slightly better price/performance ratio. Just my 2 cents.

In any case, as this isn't really a Linux technical question, I'm moving it to General

I don't know why, but for some reason my AMD K6-2 just doesn't seem as fast as it used to be... Hrmmm... :p

Seems like a ridiculous idea to me.

Was your friend drunk when he told you this weird thing :P . Actually choice of CPU is a personal thing. I like AMD and my friend loves Intel. 2nd. AMD is cheaper these days.

Reminds me of the theory of relativity. My Intel Pentium 4 system has a lot of expansion boards installed and lately it is slow. Probably from the all the devices fighting for attention. My AMD Athlon system is fast, but it does not have as many expansion boards installed. The AMD system now has some capacitors starting to become irregular, so I will need to get a new system soon. My AMD 80386DX-40 has always been fast from the start and to the point I stop using it, but its hardware is well integrated (not built-in) to have no conflicts.

Through the years AMD can handle processing multiple data at once. Intel processors have blah performance through years of using them. My future system(s) will be AMD because they seem faster while Intel to me seems slow. Also AMD systems are cheaper.

Probably your friend is relating speed of the computer to the hard drive. Over time the hard drive will be doing more ECC compared to the time that you first got it. If you use spinrite to compare the amount of ECC that hard drive is doing to two different times that you ran the scan, the second time should be higher. Higher ECC counts means the hard drive is losing performance and the computer have to wait to retrieve the data.

I'm with the 'this is rubbish' faction here. Unless maybe he meant 'With Intel it will be easier to upgrade to a faster CPU' (and that's currently questionable, but my have been correct in the recent past).

There are definitely good cheap AMD system components available. But the same is true of Intel, but you just have to be more careful about the CPU and mobo selection.

Computers (ie HW + SW_ do indeed slow down as they get more filled up with data and programs. This is a function of how they are used. The old conventional wisdom with Windows was to reinstall at least once a year. While I have read that this was less of an issue starting with XP, it was certainly true for me on Win2K.

I can think of no plausible reason why the choice of hardware would make any difference in how a system ages.

One small effect is that more software developers profile their code on Intel CPUs than on AMD, so the performance reduction of newer software (because it is also bigger) may be less on Intel CPUs of the generation during which that software was developed than on AMD CPUs of that same generation.

But I don't think that is anywhere near big enough to support the claim at the top of this thread.

Actually, I've started to wonder if the whole thing was software related. I know that lately his favorite laptop has started to bog down after a couple of years of working well. :) Maybe M$ doesn't like AMD?

Well, on MS, there is a marked tendency for things to slow down. I wouldn't want to say that there is any difference based on CPU, but there is probably a big difference dependant on how many third party widgets you install (and unsuccesfully de-install). And then there is fragmentation...

so, in summary

• I suppose this could happen, but I don't see any reason why it should
• Someone could do a worthwhile experiment on this , but one person's random experience of a few systems doesn't mean much as it could be all the other uncontrolled variables that are causing the differnce
• Even if it applied to MS (& my opinion is that it doesn't, but I'd be prepared to change that opinion if there were worthwhile evidence), that is no indication that it would aopply under a working OS

OK, thanks to all. When I start my rebuild, that's one thing I won't worry about.

Hey
 

There's no pint to discuss, LOls AMD gets slow year after year, i don't feel so and never ever experienced. The choice of CPU is fprm person to person, no matter whether its intel or AMD. I personally like Intel.