PDA

View Full Version : AMD or Intel? Your thoughts?


Nookieaki
08-09-2010, 9:52 PM
Well, it's been atleast 6+ years since I build my last computer. I was running an Athlon XP 2800 with 1.5gb of ram. That was then.



Fast forward 6 years and now we have dual core/quad core and even six core processors. I was leaning towards an AMD Phenom II 3.1GHZ Dual Core processor, I can't afford anything close to that i5 or i7 of intel's equivalent chip.


I'm just curious, what chipset are you guys running and why? Thanks in advance!

HK4113
08-09-2010, 10:04 PM
AMD. Because you get the best bang for your buck.

bombadillo
08-09-2010, 10:14 PM
I've had AMD for the last 9 years and they've been nothing but awesome to me. I have heard that Intel offers better products yada yada yada... But AMD has never failed me yet and I get WAY more for the money so I'm gonna stick with them for now until they prove me otherwise.

The Fugitive
08-09-2010, 10:19 PM
AMD. My current one is phenom ll x4 920 2.8. I play games mostly. Can't wait for Fusion.

StephenhDMRS
08-09-2010, 10:20 PM
For $200 bucks I got one of the fastest processors the Core I-5. Hands down beats everything amd has to offer. I put together a computer for $800 bucks and I can play any and all games(which is what I mainly do and it's also a home theater computer and music player). Amd is great if your on a budget. Intel is seriously only a few bucks more. This can all be put into our gun comparison. Go cheap for your guns? or spend a bit more and get quality. Neither will fail most likely. One is cheap and you get a lot less for it. I do a lot of computer intensive programs and things so I need it to run efficiently. If I didn't, AMD is fine.

nick
08-09-2010, 10:26 PM
There was a time when I would've recommended AMDs, but these days they just can't compete with Intel's offerings. AMD has some serious catching up to do.

When you're deciding on a CPU, and you plan to run Windows 7, make sure it's the CPU with VT.

patriot_man
08-09-2010, 10:33 PM
Intel.. AMD is way too far behind.

NaughtyMonkey
08-09-2010, 10:33 PM
My honest opinion is, Its mainly up to you, Intels seem to run faster and be able to process better. But AMD's seem to be alot cheaper. What I would do, is figure out how much you want to spend, lets use $150 for an example, look up all the processors that are in that price range and then pick which would work best for you, rather it be games or video editing, etc.

thevic
08-09-2010, 10:44 PM
i use a nuero-net processor. its a learning computer.


besides that AMD all the way

JimmyD
08-09-2010, 10:59 PM
what will it be used for? if you want the best, Intel
if you want budget performance, AMD
considering CPU prices only, i think price per performance between AMD and Intel are roughly the same up until the AMD Phenom II X3 710/720s (probably the best bang for buck CPU). AMD motherboards are also a little bit cheaper which would then give it the edge price/performance-wise

bigmike82
08-09-2010, 11:46 PM
Glock or HK?

I prefer Intel.

Brianguy
08-09-2010, 11:59 PM
I was all about AMD and I even went to some fanboy thing in Industry way back in the day but AMD is slipping lately. If you need a workhorse at a good price get the 6 core amd. If you want to game get an intel.

JDay
08-09-2010, 11:59 PM
AMD. Because you get the best bang for your buck.

Intel is worth the premium if you need the speed, i.e. databases, transcoding, 3d rendering, etc.

Nookieaki
08-10-2010, 12:01 AM
Ok, to be totally honest with you guys. The REAL reason I'm upgrading is because of starcraft II.

Everyone is talking about quad core processors but I was told that dual core processors utilize the most( out of all ) programs out there and that quad core processors aren't necessarily faster because of all the extra cores. So pretty much these virtual core(s) aren't worth the money?

I was leaning towards the Phenom II Dual Core 3.1Ghz, because of it's speed vs price. I just want a system that can handle pretty much any game that's out there right now without costing more than my AR15. :)

JDay
08-10-2010, 12:01 AM
There was a time when I would've recommended AMDs, but these days they just can't compete with Intel's offerings. AMD has some serious catching up to do.

When you're deciding on a CPU, and you plan to run Windows 7, make sure it's the CPU with VT.

The AMD processors that "compete" with intels all have VT. Although I wouldn't say they really compete since they fill a different market need (low cost gaming processors). The money you save buying an AMD you will also end up losing due to the higher power bill over time, you see, the Intel processors (i5, i7) shut off unused cores and use less power than the AMD CPUs.

bigmike82
08-10-2010, 12:16 AM
"Ok, to be totally honest with you guys. The REAL reason I'm upgrading is because of starcraft II. "

If that's why...

Intel Core Duo. 6 GB Ram. Nvidia 250 gts.

You don't need anything more. Spend the rest on a gun. :D

odysseus
08-10-2010, 12:22 AM
Intel is the lead in most cases right now, due to ability and power management. Really though, most PC users really won't know the difference with somewhat comparable offerings.

den888
08-10-2010, 7:48 AM
I have had both AMD and Intel in the past, but my current PC's all run Intel processors. Frankly, I cannot tell the difference between them !

AJAX22
08-10-2010, 7:52 AM
Amd is wayyyyy behind intel...

Once intel revised it's pricing system to make it's new product available without a new adopter premium they pretty much took over the market.

kapache
08-10-2010, 8:28 AM
INTEL NUFF SAID. Intel is 100% ahead of AMD, back in the late 90s AMD had the upper hand with their over clocking capabilities, but nowadays Intel has way more to offer than AMD overclocking feature.

StephenhDMRS
08-10-2010, 8:40 AM
Intel especially in that case. Intel uses less power than AMD. And also... Just because it's higher clocked doesn't mean it works faster/better than a lower clocked Intel. I've read enough processor reviews and the numbers to see that intel always beats amd comparably and even a 2.6ghz intel processor will beat a 3.1 amd processor

I play starcraft 2 and I can say with mainly all games, it comes down to your video card. If your going to sacrifice on money savings, do it with the CPU. The GPU can make it for A LOT.

beaster
08-10-2010, 11:09 AM
My wife used to work for AMD, and they're always a step behind Intel. Not sure how Intel does it, but I know AMD has offshored and outsourced most of their operations out of California to Asia and Canada and centralized manufacturing in Texas. OK, so I'm biased, but AMD products will never enter my house again.:iggy:

choprzrul
08-10-2010, 11:26 AM
I am confused. No one seems to compare a $100 AMD processor to a $100 Intel processor. I would be interested to see benchmark results when the $$ spent are equal rather than claimed GHz or whatever. I am thinking that it would make more sense to compare this way as most people have a budget they allow themselves on a build.

Now, how does the Intel/AMD comparison work when you add the Intel-based MB chipset and graphics card? Obviously, it makes sense to stay vendor specific throughout the build. Just my $.02

Brianguy
08-10-2010, 11:58 AM
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

Paragun
08-10-2010, 12:15 PM
I think you guys are missing the bigger picture here. It's no longer the CPU that makes a good or great computer, it is important, but not the only thing to consider. Just take a look at your windows task manager, performance tab. When do you ever hit 100% CPU usage?
I have the AMD Phenom II X4 965 3.40Ghz and I have never seen it go above 34% on any core.
You should also consider your motherboards chipset, the speed of your memory, and the graphics card. For games I would place more consideration on the graphics card as it will do most of the rendering.

choprzrul
08-10-2010, 1:08 PM
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

Nice link. Looks like the AMD Phenom rules the Benchmark/$$ chart. Better known as 'bang for the buck'???
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_alltime.html

.

Paragun
08-10-2010, 1:38 PM
Nice link. Looks like the AMD Phenom rules the Benchmark/$$ chart. Better known as 'bang for the buck'???
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_alltime.html

.

ROTFL...it figures, mine is at the bottom of that list. However, I never had a problem running anything.

bombadillo
08-10-2010, 6:34 PM
Mine is one of the better values. Its close to a year old now and have happily been running an AMD Athlon Phenom II X4 945 successfully with no issues or slowing of any kind. Great bang for the buck.

Ruiner
08-10-2010, 6:45 PM
Depends on what the PC is primarily for. I build my PCs to get maximum peformance for gaming, so I use Intel CPUs as they are far faster, but more expensive. For general use PCs or for people on a budget, I'll use AMD as its a lot cheaper.

gabe123
08-10-2010, 9:21 PM
HK or GLOCK? They both get the job done. But I prefer HK, or Intel for that matter.

pullnshoot25
08-10-2010, 9:24 PM
AMD all the way.

Noah3683
08-10-2010, 10:14 PM
I had as comp with an amd phenom. Couldn't get it to run cool for the life of me.... got a new one with an intel quad and it blows the performance away

Pyrodyne
08-10-2010, 10:53 PM
Ok, to be totally honest with you guys. The REAL reason I'm upgrading is because of starcraft II.

Everyone is talking about quad core processors but I was told that dual core processors utilize the most( out of all ) programs out there and that quad core processors aren't necessarily faster because of all the extra cores. So pretty much these virtual core(s) aren't worth the money?

I was leaning towards the Phenom II Dual Core 3.1Ghz, because of it's speed vs price. I just want a system that can handle pretty much any game that's out there right now without costing more than my AR15. :)

Depends on the game. Most now run 1 or 2 cores, some will use up to 4, none use 5 or above that I am aware of. A 6-core would be a waste for games. If you want to save spending twice, a phenom 2 x4 945 or 955 should serve nicely. i5 if you go intel would serve much the same. Generally you want to aim for more than 3Ghz per core, below that you are buying trash.

sigfan91
08-10-2010, 10:56 PM
I've used AMD for the last 10 years.

AMD not only has the best bang for the buck, it has better integration than Intel. AMD platform includes chipset and video card. Radeon kicks nVidia's *** right now. AMD makes Radeon.

bigmike82
08-10-2010, 10:58 PM
"Radeon kicks nVidia's *** right now."
roflcopter

NaughtyMonkey
08-10-2010, 11:14 PM
Yeah I think the ATI graphics card are kicking Nvidias butt right now! Big time! But I remember that Nvidia ruled the market for a long time, as did Intel.

tools2teach
08-11-2010, 9:51 AM
At the current time...processors are pretty much on the same playing field. Unless your working with graphics, video editing, or playing games, then you won't notice a difference. You won't notice a difference between the two anyways.

ZX-10R
08-11-2010, 10:02 AM
AMD use to keep up with Intel up until the Core Duos took off and AMD fell behind. Was a huge AMD fanboy. Then the last build I did 2 years ago had an Intel 8700 OCd to 3.4gig. Still running strong. Depends on what you are doing. If you are set on gaming/ video/ photo editing/ high end rig then go Intel. If you are just browser, office apps, and simple usage any processor will work.

paradox
08-11-2010, 10:20 AM
I just put together a handful of computers for my work. We're doing modeling research and our toolchain (Arc + SWAT) is pitifully single threaded, so I went the fewer cores + overclocking route....

Motherboard: ASUS P7P55D-E Pro -- $160
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131621&cm_re=P7P55D-e_pro-_-13-131-621-_-Product

CPU: Intel Core i5-655K Clarkdale 3.2GHz -- $210
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116369

Heatsink: CORSAIR Cooling Hydro Series CWCH50-1 -- $80
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835181010&cm_re=H50-_-35-181-010-_-Product

It auto-overclocks to 4ghz out of the box :eek:

Modeling runs that used to take 45min on a core duo are down to 30min which is hella nice when you're doing 500 runs at a time...

The only problem was that the motherboard BIOS was an old revision that didn't recognize the new i5-655k, so I had to get a new BIOS chip sent from Asus, after that, clear sailing.

xXBigJoeXx
08-11-2010, 10:35 PM
IMO spend the extra money and go with Intel. I have had both AMD & Intel processors in my previous computers within the last 2 years. I am a POWER USER and after working with each PC for around 12 months each, I can say that Intel performed not only better but also ran about 40 degrees cooler. I did have one AMD that overheated so bad that HP ended up replacing it. I am currently running a Intel Centrino Core 2 Duo setup Clocked at 2.1 Ghz, 4 Gigs of Memory with wireless N and a ATI Radeon Graphix Card :D

doughboy334
08-12-2010, 5:10 AM
I'd go Intel Core i5 with a nice graphics card like a Radeon 5 something, but I do gaming and photo rendering.

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/19159

Good computer build suggestions!

amd64
08-12-2010, 11:05 AM
I used all AMD up through nforce4 and Athlon 64.

Switched over to Intel after that. Performance beats AMD. I'm not brand-loyal. My old AMDs are still chugging along and I use them for office work.

Currently running a water cooled Intel i7-930 overclocked to 21x194 (4074), p95 24x7 stable.

xXBigJoeXx
08-13-2010, 3:50 PM
Currently running a water cooled Intel i7-930 overclocked to 21x194 (4074), p95 24x7 stable.

+1 :drool5:

6114DAVE
08-14-2010, 9:56 PM
Ciryx 6X86 FTW!! lol

V8toytruck
08-19-2010, 12:36 AM
Intel is dominating these days

i7-920 OC'd (No water, just a very large cooler and case, Prolimatech Megahalems + Antec 1200) with Intel SSD here!

Family member works at Intel, and they are very generous with their discount. Now that I have gone SSD, I don't think I can ever go back

locosway
08-20-2010, 6:46 AM
I've run AMD processors for some time. However, my last two computers have been Intel, and I've regretted it. The price to performance ratio is not there. If Intel is faster, I didn't notice it, and I sure as hell didn't notice it for the price difference.

AMD has a great offering, and with todays CPU speeds, unless you're doing tons of CPU operations, you won't notice the difference between the fastest Intel, or a moderate AMD, or visa versa. What's more limiting is your harddrive speed, and often your graphics card if you're gaming.

I use my computer a lot, and my processor rarely moves about 1GHz. Sure, I have a 2.13GHz dual core 64 bit processor, but it's all mostly wasted. All of the reviews I've recently read list the AMD X3 as being the best gaming CPU. Simply put, more cores is not better for gaming. Instead clock speed is, however there's a point where more clock speed doesn't net you a large enough improvement in performance to justify the cost.

Save the money on the CPU and get more RAM, a larger HDD, a faster video card, etc.

locosway
08-20-2010, 6:49 AM
Intel is dominating these days

i7-920 OC'd (No water, just a very large cooler and case, Prolimatech Megahalems + Antec 1200) with Intel SSD here!

Family member works at Intel, and they are very generous with their discount. Now that I have gone SSD, I don't think I can ever go back

I'm not a fan of small storage capacity and limited read/writes to my hard drives. If anything I'd just run a 10k rpm drive instead.

ZX-10R
08-20-2010, 7:00 AM
If you are doing nothing but browsing the web, opening MSFT docs, and nothing straining, then you won't know AMD from Intel. Hardcore gamer, workstation, graphics, etc. Intel...Yes, I was an AMD fan for a while but even I had to go to Intel to keep up when MW2 came out.

locosway
08-20-2010, 7:02 AM
If you are doing nothing but browsing the web, opening MSFT docs, and nothing straining, then you won't know AMD from Intel. Hardcore gamer, workstation, graphics, etc. Intel...Yes, I was an AMD fan for a while but even I had to go to Intel to keep up when MW2 came out.

I game, edit video, and process photos. I see no reason to use Intel over AMD.

The only thing I could see locking me into Intel is if I was doing scientific computations that took a very long time. Then perhaps the .00001 ms difference could be noticed and tracked over a set period of time.

For home users, there's no chance in noticing. Slap a AMD sticker on a Intel box and no one would know.

amd64
08-23-2010, 10:48 AM
I'm not a fan of small storage capacity and limited read/writes to my hard drives. If anything I'd just run a 10k rpm drive instead.

Most people running SSDs just keep the OS and apps on the SSD and use conventional HDs individually or in RAID arrays for mass storage. This could be limiting on laptops though...

I still run Raptors in RAID configs in most all my XP boxes. They were fast for their time. I've switched over to Intel SSDs since Win7 and TRIM, that addresses the hassle of doing partition alignments and other bs to use SSDs on pre-Win7 OSs.

HK4113
08-23-2010, 10:49 AM
Most people running SSDs just keep the OS and apps on the SSD and use conventional HDs individually or in RAID arrays for mass storage.

I still run Raptors in RAID configs in most all my XP boxes. They were fast for their time. I've switched over to Intel SSDs since Win7 and TRIM, that addresses the hassle of doing partition alignments and other bs to use SSDs on pre-Win7 OSs.

Thats what I do. My ssd is for my OS only.

locosway
08-23-2010, 2:56 PM
What's TRIM? I don't use Windows.

jpparker88
08-23-2010, 4:41 PM
I personally just built a rig and went with AMD. I run mw2 and everything else on high settings. I might not see that much difference though because of my high end video card. I overclocked my processor and was even able to unlock another core, it just runs hotter than before now, but what overclocked machine doesn't? If you're just playing starcraft 2, than don't worry so much about the processor, I'd worry more about video card and RAM. And as always, it's not about the amount of memory in the video card, it's about the speed of that memory.

amd64
08-23-2010, 4:58 PM
What's TRIM? I don't use Windows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIM

other OSs support it too.