Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

the Intel vs AMD conundrum

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Intel
  • Processors
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
September 30, 2006 11:58:18 AM

Hi, am trying to put together a new dual-core machine primarily for the purpose of video editing. I have stuck to Intel processors in the past because there were previously some compatability issues with earlier versions of my primary video editing software (Adobe Premiere), though I'm fairly sure those issues have been resolved.

I am completely lost when it comes to AMD processors, so I was wondering if someone would be so kind as to give me a few pointers on the subject.

The Intel processor I've been eyeing is the Pentium D 945 running at 3.4mHz(x2) at 800mHz (priced right at $165)

So what I'm wondering is, is the price to performance ratio worth the switch and if so, which AMD processor would be the equivalent (in performance) to the aforementioned Intel processor. Could I possibly get more bang for my buck & get an AMD processor which outperforms the Pentium for around the same price?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance....

More about : intel amd conundrum

a c 160 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
September 30, 2006 12:38:26 PM

The 945 generates alot of heat. It's old technology, so Intel is slowly reducing inventory with attractive prices. For similar prices, I would look at the amd dual cores (4200 or 4600) or the new Intel duo core 2 e6300, which overclocks pretty well on some boards. Newegg sells the retail boxed e6300 for about $180, and Fry's has sold the bare cpu with ecs board for $179 recently. Even mac's are using the core 2 duo. Fry's lists one in yesterday's ad for $1499. Core 2 duos run cooler and have shorter pipelines. Don't be misled by shear megahertz. Amd's and core 2 duo's run at a lower hertz setting, but are much more efficient, running cooler and using less watts.
September 30, 2006 12:49:41 PM

Quote:
Hi, am trying to put together a new dual-core machine primarily for the purpose of video editing. I have stuck to Intel processors in the past because there were previously some compatability issues with earlier versions of my primary video editing software (Adobe Premiere), though I'm fairly sure those issues have been resolved.

I am completely lost when it comes to AMD processors, so I was wondering if someone would be so kind as to give me a few pointers on the subject.

The Intel processor I've been eyeing is the Pentium D 945 running at 3.4mHz(x2) at 800mHz (priced right at $165)

So what I'm wondering is, is the price to performance ratio worth the switch and if so, which AMD processor would be the equivalent (in performance) to the aforementioned Intel processor. Could I possibly get more bang for my buck & get an AMD processor which outperforms the Pentium for around the same price?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance....


E6300 @ $180
Pentium Ds are only GHz BS compared to C2D or AMD X2s!
and if you wan to go for the cheapo, the X2 3800+ is good value.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
September 30, 2006 12:53:18 PM

sounding good so far. I really haven't looked much in to the Core 2 Duos yet, but I'm glad you mentioned them. They look to be the far better choice with just a slight increase in price. Thanks!
September 30, 2006 1:02:13 PM

Quote:
They look to be the far better choice

Exactly, I mentioned it earlier, even a X2 3800+ is nice @ $160 think of the extra for $20 to the E6300, but if you hear someone mentioning Pentium Ds give gim a sakeup!
September 30, 2006 1:21:45 PM

Quote:
sounding good so far. I really haven't looked much in to the Core 2 Duos yet, but I'm glad you mentioned them. They look to be the far better choice with just a slight increase in price. Thanks!
I also think that the Core2 is the way to go.
If you are on a tight budget, an AMD socket 939 system can help you to reuse memory (DDR PC3200) and mobos are much cheaper.
For AM2 systems, the X2 4200+ is comparable to a Conroe E6300 but I see no advantage in buying one today.
Intel procs are generally better at video editing.
Stay far away from Pentium Ds!
Options and links:
AMD X2 4200+ skt939 Box 2.2GHz 2x512 $183+0 9/30/06
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103547

AMD X2 4200+ SktAM2 2.2GHz 2x512 $189+0 9/30/06
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103741

Conroe E6300 1.86GHz 2MB Boxed $180+0 9/30/06
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115005

Conroe E6600 204GHz 4MB Boxed $318+0 9/30/06
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115003

Don't be shocked by the high prices for Conroe motherboards. There are choices using the Intel965 or Nvidia570 chipset for reasonable $$.
September 30, 2006 1:34:16 PM

Looks like the e6300 or the e6400 even is the way to go. The mobo I've been sizing up is the ASUS P5B Deluxe. Does anyone know if OCing will work smoothly with that particular board?

newegg.com seems to be the right place to go for good deals. I'm a recently returning ex-patriot (ex-ex-patriot??) having lived in Sweden for the past 4.5 years, so I'm kind of out of touch with these sorts of things. I kept all my Swedish bank accounts open & would like to use my Swedish visa to make these purchases (thus skipping all the exchange fees & other BS) but newegg.com requires a 1-800 number from the back of the card, which my Swedish card lacks. Anybody know if it's possible to phone in orders or some other work-around?

Thanks for all your help.
September 30, 2006 2:21:54 PM

Newegg does not accept phone orders.
September 30, 2006 3:19:06 PM

Intel Core Duo processors currently are the highest performers, use less energy than the older technology, and are reasonably priced. So why the heck would anyone build an AMD based computer? Well, this is why I recently built an AMD socket AM2 based computer. Sure, the Core Duo processors are competetively priced with AMD processors with similar specs. However, take a look at the prices of the motherboards you need to run the Core Duo processsors. Here in Canada, they tend to cost 30-50% more than AM2 motherboards with similar features. Also, almost every AMD motherboard will run every processor with the same socket configuration. With Intel, you may have a socket 775 mobo, but oh, sorry, you need a specific, new, more expensive chipset to run the new processor. Intel seems to want you to have to buy a new mobo every time you want to upgrade, even though the CPU socket stays the same. You can still buy AMD socket A, 754, and 939 motherboards and processors, so you can upgrade that ancient piece of crap sitting in your closet. However, with Intel, you are really lucky if you can find a socket 478 mobo, and then you only have a few Celerons to choose from.
I am gambling that AMD will continue to support its older technology, thus allowing my computer to have a much longer lifespan than a similarly priced Intel system.
September 30, 2006 7:45:07 PM

Quote:
Intel Core Duo processors currently are the highest performers, use less energy than the older technology, and are reasonably priced. So why the heck would anyone build an AMD based computer? Well, this is why I recently built an AMD socket AM2 based computer. Sure, the Core Duo processors are competetively priced with AMD processors with similar specs. However, take a look at the prices of the motherboards you need to run the Core Duo processsors. Here in Canada, they tend to cost 30-50% more than AM2 motherboards with similar features. Also, almost every AMD motherboard will run every processor with the same socket configuration. With Intel, you may have a socket 775 mobo, but oh, sorry, you need a specific, new, more expensive chipset to run the new processor. Intel seems to want you to have to buy a new mobo every time you want to upgrade, even though the CPU socket stays the same. You can still buy AMD socket A, 754, and 939 motherboards and processors, so you can upgrade that ancient piece of crap sitting in your closet. However, with Intel, you are really lucky if you can find a socket 478 mobo, and then you only have a few Celerons to choose from.
I am gambling that AMD will continue to support its older technology, thus allowing my computer to have a much longer lifespan than a similarly priced Intel system.


Support for 754 and 939 is going away soon. AM2 will shortly become AM3, and while AMD contends AM3 processors will be backwards compatable with AM2 mobos, current AM2 mobos upgraded with AM3 processors will not be able to take full advantage of the AM3 processors capabilities, even with BIOS updates. As such, buying an AM2 mobo right now with hopes of upgrading to AM3 is a futile exercise.

for the OP
If you want 'fast' as cheap as possible, AMD is the way to go.
If you want fastest regardless of price, the EE6800 is the fastest mainstream retail CPU available.

If you want the best bang for the buck, that is the most processing power per dollar spent, the E6600 is the best value. While more expensive than E6300, E6400 or AM2 x2 3800 ($350 US) it performs better than any other CPU (even the overpriced FX60/62, Pentium D EEs) EXCEPT the E6700/EE6800.

As for the 'expensive' Core 2 mobo myth, it is just that--a myth. Propagated by AMD fanboys, this myth hit the mainstream and took hold.
There are dozens of mobos which will run Core 2 Duo, several of which cost less then $100.

If you want to overclock, it is a different story. It is exceptionally interesting as if you want to overclock, you will need a mobo with the 975x or 965i chipsets. However, you can use pretty much any RAM to overclock a Core2Duo. With AMD on the otherhand, you can use pretty much any mobo, but to succesfully overclock and achieve reliable results, you must use RAM with tight latency timings, meaning you must buy the more expensive RAM. So, for overclocking, the cost of the dreaded "expensive" Core 2 Duo mobo is offset by the cost of the expensive RAM required by AM2. This little fact seems to be one the AMD fanboys insist on not mentioning. I wonder why?
October 2, 2006 3:37:15 PM

Response to turpit:

Re: "Support for AMD 754 and 939 to go away soon."
I agree, however, AMD has tended to support an older socket type longer in the past, so it is reasonable to hope that they will support AM2 for quite a while. As for AM3 and other future CPU's.... Intel will do the same. Sooner or later you have to buy a new mobo for the new CPU, but with Intel, it tends to be sooner.

Re: "the expensive Core 2 mobo myth" You may have noticed I said "with similar features" when referring to mobos. The decision to go AMD was because the cost of the mobo plus CPU allowed me to spend more on my other components.

As for the "fanboy" comment... Who really gives a crap what brand your computer is. Most of us want the best computer that does what we want it to do, while staying within our budget. Different folks will have different needs, and will have different component availability. Also, after you have assembled your computer, installed all the software, and logged onto Toms Hardware forums to brag about how great it is... another, better processor, and mobo, etc. will be reviewed, and you will start to plan the next one.....
October 2, 2006 6:37:21 PM

Quote:
Response to turpit:

Re: "Support for AMD 754 and 939 to go away soon."
I agree, however, AMD has tended to support an older socket type longer in the past, so it is reasonable to hope that they will support AM2 for quite a while. As for AM3 and other future CPU's.... Intel will do the same. Sooner or later you have to buy a new mobo for the new CPU, but with Intel, it tends to be sooner.

Re: "the expensive Core 2 mobo myth" You may have noticed I said "with similar features" when referring to mobos. The decision to go AMD was because the cost of the mobo plus CPU allowed me to spend more on my other components.

As for the "fanboy" comment... Who really gives a crap what brand your computer is. Most of us want the best computer that does what we want it to do, while staying within our budget. Different folks will have different needs, and will have different component availability. Also, after you have assembled your computer, installed all the software, and logged onto Toms Hardware forums to brag about how great it is... another, better processor, and mobo, etc. will be reviewed, and you will start to plan the next one.....


I did not mean to imply you were a fanboy, and if that is the way the comment seemed, I appologize, however, it did appear as if you may have been a victim of the FUD being spread by the fanboys who are looking to belittle Intels recent success in any way they can.

As for buying a computer, timing is always key. As such, if someone needs a new system right now, logically their choices are pretty much pre-determined. Note, I said logically as this is where fanboy mentality aserts itself. I have built myself a new system about every 18-24 months and for the past 6 years I have been using AMD as they provided the best level of performance per unit of currency expended. Intel's new Core 2 coupled with AMDs recent inability to deliver its high end products reliably (X2 5000/5200) has changed that, at least for the moment. Whether AMD can regain its performance and price/perfromance lead remains to be seen, but for the time being, for some one to build a new system:
- as cheaply as possible, AMD is the way to go.
- best performing system Intel
- best performance/unit of currency expended, Intel


My appologizes: THG hasent upgraded this chart recently as prices have (for the time being) stabilized somewhat.



If you pull the older Pentium Ds and EEs out of the chart, its shifts to favor Intel even more.


As for socket support, Intel has stated that socket 775 will support its upcomming quad cores, so it appears as if 775 is going to continue being supported for quite some time.

On the AMD side, with AM2, they are in the same boat they have been for in years. As with socket A, they will continue to support socket AM2, however, as with socket A, if you have an older mobo, you will need to upgrade to a newer mobo with a current chipset to make use of AM3.

Just as before, having a socket A mobo that could accept a A1900XP didnt mean it could support the A3200XP. It only meant the chip would fit in the socket. So, again, there is a strong possability that any one who buys a current AM2 mobo planning on upgrading to a AM3 CPU is likely to have to buy a new mobo when AM3 hits the streets. Regardless of the fact that it will be due to need to move to a updated chipset. Since chipsets cannot curently be removed/replaced to upgrade, you must buy the whole motherboard. It was an older fanboy excuse that ...its not the mother board, its the chipset.... A net sum zero argument as the money spent= a new mobo.


As for "comparable features" on the mobo, again, the cost of the better RAM offsets the cost of the mobo. If you are not seeking to obtain the maximum performance from your system, then cheaper ram (at least from a known manufacturer) will suffice with AMD. If you want to make full use of your systems potential, you will have to buy the better (more expensive) ram, thus negatining any savings you may have seen by buying a cheaper mobo. This falls in to the catagory of "the cheapest system possible". However, for someone who is planning to purchase a system for video editing, I dont think they would be willing to give up that much processing speed to save $50, of course that is an assumption on my part for this specific case and could vary well be wrong.
October 2, 2006 7:20:09 PM

Quote:
They look to be the far better choice

Exactly, I mentioned it earlier, even a X2 3800+ is nice @ $160 think of the extra for $20 to the E6300, but if you hear someone mentioning Pentium Ds give gim a sakeup!

Dont count the Pentium D's out they are still extremly good! and whats wrong with the Pentium D's? they perform good and are good overclockers. i see nothing wrong sure conroe is better but they cist slightly more.
October 2, 2006 7:22:34 PM

Quote:
Hi, am trying to put together a new dual-core machine primarily for the purpose of video editing. I have stuck to Intel processors in the past because there were previously some compatability issues with earlier versions of my primary video editing software (Adobe Premiere), though I'm fairly sure those issues have been resolved.

I am completely lost when it comes to AMD processors, so I was wondering if someone would be so kind as to give me a few pointers on the subject.

The Intel processor I've been eyeing is the Pentium D 945 running at 3.4mHz(x2) at 800mHz (priced right at $165)

So what I'm wondering is, is the price to performance ratio worth the switch and if so, which AMD processor would be the equivalent (in performance) to the aforementioned Intel processor. Could I possibly get more bang for my buck & get an AMD processor which outperforms the Pentium for around the same price?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance....


and i saw a add in frys for a conroe and motherboard for $180