Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What should I go with?AMD or Intel?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 15, 2007 7:08:53 AM

Until now I have been using only AMD cpu's just because they were way cheaper from the Intel's.I have an AMD 64 3500 and I am looking for an upgrade.I have already checked the buyer's guide and I found some very useful info but I still havent decided.In my price range,my choices are the AMD ATHLON 64-X2 4600+ 2.40GHZ and the INTEL CORE 2 DUO E6400 2.13 GHZ LGA775 1066 FSB.I see that many people here talk about the Intel's,no one talks about AMD's.What would you suggest?

More about : amd intel

January 15, 2007 7:10:58 AM

The E6400 out performs the 4600+ in, well, everything. If you can afford it thats the one you should get.
January 15, 2007 7:12:31 AM

Thanks.I forgot to mention that im not really into overclocking.
Related resources
January 15, 2007 7:14:29 AM

Thats a shame, the C2D's are great oc'ers.
January 15, 2007 7:16:26 AM

It's not that I dont want to oc it,its mostly bacause I dont know how to do it and erm..Im abit scared.
January 15, 2007 7:16:41 AM

C2D E6400
January 15, 2007 7:19:26 AM

Toss a coin. :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

No, actually, don't do that, that's a very bad idea. :wink:
January 15, 2007 7:40:39 AM

Quote:
Toss a coin. :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

No, actually, don't do that, that's a very bad idea. :wink:


Sound advice.

I am an AMD fan myself but going C2D anyways. They perform better than AMD for much less money invested.
a c 117 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 15, 2007 3:04:32 PM

Quote:
Until now I have been using only AMD cpu's just because they were way cheaper from the Intel's.I have an AMD 64 3500 and I am looking for an upgrade.I have already checked the buyer's guide and I found some very useful info but I still havent decided.In my price range,my choices are the AMD ATHLON 64-X2 4600+ 2.40GHZ and the INTEL CORE 2 DUO E6400 2.13 GHZ LGA775 1066 FSB.I see that many people here talk about the Intel's,no one talks about AMD's.What would you suggest?


Depends upon your computing environment and your wallet. Give us an idea what you would like to do with your computer and provide some details about your current system, i.e.:

What type of mobo?
RAM?
video subsystem?
OS?

Don't buy a bunch of new stuff unless you are a trust fund baby and the cash is burning a hole in your pocket!!
January 15, 2007 3:07:43 PM

Gaming and surfing only.
Here are my specs:
Asus A8N-E mobo
2GB of RAM
ATI RX800XL(soon to be replaced with a 8800GTS)
XP SP2
January 15, 2007 3:17:44 PM

Quote:
Gaming and surfing only.
Here are my specs:
Asus A8N-E mobo
2GB of RAM
ATI RX800XL(soon to be replaced with a 8800GTS)
XP SP2


If you go with AMD you may be able to keep your mobo. But unless you would like to be ridiculed you should go with E6400.
a c 102 à CPUs
January 15, 2007 3:48:18 PM

What about just upgrading the CPU in your board to a socket 939 Athlon 64 X2? The rest of your system is still pretty top-notch and it's not really time to replace all of it IMHO. Get an Athlon 64 X2 4600+ or 4800+ or an Opteron 180 or 185. All of those chips should serve you pretty well and be a decent upgrade over the 3500+ while not requiring you to buy a whole new board and RAM.

And unlike what BaronMatrix says, nobody should ridicule you if you do an upgrade to a newer AMD CPU in your current board. BM's a bit, er, melodramatic is the right word. He has himself gotten ridiculed for being a very enthusiastic AMD fan in the face of a bunch of very enthusiastic Intel fans. So don't mind what he says as it was a snipe at certain other forum fellows. If you want to upgrade your CPU to an X2, by all means do so (and I think that's actually the smartest move in your situation.)
a c 117 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 15, 2007 3:50:28 PM

I have yet to hear of any S939 NF4-based motherboards with a dual-core aware BIOS version that can't run a dual-core S939 Opteron.

Dual Core Opty's should now range in price between
$154 - $335 - - - - hurry if youin's be interested because the prices are going up

:cry: 
January 15, 2007 3:50:41 PM

Sounds cool,but I will have to upgrade my mobo too!Or not?I think that it doesnt support X2 cpus.
a c 117 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 15, 2007 3:58:18 PM

Yer A-Seuss s939 is good to go dual core with the latest BIOS
January 15, 2007 4:03:10 PM

Thanks alot I never thought of that!I might give the X2 a try.I hope I wont be dissapointed.
January 15, 2007 4:04:40 PM

Your mainboard supports dualcore CPUs.
I thought that you are going to sell your old stuff and buy new.
If you can just sell your old CPU and keep the mainboard, an Athlon64 X2 CPU will be the best choice.
5000+ is roughly performing same as E6400, although the E6300 is a 5000+ equivalent for gaming. Also, good choice would be the 4800+ 2.4GHz 2x1MB L2, which is marginaly slower than the 5000+, but is more worth for the money.
If you want to overclock your new CPU, Opteron 170 is the best choice with the best performance/price factor.

Good luck
a c 117 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 15, 2007 4:14:53 PM

< ---- Not a Fan Boy but just got another Opty 170 4 days ago for $172.00

The Opty's will double your L2 cache over the Toledo X2.

And I've learned that for some folks an *OC* is never a simple thing but in the case of your mobo, an Opty and a few well-placed questions on the internets and yull be multi-task kickin' arse . . .
January 15, 2007 4:18:24 PM

Quote:
That's true, but name one place where you can still find 170s


Here's a link for an Opteron 170:

NewEgg
January 15, 2007 4:54:50 PM

Quote:
What about just upgrading the CPU in your board to a socket 939 Athlon 64 X2? The rest of your system is still pretty top-notch and it's not really time to replace all of it IMHO. Get an Athlon 64 X2 4600+ or 4800+ or an Opteron 180 or 185. All of those chips should serve you pretty well and be a decent upgrade over the 3500+ while not requiring you to buy a whole new board and RAM.

And unlike what BaronMatrix says, nobody should ridicule you if you do an upgrade to a newer AMD CPU in your current board. BM's a bit, er, melodramatic is the right word. He has himself gotten ridiculed for being a very enthusiastic AMD fan in the face of a bunch of very enthusiastic Intel fans. So don't mind what he says as it was a snipe at certain other forum fellows. If you want to upgrade your CPU to an X2, by all means do so (and I think that's actually the smartest move in your situation.)



True no one SHOULD but that's not the case. A guy asked about a fan for 5000+ and was told he had to get Core 2 or he was wasting his money.
January 15, 2007 5:28:59 PM

Quote:
Well, its all who you talk to and whether you are friends with the people here. If the people here think you're a n00b and don't think you know you what you're doing, they're probably going to ridicule you regardless. But if you know the people and they trust your judgement, it might only be a simple question of why you bought it and when. I am an am2 user myself and its not to say the am2 is slow or anything, just conroe is a lot faster. I think getting a 939 opty 170 would be the smart choice here, because the opty's are proven ocers plus it is the smart decision because its a lot cheaper.

But if you know all the benchmarks and then still say amd is better just because you personally like amd more, than that's another story


The real problem I've been watching in these forums is that people come here asking for advice and in a sudden they're recommended to go with intel no matter what!

These are just intel's marketing trolls doing their job in a public forum where people come here for advice but instead they got mislead to buy intel and only intel. This is becoming a nasty habit in THG's forums.

Core2s are good in some apps and X2s are good for other type of apps. it all depends on the kind of apps you use for a living.
a c 117 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 15, 2007 5:34:32 PM

Quote:
Well, its all who you talk to and whether you are friends with the people here. If the people here think you're a n00b and don't think you know you what you're doing, they're probably going to ridicule you regardless. But if you know the people and they trust your judgement, it might only be a simple question of why you bought it and when. I am an am2 user myself and its not to say the am2 is slow or anything, just conroe is a lot faster. I think getting a 939 opty 170 would be the smart choice here, because the opty's are proven ocers plus it is the smart decision because its a lot cheaper.

But if you know all the benchmarks and then still say amd is better just because you personally like amd more, than that's another story


I don't have any friends here. Shoot I don't have ANY friends because I'm often ill-tempered and liquored-up :lol: 

AMD versus Intel ??? WHO CARES !!! Get what you want and enjoy it.

We are all pawns in the manufacturers marketing games. Obsolescence drives profitability - or we would all be surfing on our Tandy 1000's.

Even though I'm still pissed at Intel for Rambus I run my OR840 every day! Some builds just work . . .

And don't get caught up in the hype . . . .

EDIT: Opps! Back to the thread. Go with the Opty 170 for $194!
January 15, 2007 6:21:50 PM

Quote:
< ---- Not a Fan Boy but just got another Opty 170 4 days ago for $172.00

The Opty's will double your L2 cache over the Toledo X2.

And I've learned that for some folks an *OC* is never a simple thing but in the case of your mobo, an Opty and a few well-placed questions on the internets and yull be multi-task kickin' arse . . .
Actually, the Toledo core has 2x1MB of L2 cache.
January 15, 2007 6:39:36 PM

If you have a good 939 skt board, and you upgrade to the newest bios for x2, go for the amd chip.
Or you can spend cash on a new motherboard, chip and ram.
It all depends on what you wish to spend.

DDR2 is still to expensive for me to go the Intel route.
I would not even bother with an AM2 right now, though this may change in the future.
a c 117 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 15, 2007 6:41:02 PM

Opps!

You are correct,sir . . .

Though some Toledo dies have 1/2 the cache disabled . . .


Edit: See Heyyou27 above.
January 15, 2007 7:55:16 PM

Not to hi-jack the thread, but alng the same line, I'm looking to upgrade my system from a 3500+ 939 in the next 3 months or so. The system is used primarily for gaming. I'm looking at the E6400 or E6600. My question is does anyone know when AMD will be coming out with thier new processors that will compete with the Conroe, or should I just buy the Intel?
January 15, 2007 8:06:37 PM

Quote:
Not to hi-jack the thread, but alng the same line, I'm looking to upgrade my system from a 3500+ 939 in the next 3 months or so. The system is used primarily for gaming. I'm looking at the E6400 or E6600. My question is does anyone know when AMD will be coming out with thier new processors that will compete with the Conroe, or should I just buy the Intel?


AMD will be launching Barcelona on the 2nd quarter of this year. Expect desktop variants on the 3rd quarter. For the while (and if you want), you can buy a cheap X2 processor for your s939 board and save all those bucks for when Agena (desktop variant of K8L) makes its debut on the desktop.
January 15, 2007 9:27:09 PM

Quote:
True, but if you wanted cheap, you get amd's 65nm lima single core cpu. That's gonna by like $50 at the most considering it's single core

I wonder how k8l is going to be though, its their only chance at competing with the dore micro-architecture, so they need it to be a big win, otherwise they're screwed until something like 2009 or so when their new arch whatever comes out. I think that the am2+ should turn out nice though, especially with ht3, because the amd's thought was lower clocks, faster connection bus and it worked against all the p4 and netburst/preslers, then the new ht3 should be a definite plus for their performance, because they have basically doubled their connection, so kinda effectively doubling their performance *in theory*, this is all in theory, for all we know, it might not make a difference, but it'd be cool if it did


I'm also guessing that AMD will make a better use of HT3.0 than what they did with previous offerings.
January 15, 2007 9:57:11 PM

Quote:
Until now I have been using only AMD cpu's just because they were way cheaper from the Intel's.I have an AMD 64 3500 and I am looking for an upgrade.I have already checked the buyer's guide and I found some very useful info but I still havent decided.In my price range,my choices are the AMD ATHLON 64-X2 4600+ 2.40GHZ and the INTEL CORE 2 DUO E6400 2.13 GHZ LGA775 1066 FSB.I see that many people here talk about the Intel's,no one talks about AMD's.What would you suggest?

I would suggest if you are a gamer go with the E6400 and if you dont play games get the X2 4600+. The X2 4600+ is about $30 cheaper on newegg and in none games they are about the same.
January 15, 2007 10:45:47 PM

Quote:
< ---- Not a Fan Boy but just got another Opty 170 4 days ago for $172.00

The Opty's will double your L2 cache over the Toledo X2.

And I've learned that for some folks an *OC* is never a simple thing but in the case of your mobo, an Opty and a few well-placed questions on the internets and yull be multi-task kickin' arse . . .


the opty,s and toledo,s have the same l2 cache.

hell they are the same core,s.
January 15, 2007 10:47:26 PM

:oops:  just seen your post :lol: 
January 15, 2007 10:51:55 PM

Quote:
I would suggest if you are a gamer go with the E6400 and if you dont play games get the X2 4600+. The X2 4600+ is about $30 cheaper on newegg and in none games they are about the same.


That is not true, the E6400 is faster than an X2 4600 in the vast majority of non gaming benchmarks/applications. The E6400 is actually around the same levels as an X2 5000+.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2903&p=...

In the non gaming tests, the E6400 is faster than the X2 4600+ in 7 out of 8 benches, with one essentially a tie.

Edit - damn typos. :wink:
January 15, 2007 11:23:57 PM

Quote:
here asking for advice and in a sudden they're recommended to go with intel no matter what!

It used to be the other way around until the C2D was released. BM did everything within his power to dissuade people from purchasing them, even saying that they wouldn't be able to get their hands on one until Xmas. So what you see is a reaction to that.
January 15, 2007 11:32:12 PM

Quote:
< ----The Opty's will double your L2 cache over the Toledo X2.

Toledo has same cache as dualcore Opteron, 2x1MB L2.
Machester has 2x512kB L2. There are X2 3800+ and 4200+ with Toledo core, but with half L2 disabled.
The X2 models with 2x1MB are 90nm 4000+, 4400+, 4800+ and 5200+.
January 15, 2007 11:40:22 PM

Quote:
The X2 models with 2x1MB are 90nm 4000+, 4400+, 4800+ and 5200+.


dont forget the fx-60 :lol: 

which is what i have.
well its a 4400 oc,ed to 2.6.

i can consider it an fx60 cant i?
it makes me feel better that way :lol: 
January 15, 2007 11:53:37 PM

Quote:
I don't see any reason for the 4600, the cache is too littele, with amd, imo you either go with the 4800 or the 3800, those are the two best deals you can get, one is only $130, while the other has twice the cache, which makes it better it most cases

The X2 4600 was stated by the OP's as the AMD choice. The X2 3800+ is better due to the given advantage of OCing and price. The small amount of OC one can gain from the X2 4800+ and the somewhat higher price would make this CPU a bad choice.
January 16, 2007 12:10:59 AM

Quote:
I would suggest if you are a gamer go with the E6400 and if you dont play games get the X2 4600+. The X2 4600+ is about $30 cheaper on newegg and in none games they are about the same.


That is not true, the E6400 is faster than an X2 4600 in the vast majority of non gaming benchmarks/applications. The E6400 is actually around the same levels as an X2 5000+.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2903&p=...

In the non gaming tests, the E6400 is faster than the X2 4600+ in 7 out of 8 benches, with one essentially a tie.

Edit - damn typos. :wink:
What is the most used applications program? MS office. Now about where on this score of world bench does the X2 4600+ stack up against the E6400? The X2 4600 is about dead between the E6300 and the E6600.
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/Core2DuoL...
What is the most used CD burning program? Nero. In this chart The X2 4600+ kills the E6400.
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/Core2DuoL...
These 2 chart come from this worldbench which shows the X2 4600+ beating the E6300 and should be right on the E6400. Add that to the X2 4600+ on newegg is around $30 cheaper than the E6400. IMO the OP would be better off getting the X2 4600 for none gaming.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=279...
January 16, 2007 12:12:09 AM

Quote:
yeah, but the 5200 is the only other with the full cache besides the opty's and it has 13 mult, meaning lower ram speeds, so the 4800 is the only way to go that's worth the price

The X2 4400+ would be for price and OC of the full 1mb cache.
January 16, 2007 12:13:23 AM

Quote:
yeah, but the 5200 is the only other with the full cache besides the opty's and it has 13 mult, meaning lower ram speeds, so the 4800 is the only way to go that's worth the price

The X2 4400+ would be for price and OC of the full 1mb cache.

i agree. oh wait thats because i have one :lol: 
January 16, 2007 12:14:37 AM

Quote:
alright, then show me an am2 4800 in stock right now

I would show you a X2 4600+ in stock your suggest was the 4800. Doesnt matter as the OP was asking about the X2 4600+.
January 16, 2007 12:16:26 AM

there isnt a lot of difference between the.

44, 46, or 48.

if i had to do it again. i would just go for the cheapest.
January 16, 2007 12:17:23 AM

Quote:
yeah, but the 5200 is the only other with the full cache besides the opty's and it has 13 mult, meaning lower ram speeds, so the 4800 is the only way to go that's worth the price

The X2 4400+ would be for price and OC of the full 1mb cache.

i agree. oh wait thats because i have one :lol: 
I have one also. They are a great CPU but I'm think about an X3210 xeon for my next build.
January 16, 2007 12:21:32 AM

I've got a 1212, the AM2 version of the 170.

A) My m/b is not known for it's overclocking
B) all I did was lock the pcie and RAM speeds and change the FSB from 200 to 240.
C) I run 30c idle and 45ish under load. I can run that speed for the years at those temps.

It was less than easy, pretty anticlimactic in fact. But I have the performance of a chip that costs 85% more and all I had to do was RTFM. In the words of the poet...

YOU CAN DO IT! 8)
January 16, 2007 12:27:08 AM

Quote:
my bad, I meant 4400

Plus, that's 939, I wanted am2

Link, fixed, it is now 4800+ sAM2, and I can't find any 4400+ in stock...
January 16, 2007 12:30:13 AM

Quote:
I would suggest if you are a gamer go with the E6400 and if you dont play games get the X2 4600+. The X2 4600+ is about $30 cheaper on newegg and in none games they are about the same.


That is not true, the E6400 is faster than an X2 4600 in the vast majority of non gaming benchmarks/applications. The E6400 is actually around the same levels as an X2 5000+.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2903&p=...

In the non gaming tests, the E6400 is faster than the X2 4600+ in 7 out of 8 benches, with one essentially a tie.

Edit - damn typos. :wink:
What is the most used applications program? MS office. Now about where on this score of world bench does the X2 4600+ stack up against the E6400? The X2 4600 is about dead between the E6300 and the E6600.
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/Core2DuoL...
What is the most used CD burning program? Nero. In this chart The X2 4600+ kills the E6400.
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/Core2DuoL...
These 2 chart come from this worldbench which shows the X2 4600+ beating the E6300 and should be right on the E6400. Add that to the X2 4600+ on newegg is around $30 cheaper than the E6400. IMO the OP would be better off getting the X2 4600 for none gaming.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=279...

Nice cherrypicking of results Elbert. Funny that you just ignore the media encoding, Photoshop, Premier and 3D rendering tests, where an E6300 is almost as fast the X2 4600+ and where an E6400 would surely be as fast or faster in most cases.

Btw, your charts don't show up. I had to go to the actual Anandtech article and check the charts there.

PS. I suggest you look at the OVERALL Worldbench 5 scores instead of cherrypicking your results to favour AMD. The X2 4600+ is barely faster than the E6300, 124 vs 120. An E6400, clocked ~15% higher than the E6300, would surely beat the X2 4600+, it should get a similar score to the X2 5000+.

January 16, 2007 12:33:40 AM

Quote:


The real problem I've been watching in these forums is that people come here asking for advice and in a sudden they're recommended to go with intel no matter what!

These are just intel's marketing trolls doing their job in a public forum where people come here for advice but instead they got mislead to buy intel and only intel. This is becoming a nasty habit in THG's forums.

Core2s are good in some apps and X2s are good for other type of apps. it all depends on the kind of apps you use for a living.


NOTION: REJECTED

The problem is people like you who dont read, which is to say the problem is people who give advice based on their own preferences with out reading the question. Recommending a C2D over a X2500 to someone who wants to upgrade am AM2 is foolish, yet people do. Recommending a x2 3800 for overclocking to some who has said they want the best performance without overclocking is foolish, yet people do.

Read the question, answer the question.
January 16, 2007 12:42:02 AM

IMO depending on what type of games you are playing your system should be ok for a while longer. I have an Athlon 64 3800+ with a system similar to yours but I have a 7950GT and I am very happy with it.

Of course your cheapest upgrade would be to get an AMD dual core cpu to go with your current system.

Call me frugal but I would hang on to your system for at least another year. Maybe upgrade the video card but go cheap like a 7900GS. Wait till those 8800 cards come down more.
!