Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which of these two computers would be the Better one? CC Box

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 26, 2007 11:23:16 PM

My husband is in the market for another desktop from Circuit City.

I say the Intel one and he says the AMD.

I would like to hear from the experts.

HP Pavilion Desktop PC (A6030N)
•AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+
•320GB hard drive
•LightScribe-enabled

•2GB of DDR2 memory
•Burns DVDs and CDs
•Windows Vista Home Premium

Or:


HP Pavilion Desktop PC (A6040N)
•Intel Core 2 Duo E6320
•320GB hard drive
•LightScribe-enabled

•2GB of DDR2 memory
•Burns DVDs and CDs
•Windows Vista Home Premium

Please let me know which box PC would be fastest, best video ETC?
They both have on board graphics and no cards:( 
Thanks.. :roll:

More about : computers box

April 26, 2007 11:40:43 PM

The Core 2 will perform better but you probably want to check the slots if you care about graphics, if the Intel only has AGP (or worse nothing) and the AMD has PCI-e then I'd say take the AMD, else get the Core 2.
April 27, 2007 12:13:11 AM

How much does each of those packages cost from Circuit City?

For the same amount, I can come up with a 3rd computer set up from Newegg.com and we can compare the difference. :) 
Related resources
April 27, 2007 12:22:56 AM

AMD model = $769.99 with $100.00 mail in rebate

Intel model = $849.00 with a $50.00 mail in rebate
April 27, 2007 12:26:03 AM

Those 2 CPUs are extremely close in performance at stock (i.e. without overclocking).

The Intel version works better with crappy memory (I doubt that those PCs have DDR2-800 or better) so it's probably going to be a bit faster.

If you play Tetris or Solitaire then the integrated graphics are fine already. If you want some more intensive games then I suspect that either computer will require a new PSU before it can support a discrete graphics card. If you can afford it, you're much better off going to a local shop and asking them to assemble something for you rather than buying a prefabricated package from a big box store. It may cost a bit more but you'll get better components and the ability to upgrade later.

Edit: I'm not an expert, but I had a similar experience my HP 7640N. The 300W PSU is already close to the limit and I've only added a hard disk so far. A good graphics card needs at least 100W these days (an 8800 GTX almost 200W, etc)
April 27, 2007 12:29:58 AM

They both have a PCI Express x16 slot so he could add a better graphics card later?
April 27, 2007 12:34:41 AM

Ah, another thing, the cases in these computers may not be big enough :cry: 
April 27, 2007 12:37:57 AM

Just thought of another one - how many drive bays and PCi slots are available in each of these computers? All things being equal, you want the one with the best upgrade options. For example a free PCI slot would be great if you decide than integrated sound is not good enough.
April 27, 2007 1:10:09 AM

Do you want him to hate you or love you?
April 27, 2007 1:34:51 AM

the 4800+ would be better because your not going to be overclocking

Actually IDK about the E6320, but if it was a E6300 the 4800+ would be better
April 27, 2007 1:44:09 AM

Actually, they're so close that it depends on what kind of applications you prefer. For example a Core processor may beat an AMD processor at encoding videos but lose against it when playing games. I really wouldn't worry about the CPU speed difference between these two because it's not noticeable in normal use.

AMD has a nice feature where it drops the frequency (and power consumption) when you're not using it in a very intensive way. For example my X2 5000+ reaches the nominal 2.6 GHz very rarely, it usually sits at 1 GHz while I surf the Web or watch a DVD.

What else is different between the PCs? For example do they both have TV tuners?
April 27, 2007 1:57:32 AM

The performance should be about the same. I think one main difference is the total amount of ram you can install on it.

AMD platform lets you install up to 8GB
Intel Platform lets you install up to 4GB

Since you really can't OC the system, I'd say save some extra cash, and get the AMD platform. Cause you never can have enough ram. :lol: 

These are the links I found on that system, from Cnet:

HP Pavilion Media Center a6040n - Core 2 Duo E6320 1.86 GHz - $799-849

HP Pavilion a6030n - $719-769

Not sure if I got the prices right.
April 27, 2007 2:30:11 AM

because it's vista, i doubt it is isn't a discrete video solution otherwise, it would lag.. wouldn't it?
April 27, 2007 2:34:32 AM

Thanks, guys for all the help.

I guess it's just a toss up?

Do you think if they were running side by side I would not be able to tell any difference?
April 27, 2007 3:09:05 AM

Let me put it this way.

If you someone said that you could have either one of those two computers for free which one would you take?

Thanks..
April 27, 2007 3:15:59 AM

Hooter, while they will perform almost identical, I woult take the AMD system. If you care about your power bill, AMD will run cheaper, and quieter. It may not look like alot on your monthly bill, but over the year it'll be somewhat noticable.
April 27, 2007 3:17:50 AM

Since these are prebuilt systems that you probably won't be able to overclock, just get the cheaper one. They're very close in performance, so just save some money.
April 27, 2007 3:21:49 AM

I'm refering to Cool 'n Quiet though. At idle with day to day stuff, even 90nm should use less power.
April 27, 2007 3:22:15 AM

Get the AMD. Between those two systems you won't notice the difference. The 4800+ would be a tad faster, and since it's an OEM board, you won't be overclocking anyway. Save yourself some money and get the (slightly) better system.
April 27, 2007 4:26:24 AM

Wow, I'm surprised people aren't scared out of their wits to ask questions look at all this jargon :D  .

Quote:
Get the AMD. Between those two systems you won't notice the difference. The 4800+ would be a tad faster, and since it's an OEM board, you won't be overclocking anyway. Save yourself some money and get the (slightly) better system.


This is a very good point. Overclocking is not a factor here.

The AMD will perform faster and cost less, so it's essentially a no-brainer.

Best of luck Hooter.
April 27, 2007 4:50:13 AM

I'm yet to see one of those benches where the E6400 beats the 4800X2 by more than a minute.

However I also would have excepted 'Gently taps on bottom'
April 27, 2007 7:38:15 PM

and this is not even an E6400 it's only an E6320 which sounds like it would even be a little slower then a 6400?
April 27, 2007 8:37:30 PM

I say neither - build from newegg - here is a sample one i threw together in 5 minutes


COOLER MASTER Centurion 5 CAC-T05-UW Black Aluminum Bezel, SECC ATX Mid Tower Computer Case - Retail $49.99

GIGABYTE GA-965P-DS3 (rev. 1.3) LGA 775 Intel P965 Express ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail $109.99

EVGA 256-P2-N550 -T2 GeForce 7600GT 256MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Video Card - Retail $129.99

FSP Group (Fortron Source) AX450-PN, 12cm FAN, version 2.2, 2 SATA, PCI Express, 450W Power Supply - Retail $55.99

Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 Allendale 1.8GHz LGA 775 Processor Model BX80557E4300 - Retail $119.00

Kingston 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 667 (PC2 5300) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model KVR667D2N5K2/2G - Retail 89.99

Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 (Perpendicular Recording) ST3250620AS 250GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM $69.99

Sony NEC Optiarc 18X DVD±R DVD Burner with 12X DVD-RAM Write Black SATA Model AD-7170S-0B - $32.99

Total: $657.93 +shipping


Notes: probably can save even more by dropping the 7600 video card down to an x800 or something even cheaper depending on what you need (this will still play most things on medium quality or better depending on the game)

can get a different case - just chose that one because its cheap (not cheapest) but it has front and rear 120mm fans

either way it is cheaper than the other 2 systems you where looking at (even after rebates)

down side - no kbd/mouse/monitor - but you can get cheapo ones of those or recycle old ones
April 27, 2007 9:26:48 PM

Quote:
I'm yet to see one of those benches where the E6400 beats the 4800X2 by more than a minute.

However I also would have excepted 'Gently taps on bottom'


The percentage that it is faster is what counts. A lot of these benches only encode a portion of a movie, not the whole movie, so the time savings is more than the difference in the benchmark. Also, if you are encoding a bunch of movies in one sitting, the 10-20% begins to add up. Of course, we don't have 6320 benchmarks in front of us, so we don't really have a good comparison.
April 28, 2007 12:28:19 AM

So what's the score?

Should he get the Intel or the AMD machine?
April 28, 2007 1:54:21 AM

Quote:
My husband is in the market for another desktop from Circuit City.

I say the Intel one and he says the AMD.

I would like to hear from the experts.

HP Pavilion Desktop PC (A6030N)
•AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+
•320GB hard drive
•LightScribe-enabled

•2GB of DDR2 memory
•Burns DVDs and CDs
•Windows Vista Home Premium

Or:


HP Pavilion Desktop PC (A6040N)
•Intel Core 2 Duo E6320
•320GB hard drive
•LightScribe-enabled

•2GB of DDR2 memory
•Burns DVDs and CDs
•Windows Vista Home Premium
You might as well have said: "Which is better, AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ or Intel Core 2 Duo E6320?"

It's clear everything else about these PCs is the same. Their close model numbers give it away too.

This question is easily answered by Tom's Hardware Guide CPU Charts (TM). This link will take you there. Select from the drop-down list these two and you can see for yourself how the two processors performed on a variety of apps. I have helped you; you can help yourself from now on. :) 
April 28, 2007 4:27:00 AM

Quote:
So what's the score?

Should he get the Intel or the AMD machine?


if its an Am2 get the amd ,if its 939 get the intel. Shame you dont oc. That intel would walk all over the AMD if you did ,thus making it the better choice ,but requiring a better mobo.

I would build on the c2d and oc just to avoid latency issues from the memory , and there are latency issues on am2 ddr2. 2 clocks but still there.

For the non geek inclined however, the amd is the marginally clear winner but not due to true superiority just an overwhelmingly increased clock speed.

The one true benny of the AMD is the integrated memory controller which translates into less fickle motherboard choices; though I dont suspect we have any reason to go there.

*sigh* Buy the AMD for what speeds you can associate with. Youre really missing out on a good enthusiast grade chip though. Oc theat intel to 3 and man,,, what a savings for the perf.

You are right the intel chip is better, but you dont know enough to take advantage of it. The AMD is faster at stock but it doesnt oc as well. and the architecture is going on 5 years old.
Yea, um, not sure if you have noticed although its kinda hard not to notice, they are HP computers. You cant overclock HP/Gateway/Dell computers and building on to them is kinda out of the question being that the cases are small inside leaving hardly any room for a different power supply and a graphics card. I would know since I had one before I build my own
April 28, 2007 4:48:09 AM

Yea, your going to need more than a mobo
April 28, 2007 5:44:41 PM

How do Intel's Vista drivers compared to the AMD?
April 28, 2007 6:18:13 PM

the amd one with Built-in NVIDIA® GeForce™ 6150 SE graphics with 399MB of video memory—128MB dedicated is a lot better then Built-in Intel GMA 950 graphics with up to 224MB of video memory—32MB dedicated.

and in vista you are better off with the geforce 6150
April 28, 2007 7:12:49 PM

Quote:
the amd one with Built-in NVIDIA® GeForce™ 6150 SE graphics with 399MB of video memory—128MB dedicated is a lot better then Built-in Intel GMA 950 graphics with up to 224MB of video memory—32MB dedicated.

and in vista you are better off with the geforce 6150


What if he added a better graphics card to the intel machine?

If its an Am2 get the amd ,if its 939 get the intel (how do I find this out)?
April 28, 2007 8:58:38 PM

Quote:
the amd one with Built-in NVIDIA® GeForce™ 6150 SE graphics with 399MB of video memory—128MB dedicated is a lot better then Built-in Intel GMA 950 graphics with up to 224MB of video memory—32MB dedicated.

and in vista you are better off with the geforce 6150


What if he added a better graphics card to the intel machine?

If its an Am2 get the amd ,if its 939 get the intel (how do I find this out)?
ddr2 amd systems are am2
also you can get the amd system and a video card for less then you can with the Intel system
April 28, 2007 9:01:21 PM

Quote:
the amd one with Built-in NVIDIA® GeForce™ 6150 SE graphics with 399MB of video memory—128MB dedicated is a lot better then Built-in Intel GMA 950 graphics with up to 224MB of video memory—32MB dedicated.

and in vista you are better off with the geforce 6150


What if he added a better graphics card to the intel machine?

If its an Am2 get the amd ,if its 939 get the intel (how do I find this out)?
ddr2 amd systems are am2
also you can get the amd system and a video card for less then you can with the Intel system

Would the intel system be the better of the two with an improved video card?
April 28, 2007 9:22:45 PM

Everybody seems to agree that they are pretty neck-n-neck systems.

Tossing all the tech-blah-blah aside, have you considered that if you were to get the Intel system you would never here the end of it. Were you to get the AMD one, you would never hear the end of it.

Which end do you not want to hear the end of?
April 28, 2007 10:15:29 PM

Quote:
Everybody seems to agree that they are pretty neck-n-neck systems.

Tossing all the tech-blah-blah aside, have you considered that if you were to get the Intel system you would never here the end of it. Were you to get the AMD one, you would never hear the end of it.

Which end do you not want to hear the end of?


I hear you on that !!

I'll tell him to get them both. LOL !
April 28, 2007 10:51:05 PM

Quote:
Let me put it this way.

If you someone said that you could have either one of those two computers for free which one would you take?

Thanks..


Id do the intel If I were an overclocker, and probably do it anyway. essentially youre right on which is better the intel will score higher in benches.(overclocked)

If its a money saving thing and youre not performance savvy either is good but the intel is faster, or better or however you choose to term it. I am a well known AMD fan around these parts , but the truth is Intel owns the performance crown for now.But it's an HP OEM motherboard, and overclocking will be completely unavailable.
April 28, 2007 11:22:56 PM

I'd just get the cheapest one. Obviously there's no difference important enough to matter. Either way there will be people saying you made the wrong choice :p  :p 
April 28, 2007 11:23:55 PM

Quote:
How do Intel's Vista drivers compared to the AMD?

CPUs don't have drivers. If you're asking what I suspect you are, however, both AMD and Intel CPUs work equally well with vista, since they're both x86-64. It's the graphics card you should be worried about.
April 29, 2007 12:07:53 AM

Quote:
The two systems you quote are close together in terms of performance, with the edge going to the Intel system... for a few reasons, as stated above in various posts.

- The 4800+ chip is actually a 65 nm Brisbane CPU, and these CPUs actually underperfrom slightly with respect to the model number AMD is putting on them --- i.e., AMD is fudging a little.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_athlon_64_4800_... here you can see in some cases AMD's older 90 nm 4600+ nudges out the 4800+ in performance.

- HP (and other big name makers) do not use the highest quality RAM, and the AMD CPU is very ram dependent CPU, where as Core 2 Duo gets good performance even with slower RAM, this is because the Core 2 Duo has a larger and more efficient cache system.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-socket...
Here you can see that various apps (games, in particular) show a large variation in RAM speed and performance. Core 2 Duo does not have such a hard time with this.
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&number=4&ar...
Here I link you to the conclusions, which are accurate, they way they present the data is somewhat confusing.

Jack

The HP systems: a6030n and a6040n look to use ddr2 533 Mhz. So this is a disadvantage for the AMD (Sensitivity to slow RAM).
Another possible disadvantage (Power use) to the AMD is if the 4800+ is a standard 89 watt 90 nanometer process Windsor, unlike the two other 4800+ cpu's: Energy efficient 65 watt Windsor (90 nm) and 65 watt Brisbane (65 nm).
*The e6320 is 65 watt*
I do not know how Jack knows if the CPU really is a Brisbane, it seems that the consumer HP site does not give as much information as the Business HP site on computer specifications.
Quote:
I think one main difference is the total amount of ram you can install on it:
AMD platform lets you install up to 8GB
Intel Platform lets you install up to 4GB

Isn't there a limit to the RAM seen by an OS?

It would be good to locate information on the systems power supplies, to determine which computer can support a better graphics card addition.
April 29, 2007 12:35:03 AM

Quote:
I think one main difference is the total amount of ram you can install on it:
AMD platform lets you install up to 8GB
Intel Platform lets you install up to 4GB

Isn't there a limit to the RAM seen by an OS?

It would be good to locate information on the systems power supplies, to determine which computer can support a better graphics card addition.

Umm... I was just saying it has an upgrade path for at least more memory, that is if they upgrade to 64bit Vista. It should see the memory no problem.

32bit XP/Vista will have problems seeing 4GB, if I remember correctly.
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2007 5:30:06 AM

Save the money and go with the AMD. They're both the same far as performance goes.
April 29, 2007 6:20:17 AM

Look, as already been said, it's pretty close between the two systems. I honestly doubt you'd be able to tell them apart in a blind test. One potential hiccup on the AMD system is if they use DDR2-533 RAM, which totally kills performance. You didn't state the speed of the RAM used...

Overall, the E6320 is slightly faster than the 65nm Brisbane 4800+. People tend to forget that the Brisbane 4800+ is actually often slower than a Windsor 4600+, due to the slower L2 cache + lack of full speed DDR2-800 support.

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dualcore-round...


In terms of power consumption, SYSTEM power consumption is actually slightly in favour of C2D, even when compared to 65nm Brisbane chips. It llooks like AMD mobos chew up more power than Intel mobos, at least thats the only logical explanation I can find for these results.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/core2-qx6800/index...



It would be really helpful if people just do some research before potentially sprouting misinformation. There have been some ridiculous claims in this thread already, someone said you'll notice the difference in the power bill after 1 year?! Dude... look at the charts above. :wink:
April 29, 2007 12:41:53 PM

Quote:
cpu's dont have drivers? What exactly is it you install for a new mobo? What is the AMD dual core optimizer?

I dont know about you but mt x2 core driver is installed, as is the optimizer.

My bad. I never knew that CPUs had drivers like Graphics Cards and the like... do CPUs need new drivers for Vista?
!