Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel vs. AMD - which should I get?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Intel
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 23, 2007 7:35:53 AM

So I'm setting up my first build and several people have said that I should go with Intel instead of AMD like I was originally planning. I can't for the life of me figure out why. Unless what I've been researching has been outdated by a few months, AMD seems to have a much better price vs performance ratio. It's kind of a budget gamer PC, and here's the meat and potatoes of what I've got:

ASUS M2N-SLI Deluxe Socket AM2 NVIDIA nForce 570

AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ Windsor 2.6GHz Socket AM2 Processor

EVGA 320-P2-N811-AR GeForce 8800GTS 320MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 HDCP

mushkin 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit


It was recommended to me to get an Intel e6420 and an Asus SLI 650 mobo instead. Thoughts?

More about : intel amd

a c 159 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
June 23, 2007 9:15:00 AM

Amd will be more than adequate. The dual cores start at $59 for the brisbane 3600 (newegg). The only real choice is how much to spend on the video card. You can also read THG's article on building a $300 pc that runs vista.
June 23, 2007 10:08:13 AM

The only difference I'd make is get the 640 version of the 8800GTS if you're in it for the long haul. If you plan on going 8900 (or whatever they call it) when it arrives, then the 320 will be fine for now. Regardless of how drivers improve DX10 performance for current cards down the line, I expect next year's games to benefit greatly from the extra graphics RAM.

On the other hand, do you need it now or is an older PC viable for six more months? Let's hope Phenom pans out as AMD plans in November. I do wish they'd just called it Agena. Phenom is such a lame name for a CPU.
Related resources
June 23, 2007 10:13:28 AM

Well, if you're a budget gamer, why not consider the E2140... you can OC it quite well (I've seen 3Ghz chips), costs a ludicrously small amount, and is based on the same core as the 6xxxx chips, just with 1\4 of the cache... which, in the benchies I've seen, means nothing. Get a budget mobo and the RAM is cheaper, and you're laughing!

Your choice of course... but I suspect these E21xx are an absolute steal...

Don't know about where you are, but in the UK they're the same price ballpark as the 3800, but you can OC them much higher and the RAM's cheaper.

As I said, your choice... but I'm just throwing an idea out into the fire...
June 23, 2007 10:55:28 AM

you can buy the new pentium series but because they have less L2 cache they will slow down the fps of the game. if you are choosing a processor for overclocking and larger cache just get a e6420, if no overclocking get a e6320 it also have large L2 cache.
June 23, 2007 10:58:48 AM

Go with any of the Core 2's as there newer tech. Even the E6600, I'm running mine from stock of 2.4GHz to 3.6GHz on air, thats a 1200MHz OC. To think I just spent $220 for it. You could spend $125 for a mainboard from Intel. On July 22 Intel's going to have another price drop.
June 24, 2007 3:09:33 AM

This is all great feedback for what kind of money I can look to spend, but I'm more curious about performance. Do the intel cpu's perform that much better and more reliable to OC? This is not an upgrade computer, it's brand new everything. I looking to build a gamer computer that will run just about anything on max or near max settings, that I won't have to upgrade in another 6 months, and that I don't have to spend a ton of money on. (trying to stay under $1500 altogether)

A lot to ask, I know. :)  But I believe it can be done. I've got everything worked out except which cpu and mobo to get: Intel or AMD. I've always had AMD in the past and been wonderfully satisfied with it, but this is my first start-from-scratch build and I'm not entirely sure about all the pro's and con's of choosing one brand over the other. Help me out here? ^^;
June 24, 2007 3:26:04 AM

In the high performance market intel dominates amd, there is no sugar coating or any other BS surrounding it. Unfortunately, it is that simple. I used to be an amd user, but that will soon change. I was let down by the performance of an Athlon X2 5200. Wait until July 22 and get an intel cpu. Anything at or above an e6600 will own amd and put it to shame. Get a p35 mobo and some ddr2 1066.
E6750 (dual) or Q6600 (quad) will be cheap on July 22
Gigabyte p35 mobo
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Corsair ddr2 1066
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
June 24, 2007 3:26:43 AM

AND on your other question, yes they do oc that much better.
June 24, 2007 3:27:51 AM

REMEMBER THE DAY JULY 22!
June 24, 2007 3:32:05 AM

IF you want a comparison. OK. intel is much more efficient in power and for clock speed. It also has a larger cache, at least in most cases. They are also newer. My x2 5200 at 2.6 ghz is about as fast as an intel e6420 at 2.13. Not to mention that the amd chips rarely make it much past 3ghz, while intels can reach 3.4-3.6 on air, usually, with a good fan.
June 24, 2007 3:34:49 AM

However, I will have to say in the area of gaming the graphics card is much more important to the picture quality than the cpu regardless of how fast it is. If you want good picture get a good gpu!
June 24, 2007 3:53:19 AM

If your budget allows, I'd go for the E6420 and 650i SLI board instead of the AMD setup, but if this seriously limits your graphics card choice the AMD system may be better.
June 24, 2007 4:01:09 AM

Quote:
REMEMBER THE DAY JULY 22!


I'm waiting for Q1 2008 and Agena. I went AMD this time around last February because I didn't like Intel's business practices and the X2 4600+ was the best bang for the buck at the time.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1...

I still don't like Intel as a company. I don't see their CPUs all that much better at stock than AMD, and I don't overclock. Penryn might change things but I'll stick with AMD as an upgrade to this build because AM2 will still be viable with a bios upgrade.

By then, I expect MSI will have the problems with MSI Live and this motherboard worked out. LOL!

Quote:
IF you want a comparison. OK. intel is much more efficient in power and for clock speed. It also has a larger cache, at least in most cases. They are also newer. My x2 5200 at 2.6 ghz is about as fast as an intel e6420 at 2.13. Not to mention that the amd chips rarely make it much past 3ghz, while intels can reach 3.4-3.6 on air, usually, with a good fan.


Are you sure? An X2 4600+ Windsor at 2.4 is about as fast as a stock E6400 Allendale at 2.13 in Tom's CPU charts:

3DMark06 (CPU)

E6400: 1892

X2 4600+: 1850

FEAR:

E6400: 52 fps

X2 4600: 51 fps

An X2 5000+ rates at the following:

3DMark06 (CPU)

E6400: 1892

X2 5000+: 1986

FEAR:

E6400: 59 fps

X2 5000+: 58 fps

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1...

Note all the years people tolerated the space heater Prescotts and Pentium D's. Now, the industry and people on message boards are kvetching about a much smaller heat issue and a much smaller performance difference with AMD.

IMHO, the ethical reasons to go AMD right now add just a bit more logic to getting an AMD over an Intel, though I'd wait till an AM2+ board over an AM2, they're bound to be out long before Agena.
June 24, 2007 4:21:26 AM

i think biostars board is already out for am2+ so others should follow suit soon
June 24, 2007 4:24:16 AM

I wouldn't use the tomshardware charts for comparisons and benchmarks.

A lot of things change in the space of a year or even a month. New patches, drivers and updates can change the outcomes greatly.

The fact is that Intel clearly offers better performance and after the July 22nd price cuts, you'd be a fool to buy an AMD system for performance. No one can turn down a $266 E6850/Q6600 if they're looking to build an enthusiast class system.
June 24, 2007 4:41:21 AM

Quote:
REMEMBER THE DAY JULY 22!


I'm waiting for Q1 2008 and Agena. I went AMD this time around last February because I didn't like Intel's business practices and the X2 4600+ was the best bang for the buck at the time.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1...

I still don't like Intel as a company. I don't see their CPUs all that much better at stock than AMD, and I don't overclock. Penryn might change things but I'll stick with AMD as an upgrade to this build because AM2 will still be viable with a bios upgrade.

By then, I expect MSI will have the problems with MSI Live and this motherboard worked out. LOL!

Quote:
IF you want a comparison. OK. intel is much more efficient in power and for clock speed. It also has a larger cache, at least in most cases. They are also newer. My x2 5200 at 2.6 ghz is about as fast as an intel e6420 at 2.13. Not to mention that the amd chips rarely make it much past 3ghz, while intels can reach 3.4-3.6 on air, usually, with a good fan.


Are you sure? An X2 4600+ Windsor at 2.4 is about as fast as a stock E6400 Allendale at 2.13 in Tom's CPU charts:

3DMark06 (CPU)

E6400: 1892

X2 4600+: 1850

FEAR:

E6400: 52 fps

X2 4600: 51 fps

An X2 5000+ rates at the following:

3DMark06 (CPU)

E6400: 1892

X2 5000+: 1986

FEAR:

E6400: 59 fps

X2 5000+: 58 fps

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1...

Note all the years people tolerated the space heater Prescotts and Pentium D's. Now, the industry and people on message boards are kvetching about a much smaller heat issue and a much smaller performance difference with AMD.

IMHO, the ethical reasons to go AMD right now add just a bit more logic to getting an AMD over an Intel, though I'd wait till an AM2+ board over an AM2, they're bound to be out long before Agena.So you'd rather buy an inferior product for the same price, because you think Intel is evil? AMD would behave the same way if they were the industry leader.
June 24, 2007 5:43:06 AM

Quote:
I wouldn't use the tomshardware charts for comparisons and benchmarks.

A lot of things change in the space of a year or even a month. New patches, drivers and updates can change the outcomes greatly.

The fact is that Intel clearly offers better performance and after the July 22nd price cuts, you'd be a fool to buy an AMD system for performance. No one can turn down a $266 E6850/Q6600 if they're looking to build an enthusiast class system.


FFL as spoken by IntelidiotInside
June 24, 2007 9:12:18 AM

Quote:
[
So you'd rather buy an inferior product for the same price, because you think Intel is evil? AMD would behave the same way if they were the industry leader.


Yes, AMD would do the same. I don't consider Intel to be Hitler and I don't consider AMD to be Mother Theresa. What I do want is competition and I want to mildly punish Intel for all their restrictive practices identified by regulatory agencies in Japan, the EU and South Korea.

I didn't mind the Northwoods, they were the only good Netburst but all the "dude you got a Dell" marketing hurt everyone when added to the fact that many companies refused to use AMD CPUs and when they used them, they didn't market them, because of pressure from Intel.

You see, in 2012, I don't want to pay 1994 prices for my CPUs, so I want AMD to survive. As for inferior:

AMD is not inferior as a budget processor right now and we will see where they are when Agena hits the marketplace (note to Hector: Phenom really sounds lame ditch it). AMD is basically neck and neck in the budget processor as far as price and performance.

AMD is subpar in the high end enthusiast market. They bit off more than they can chew by building fabs, and I think they'll try ATI's model instead. We will see if that works.

Quote:
I wouldn't use the tomshardware charts for comparisons and benchmarks.

A lot of things change in the space of a year or even a month. New patches, drivers and updates can change the outcomes greatly.

The fact is that Intel clearly offers better performance and after the July 22nd price cuts, you'd be a fool to buy an AMD system for performance. No one can turn down a $266 E6850/Q6600 if they're looking to build an enthusiast class system.


Why are the charts bad? They seem to fit other benchmarks found on many other sites. My problem is they aren't updated often enough. Should we mistrust the VGA charts too?

If we go by benchmarks to prove that C2D rocks and AMD doesn't then why not go by benchmarks to show that that's only true at certain price performance points and that they are much closer at others.

Yes, I'd be a fool to turn down a $266 quad core that was efficient, but I don't like Kentsfield any more than Smithfield. Will a Penryn quad core be as cheap? Besides, I'm not building a new PC and I don't object to the guy buying Intel. Go with what works.

I just recommended that he get a different GPU. My reasons to go AMD worked for me in February and I won't be looking at another CPU until Agena, because I don't want to get another motherboard.
June 24, 2007 10:39:31 AM



Come July 22, the E6550 (E6600 performance) will be going for $163. Good to know that the greedy CPU manufacturers don't mind sacrificing a bit of profit to gain a few sales. :lol: 
June 24, 2007 11:46:02 AM

Quote:

I'm waiting for Q1 2008 and Agena. I went AMD this time around last February because I didn't like Intel's business practices and the X2 4600+ was the best bang for the buck at the time.


Let's face it, you would have bought the X2 4600+ regardless of best price/performance or not. Why add in all the extra spin and BS about Intel's business practices? We get it, you think Intel is an evil company. :wink:

Quote:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1...

I still don't like Intel as a company. I don't see their CPUs all that much better at stock than AMD, and I don't overclock. Penryn might change things but I'll stick with AMD as an upgrade to this build because AM2 will still be viable with a bios upgrade.


Wow! Didn't see that coming! You just said the same thing one paragraph ago! :lol:  I was really looking forward to seeing you change your mind, but alas you still hate Intel! :lol: 

Your arguments can be summarised as: I don't like Intel, I like AMD, even if Intel is better I am still sticking with AMD.

Gotcha. :wink:

Quote:

By then, I expect MSI will have the problems with MSI Live and this motherboard worked out. LOL!

I hope they do, for your sake. Don't think K10 would work without a BIOS flash at least. Why don't you just update the BIOS from the DOS command prompt. :wink:

Quote:

Are you sure? An X2 4600+ Windsor at 2.4 is about as fast as a stock E6400 Allendale at 2.13 in Tom's CPU charts:

3DMark06 (CPU)

E6400: 1892

X2 4600+: 1850

FEAR:

E6400: 52 fps

X2 4600: 51 fps

An X2 5000+ rates at the following:

3DMark06 (CPU)

E6400: 1892

X2 5000+: 1986

FEAR:

E6400: 59 fps

X2 5000+: 58 fps

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1...

Note all the years people tolerated the space heater Prescotts and Pentium D's. Now, the industry and people on message boards are kvetching about a much smaller heat issue and a much smaller performance difference with AMD.


LOL! So An X2 4600+ is now equal to an E6400 due to similar 3DMark and FEAR scores? 3DMark is totally synthetic and is about as useful as SuperPi, while FEAR is a totally GPU bound game. Nice cherrypicking of results though. :roll:

Funny how you didn't list any benchmark where the E6400 beats the X2 4600+ huh? :wink:

How about some Divxencoding? Hmmm...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1...

Well well... 6:38min to 7:52min! Just an oversight on your part, I'm sure!

What do you say about some Photoshop, one of the most popular image editing programs?
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1...
2:26 vs 2:51
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1...
1:56 vs 2:16

Nah, I'm sure I'm just cherrypicking results to make the E6400 look good huh?

Then again, isn't it odd how Xbitlabs rates an X2 4800+ lower than an E4400/E6320 in overall performance, which in turn are slower than an E6400?! And an E6420 is equal to the X2 5600+. Wow, I didn't know a cache bump from an E6400 allowed it to jump from X2 4600+ to X2 5600+ levels! :roll:



I GET IT! ALL THESE SITES ARE PAID INTEL PUMPERS!!!

At least that's what the most diehard AMD fanatics will say. :wink:

Quote:

IMHO, the ethical reasons to go AMD right now add just a bit more logic to getting an AMD over an Intel, though I'd wait till an AM2+ board over an AM2, they're bound to be out long before Agena.


Please. Some perspective. AMD is hardly a model example a squeaky clean company. How about their blatant BS to analysts, 2 weeks before their quarterly financials were due? How about their 'ethics' when they were handing out 'Multicore for Dummies' booklets at an Intel PR event? How 'ethical' is it for AMD to be totally BSing about performance in the face of C2D?

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/...


Looks like the X2 6000+ handily beats an E6700 huh? And look! The E6400 only matches the X2 4000! Humble in defeat, that's why I love AMD. :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

I have no sympathy for AMD whatsoever because their stupid CEO and his puppets Randy Allen and Henri Richard brought this upon themselves by being cocky and not innovating during the 3 years they had the lead with K8.
June 24, 2007 3:48:00 PM

Well if you've got to have an AMD at least get the 590SLI version of that MB. It will have 32 in the model number indicating that you get full 16X 16X in SLI mode. This could make a big difference in resale down the road even if you don't use SLI at the moment. :wink:
June 24, 2007 4:39:47 PM

Quote:

I GET IT! ALL THESE SITES ARE PAID INTEL PUMPERS!!!

At least that's what the most diehard AMD fanatics will say. :wink:


You've been reading Sharikou's blog a bit too much. :p  :lol: 
June 24, 2007 5:02:04 PM

Quote:

I GET IT! ALL THESE SITES ARE PAID INTEL PUMPERS!!!

At least that's what the most diehard AMD fanatics will say. :wink:


You've been reading Sharikou's blog a bit too much. :p  :lol: 

LOL! Haven't we all? :wink:
June 24, 2007 6:42:18 PM

Ok Intel has an advantage now compared with AMD. The C2D architecture is more efficient than AMD X2. At the same clock speeds intel dominates benches. So at high end segment intel C2D is the best and fastest CPU for now. However, if you want a mainstream segment CPU then both AMD and Intel have CPUs equal in performance and price. Check benches from several websites like tomshardware.com, anandtech.com, Guru3d.com, extremetech.com etc.
If you like to buy AMD CPU go ahead with your system specs.
June 24, 2007 6:57:52 PM

lol, well thanks for all the quality feedback guys. Although, I personally don't give 2 $hit$ about how ethical a company is. As long as I'm getting the best performance for what I'm willing to pay, I'm satisifed. :-D
June 24, 2007 7:51:21 PM

Quote:
lol, well thanks for all the quality feedback guys. Although, I personally don't give 2 $hit$ about how ethical a company is. As long as I'm getting the best performance for what I'm willing to pay, I'm satisifed. :-D


So much depends on how much you want to spend on the CPU. disregarding overclocking, AMD has no high end solutions - unless you want to waste money on a QFX (and it is a waste)
Mid range is a toss up between Intel and AMD with the 6000+ and E6600 being enck and neck WRT price and performance.
AMD is strong in low range.

Consider these things however:

Current X2 mobos should be upgradable to Barcelona core CPUs, however, they will not make full use of those CPUs advantages...so look for a AM2+ mobo - which have only just started started to appear. Meaning if you want to upgarde your CPU later on, to get the most out of it you will have to buy a new mobo if you buy an AM2 borad now..

Games right now are GPU bound, meaning you'll get better performance investing in a faster video card than a faster CPU. That will change in the not to distant future as newer games will incorporate more realistic environments which will require increase physics computations which in turn will place greater demands on the CPU. You will need both a fast GPU and fast CPU when that happens.

If you're on a tight budget, you are better off buying a lower end CPU (3800 or 6300) and overclocking it. Put the money saved towards more ram or a better video card. That is if you are comfortable with the idea of overclocking. Also note that overclocking will void your CPU warrenty, but on the otherhand, its difficult for the manufacturers to tell if you burned up your CPU over clocking it.

In your position, you should be looking towards upradability. There's a lot of change right around the corner, and a lot of new games arriving later this year will demand high perfromance components. That said, AMD, which has the cheaper low end solution(at the moment) and a range of competant mid range solutions, but falls behind Intel in terms of ease/cheapness of upgrading. All 975 and some 965(i) boards can take current quad cores. The 975s should take Penryns. P35s will take most anything. All without giving anything up. As noted, to make full use of next gen AMD CPUs, you will need to find the AM2+ mobos.

If you have time to wait before building your new system- do so. Nvidias G92s may be out in time for xmas which should drive 8800 prices down. In fact, they should drive all Nvidis video cards prices down. Penryn and K10(maybe) are coming up fast.
June 24, 2007 9:06:47 PM

Quote:


Let's face it, you would have bought the X2 4600+ regardless of best price/performance or not. Why add in all the extra spin and BS about Intel's business practices? We get it, you think Intel is an evil company. :wink:


Back when we only had one PC, and that's the P4 Northwood 2.8 (533fsb), I posted how much I looked forward to C2D, when it came out, it was too expensive initially because Intel was trying to ditch their Pentium D's and I didn't want a Fry's bundle with even one of the less hot Pentium D's.

So, I got the barebones from Newegg, and went to Fry's and got a bundle that included the exact same MSI motherboard. Since I replaced the X2 3800+ with the 4600+, I decided I'll either build a dual core for my wife with the 3800+ or build a cheap HTPC with it and the duplicate motherboard.

My initial reason to go AMD was an $89 barebones, and a (in the first week of February) bundled X2 3800+ with an MSI motherboard for $179 at Fry's. That made building two PCs a bit less expensive. I replaced the PSU for $59 at Fry's this month and used the barebones stock PSU in my 6 year old's "new" Celeron (used parts all).

Should I "play fair" and build her a PC with Intel? Fry's recently had a nice bundle consisting of an E4300 bundled with an ECS motherboard with a Via chipset that would allow her to use two sticks of her DDR 400 and the AGP X1650 Pro until there's a reason to go PCIe. It's around $129 or so the last time I saw it advertised.

I have considered going that route, and I don't think a total fanboy would. My only issue is she wants 2 gigs and there are 4 sticks of 512 meg DDR 400 in the P4, not 2 sticks of 1 gig. Yet, I already have the second K9N6SGM-V and an X2 3800+ Windsor, but there I'd need 2 sticks of Kingston plus a new PCIe graphics card.

Until this February, the last AMD CPU I had was a K62-450. I've had a P4 1.6 Williamette, upgraded to a P4 2.4, and then with a motherboard switch out, a P4 2.8. I did refuse to use a Prescott or a Smithfield and was dubious regarding the Presslers and Cedar Mills.

When the investigations into their rebate pressure and restrictive contracts came out, then I added that to my dislike of their forcing Netburst on everyone. Did I like AMD's pricing when they could get $300 for an X2 3800+? I wished they were cheaper, but I respect the marketplace. They did not have the manufacturing capacity that Intel does. If they could have pumped out more X2's and gotten them in more PC's then the market would take care of things.


Quote:

I have no sympathy for AMD whatsoever because their stupid CEO and his puppets Randy Allen and Henri Richard brought this upon themselves by being cocky and not innovating during the 3 years they had the lead with K8.


What innovation did Intel do during all the years they tried to convince the world they'd get to 4 gighertz with Netburst? If only the scientific breakthrough had come earlier that allows the recovery of waste heat by converting it to electricity. Then, Intel could have pursued that and kept on the single core, high clockspeed Netburst and claimed they were still cutting edge.

The thing that changed Intel's attitude was the popularity of notebooks, and they had to go back to the Pentium III cores to find a design they could borrow from for an efficient notebook CPU. That gave us the Pentium M's designed in Israel, not by the Netburst crowd, wherever they hail from.

I said that AMD is not Mother Theresa and Intel's not Hitler. I know that CEO's do stunts and handing out pamphlets to the press outside of the competitor's event is silly marketing. What is different is illegal agreements that prevent your competitor's product from being used. If all AMD PC's were manufactured by AMD and all Intel PC's were manufactured by Intel, there would be an argument against using the competitor's CPU.

However, when third parties are forced through questionable rebate contracts to ditch the competitor's product, then that's illegal in most jurisdictions. I just wonder why there's been no equivalent investigation here? Maybe Dell's refusal to use AMD all those years made the difference?
June 24, 2007 11:32:25 PM

Quote:
When the investigations into their rebate pressure and restrictive contracts came out, then I added that to my dislike of their forcing Netburst on everyone. Did I like AMD's pricing when they could get $300 for an X2 3800+? I wished they were cheaper, but I respect the marketplace. They did not have the manufacturing capacity that Intel does. If they could have pumped out more X2's and gotten them in more PC's then the market would take care of things.


This is where I throw the BS flag.

AMDs capacity had nothing to do the high prices of X2 3800s. I tracked AMDs processor prices closely enough for three years to chart them. Until last year, they followed a consistant pattern that consisted of 2 primary factors.
First, a consistant overall decreasing trend, Second, a seasonal pattern. Net change, over a yearly period was always down.

That didnt happen last year. From December to June, AMD processor prices (in particular the X2 3800) remained constant. Prices were kept high because:
1) AMD was gaining market share despite the high prices
2) Intel had nothing competative
3) Supply and demand - consumers and business were willing enough to choose the AMD processers at the higher cost - see #1).

You should also check your income stats. AMD persistantly operates in the red. Last year in one of their rare forays into that zone so unfamiliar to them, they broke into the black. Courtesy of their high prices and increased sales.

Had AMD lowered prices enough to gain market share at an even faster rate, then eventually they may very well have encountered production limits, but they certainly didnt last year prior to the Dell deal.
June 25, 2007 12:07:59 AM

All I hear is "I WANT TO MARRY AMD!"
June 25, 2007 3:23:04 AM

I don't even own AMD stock.

Trust me on this, I don't think AMD is innocent in trying to milk the market for all they can, when they can. That's capitalism. I just don't think Intel style rebate agreements that violate antitrust fits into the capitalist model.

All the years I bought Intel, sometimes a pulled processor at a discount, sometimes brand new bundled with a motherboard at Fry's just does not count. If I express any doubts about Intel's business practices, I'm being told I have an agenda.

If I choose a budget CPU that was right for me at the time, then I'm a loser who sticks with lousy under performing technology because I allegedly love one company and hate the other. Yet, all those people who bought several Netburst processors over the years, who put up with under performing technology are suddenly vindicated because of C2D?

High end go C2D, but budget go AMD. I'm not even sure the rebranded low cache Allendales that are being sold as the next generation Pentiums will be worth it compared to an Athlon X2 3600+. We will see in the benchmarks.

Penryn will be good, it will kill the Smithfield like Kentsfield, and that's a good thing. Agena will be good, even if it does not keep up with Penryn on the desktop because competition is good.

I guess you guys want Intel to "win" so you can pay as much for a future 8 core processor as you did for the 486DX series way back when? Back then, I could go Cyrix 486-DLC, or an AMD 386SX-40 at the low end, but I could not afford an Intel 486DX2-50 until I bought it used from a friend.

Those where the days, and Intel wants to bring them back. If they do so honestly, then that's life, but if they bulldoze over the regulators and the OEM's the way Microsoft has bulldozed over all the state, national and EU lawsuits, then it's not fine.

I'm a capitalist who believes in competition.
June 25, 2007 4:14:12 AM

Quote:
REMEMBER THE DAY JULY 22!


I'm waiting for Q1 2008 and Agena. I went AMD this time around last February because I didn't like Intel's business practices and the X2 4600+ was the best bang for the buck at the time.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1...

I still don't like Intel as a company. I don't see their CPUs all that much better at stock than AMD, and I don't overclock. Penryn might change things but I'll stick with AMD as an upgrade to this build because AM2 will still be viable with a bios upgrade.

By then, I expect MSI will have the problems with MSI Live and this motherboard worked out. LOL!

Quote:
IF you want a comparison. OK. intel is much more efficient in power and for clock speed. It also has a larger cache, at least in most cases. They are also newer. My x2 5200 at 2.6 ghz is about as fast as an intel e6420 at 2.13. Not to mention that the amd chips rarely make it much past 3ghz, while intels can reach 3.4-3.6 on air, usually, with a good fan.


Are you sure? An X2 4600+ Windsor at 2.4 is about as fast as a stock E6400 Allendale at 2.13 in Tom's CPU charts:

3DMark06 (CPU)

E6400: 1892

X2 4600+: 1850

FEAR:

E6400: 52 fps

X2 4600: 51 fps

An X2 5000+ rates at the following:

3DMark06 (CPU)

E6400: 1892

X2 5000+: 1986

FEAR:

E6400: 59 fps

X2 5000+: 58 fps

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1...

Note all the years people tolerated the space heater Prescotts and Pentium D's. Now, the industry and people on message boards are kvetching about a much smaller heat issue and a much smaller performance difference with AMD.

IMHO, the ethical reasons to go AMD right now add just a bit more logic to getting an AMD over an Intel, though I'd wait till an AM2+ board over an AM2, they're bound to be out long before Agena.

Nice cherrypicking there fanboy.

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/intel%20core%202%20d...

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/intel%20core%202%20d...

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/intel%20core%202%20d...

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/intel%20core%202%20d...

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/intel%20core%202%20d...

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/intel%20core%202%20d...

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/intel%20core%202%20d...

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/intel%20core%202%20d...

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/intel%20core%202%20d...
June 25, 2007 5:12:27 AM

yipsl wrote:

"If I choose a budget CPU that was right for me at the time, then I'm a loser who sticks with lousy under performing technology because I allegedly love one company and hate the other. Yet, all those people who bought several Netburst processors over the years, who put up with under performing technology are suddenly vindicated because of C2D?"

Yes?

Also:

"I guess you guys want Intel to "win" so you can pay as much for a future 8 core processor as you did for the 486DX series way back when? Back then, I could go Cyrix 486-DLC, or an AMD 386SX-40 at the low end, but I could not afford an Intel 486DX2-50 until I bought it used from a friend.

Those where the days, and Intel wants to bring them back. If they do so honestly, then that's life, but if they bulldoze over the regulators and the OEM's the way Microsoft has bulldozed over all the state, national and EU lawsuits, then it's not fine."

Only the strong will survive. I believe very strongly in this modo. Maybe its just me!

(I dont actually want AMD gone, but this whole thing just cracks me up!)

!LOL!

Best,

3Ball
June 25, 2007 5:20:11 AM

When you use overclock scores to claim how much better an E4300 is over an X2 4600+ at stock, that's cherrypicking. Let's look at the stock performance. Overall, the E4300 wins hands down only in power draw.

3DS Max 8:

4600+ gets 2.84; E4300 gets 2.74; Intel wins by a small margin.

Divx encoding:

4600+ 108 seconds, E4300 101; Intel wins by 7 seconds

Windows Media Encoder:

4600+ 85 seconds, E4300 96 seconds; AMD wins by 11 seconds

Itunes:

4600+ 48 seconds, E4300 47 seconds; Intel wins by 1 second

Quake 4:

4600+ 130.7 fps, E4300+ 114.4 fps; AMD wins, but who can notice the difference while actually playing?

Oblivion:

4600+ 76.5 fps, E4300 72.5, a tie in my book because I've played every TES game since Arena and they are not designed to get FPS framerates, so any high end GPU setup with either CPU is a first class choice without overclocking.

Half Life 2:

4600+ 134.2, E4300 127.1; AMD wins but who cares about 7 fps? They're in the same league in this game.

Total System Power at Idle:

4600+ 157 watts, E4300 at stock 142.

Intel wins because it's a generation past the X2 series. Like I said, Intel learned from AMD. Had they not you'd still be defending Pentium D Presslers with watercooling at 4 gigahertz overclocked.

Power Consumption under Load:

4600+ 207, E4300 at stock 171. The new Intel generation wins again.

Not everyone overclocks, not everyone gets the same results and not everyone continues to experience a problem free overclock. When I tried to overclock a P4 Northwood years ago, it was a bust and I went back to stock. I'm sure Intel engineers learned from AMD that tweaking their design to please enthusiast overclockers leads to better benchmarks, which leads to an erosion in AMD sales. That's valid capitalist competition and I commend them on it.

It's not the Intel engineers that tick me off, it's the Intel suits and lawyers, but then again, I take the same attitude towards those types that the Hitchhiker's series did. Take all the corporate lawyers, 3/4 of the corporate suits, 1/2 of the marketing departments and send them off into space to colonize a backward planet so the people who really make the world work can do so without the sort of ridiculous interference that stifles innovation and scientific inquiry.

As I said, Intel for performance, AMD for bargain.

The E4300 Allendale is $117 right now at Newegg, the X2 4600+ Windsor is $113. This takes into account Intel's price drops, which makes it a better deal.

Overall, there are better budget boards for AMD and the budget boards for Intel that I keep seeing at Fry's use DDR2 533, whereas I can use either DDR2 667 or 800 in my current Nvidia board. With more price drops, Intel will get even better.

Maybe you will get your wish and AMD will die, then we'll see where Intel prices are a year later when there's no CPU competition. Penryn will be out much sooner than Agena, so that could very well happen.

3ball, I don't know how old you are or how long you've been building PCs, but I started with the 386SX-40 from AMD. CPUs were soldered on to the motherboard back then and when you upgraded, you upgraded both at the same time. It wasn't till I got a Cyrix 486-DLC 40, which fit on a 386 motherboard, that I bought both separately.

Though all CPU prices were higher back then, Intel was much higher. They had the corporate market and AMD went for the budget market. Even then, the Cyrix CPU I had for a year was cheaper than AMD, and much cheaper than Intel.

It might crack you up, but I hate monopolies as a matter of choice. No one is going to step into the CPU market if AMD goes under and I simply don't understand the tolerance you guys have for Intel's restrictive rebate mishegoss. Nvidia denies they'll ever step into the CPU market, nor will IBM take on Intel without AMD as a partner.

Intel today is where Microsoft was fifteen years ago. Microsoft didn't win in their market by being strong, they won by getting away with slaps on the wrist. If I had another OS for a gaming PC, I would not choose Microsoft. I used DR Dos and then OS 2 for years, only going to Win 98, then Win XP, only when I had to. Now, I'm at Vista solely for DX10 games.

You guys make the perfect prey for the corporate sharks. I guess it's because someday you hope you'll be one of the strong? Well, the corporate world is full of cheap Indian programmers in a world that is flat, pensions are gone and contract labor in IT is the norm. It can only get worse when whole industries are dominated by one company.

I've made my peace that I'm living in a 21st century mirror of the early 20th century, but I hope that a balance is brought to society and the business world by the time my son's close to retirement, I think it will take that long.
a b à CPUs
June 25, 2007 6:29:03 AM

Quote:
you can buy the new pentium series but because they have less L2 cache they will slow down the fps of the game. if you are choosing a processor for overclocking and larger cache just get a e6420, if no overclocking get a e6320 it also have large L2 cache.


cache dont mean nothin, a Pentium D 945 has a total of 4mb cache and it looses to the 2140 with a mere 1mb ;) 
June 25, 2007 7:01:08 AM

LOL, I meant nuthin by it. Yes, I have came to the realization that you are older than me I have been building PC' since the age of 13 and worked for a custom computer building company (Xtream Computers, Frisco Texas), which I convinced to build AMD computers from age 16 - 18 until I came to school. I am currently a 21 year old college student at Texas Tech University studying MIS. So I don't have great credentials, but none the less I know where you are coming from with the prices, but what cracks me up is everyones different point of view on every different situation that I see especially when many of them have a very similar answer to all of the questions, but are just worded much differently. lol, IDK sry for the confusion. I have an intel laptop and dektop, but my old computer and current roommates computer is an AMD 4200+ System, so obviously I would like to see AMD stay in the game because I just want whats best for me at whatever time I choose to buy.

-End of confusing/senseless and ignorant rant!

Best,

3Ball
June 25, 2007 10:53:15 AM

I don't take it personally, I do think that having a social conscience sometimes means choosing the underdog, even in business. If AMD had the Pentium D's and Intel had the C2D, then there's no way I'd go with AMD.

Besides, I tend to see the ATI/AMD merger as a step in the right direction. Something has to be done to bring down the thermals on those big honkin' high end GPUs. Unlike a theoretical Nvidia/Intel merger, the two companies will listen to each other and get good products out over the next few years.

You know the heat here in Texas and having 3 PC's networked in the living room of our townhouse makes me want to switch to LCD monitors and an LCD TV next year. I've budgeted an 8800GTS 640 this fall and I worry about heat there.

As for age, well I played Advent on a mainframe while taking a BASIC class in 1979. I'm not very far up on any hierarchy in skills or pay, but I found data centers more fun than sitting in a cubicle or even an office. At least I don't expect to be laid off for a few years, I've already been outsourced once.

Good luck with your MIS.

Where's the guy with the E4300 overclocking links? When it works, it works, but it doesn't work often with budget boards so I don't bother with it. I wonder, how many people really do overclock, even if they build their own PCs?
June 25, 2007 6:11:56 PM

I agree the AMD/ATI merger will probably turn out to be a great thing once all the kinks are worked out. lol, not sure where he is, but I can tell you one this, is that no matter what CPU I have I cannot stand not OC'ing. I just dont have the will power. Unfortunatly I cant get my 3040 any higher than this without extreme voltages. lol...oh yea and it does seem to get pretty hot here in tx...lmao

Best,

3Ball
June 25, 2007 7:39:23 PM

Ignore the Intel vs AMD crap, just buy the best graphics card you can afford. You will live happily after...
June 26, 2007 1:15:54 AM

He was actually asking about CPU and AMD has been the bang for the buck at the low end with higher thermals. With Intel price cuts, C2D is looking better. I'm just glad that Penryn and Agena will be coming out in the same quarter and then we'll see some real competition again.

The original poster said he wanted to get an 8800GTS 320 and I recommended a 640 for higher textures. Any thread like this eventually becomes Intel vs. AMD.

Wouldn't it be great if Nvidia made CPU's too? People would pay attention to it and there would probably be a decent performance (unlike Via). A 3 way CPU race would be great for both ethical competition and consumer prices.

There might be a 3 way race when Intel gets back into discreet GPU's but I have my doubts there. Still, they got out of the 31 stage pipeline Netburst hole they dug themselves into, they could actually do something that Matrox and SIS never managed to do; give Nvidia and AMD competition in the 3D performance market.

We will see.
June 26, 2007 6:12:12 AM

I've always kept an open mind about processors. Now is a good time to be open-minded. AMD clearly has dropped the CPU ball, and has nothing but noiz to alleviate the AMD faithful. In as much as I think the Intel C2D is the better CPU, the more simply configured stuff (like 1HDD, 1OPT, 1GC) really points towards a AMD/NV config. I would like to o/c a simpler set up first before going onwards and upwards. Intel has obviously the upper hand in future-proofing, but at the cost of SLi and raid and ATX/X-ATX boards. Is it possible that Intel has decided bigger is better? ;) 

I haven't really seen anything to write home about for the uATX MoBo folks. I guess the most flexible design in terms of o/c and decent speed, might be the signature build below, sans the 5600+, and tossing in a more flexible CPU, like a Brisbane.

The AMD/ATi uATX boards get tossed for lack of flexibility, and generally inferior designs (I really dont think the CMOS chip or the battery should be under the graphx card, or said card block 2 of my SATA ports). Thats not to say the NV7025 is much better, but its more flexible.

Perhaps some people can enlighten me about the flexibility of Intel-based g33 uATX MoBo's.

f61
!