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 Unless what I've been researching has been outdated by a few months, AMD seems to have a much better price vs performance ratio.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:
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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? ^^;
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/Prod [...] 6813128050 Corsair ddr2 1066
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6820145033
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.
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!
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
[
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.
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.
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? ^^;
