Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel Vs. AMD

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 19, 2007 3:47:20 PM

Hi, I want to buy a new proc. but I don't know wich is better?

What is better to play a game like crysis?

1. CPU AMD Athlon64 X2 6400+ "Black Box Edition" (64-bit, integ.DDR2 mem. kontr., 2M L2 on-chip cache, 3200 MHz, 125W, 1.35V-1.40V), Socket AM2

OR

2. Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 BOX, (4×2.4GHz, 1066MHz, 8MB, Kentsfield, potrošnja:105W), 65nm, Socket 775, Quad Core

Thanks!

More about : intel amd

November 19, 2007 4:10:24 PM

Q6600.

Although Crysis doesn't offer any performance gain from dual to quad, Q6600 is still faster in general.

November 19, 2007 4:15:42 PM

I'd get the Q6600 even though Crysis won't really take advantage of the 4 cores; at the very least your CPU will be prepared for newer titles that will utilize all 4 cores.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
November 19, 2007 5:42:04 PM

I would just go with a good dual core, and then later get a Penryn when the prices drop.
November 19, 2007 5:48:10 PM

Buy a P35 or X38 and get an E2160. Buy a Q9450 or 9300 when Penryn drops.
November 19, 2007 7:48:01 PM

Q6600, no comparison imo!

Best,

3Ball
November 26, 2007 6:26:35 PM

I love when people compare apples to oranges. Since both chipes are different by far you have to go by a price standpoint. The price difference between the two above are not even in the same ballpark. The quad 6600 is $265, and the 6400+ is $179. Compare the Intel E6320 and the 6400+ and benchmark them. AMD runs cooler, and more stable which leads to a greater O'clock %. Intel 's newest technology bats out AMD, but AMD hasn't put theirs out. Hence the price difference. Remember Apples to Apples.
November 26, 2007 6:28:14 PM

AMDGamer said:
I love when people compare apples to oranges. Since both chipes are different by far you have to go by a price standpoint. The price difference between the two above are not even in the same ballpark. The quad 6600 is $265, and the 6400+ is $179. Compare the Intel E6320 and the 6400+ and benchmark them. AMD runs cooler, and more stable which leads to a greater O'clock %. Intel 's newest technology bats out AMD, but AMD hasn't put theirs out. Hence the price difference. Remember Apples to Apples.


6400+ has more OC headroom than a E6320? lol...

Apples to apples btw would be a G0 E6750.
November 26, 2007 6:34:43 PM

Yea, I hate to agree with you, cause I love AMD as well, but Intel is a clear winner in overclockability. I just took an E6550 from 2.3 to 3.4 on 1.325 volts. I can't get my Opteron 185 from 2.6 to over 3.1 (which may be user error, but HT seems to die anything above that)
November 26, 2007 6:35:57 PM

Apples to apples also mean Q6600 vs. Phenom 9700...

EDIT: Actually, considering the price point, its Q6600 vs. Phenom 9500...

...and we all know how the story ends :p 
November 26, 2007 7:14:17 PM

The X2 64 B.E will OC Real good on AMD's new chipset(790) with there new tweak software.The AMD 5000 B.E O.C'ed to 3.5, so yes it should OC well.Google it
November 26, 2007 7:18:07 PM

ro3dog said:
The X2 64 B.E will OC Real good on AMD's new chipset(790) with there new tweak software.The AMD 5000 B.E O.C'ed to 3.5, so yes it should OC well.Google it


Who said it wouldn't OC well? He's saying it will OC better with more headroom.

5000+ -> 3.5 GHz is a good jump.
6400+ -> 3.5 GHz not so much a large % OC.

Perhaps we should find some of the E6550s or E6420/6400s that OC so well. Or even some of the E21x0 that will pull 100% overclocks.

Noone is saying AMD's don't OC well. However the argument was a touch off base.
November 26, 2007 7:27:54 PM

AMDGamer said:
Compare the Intel E6320 and the 6400+ and benchmark them. AMD runs cooler, and more stable which leads to a greater O'clock %.


Where do these people come from?
November 26, 2007 7:30:54 PM

Not to mention that the 45nm chips are hitting over 4GHz on air. That IS the EE version, but I suspect that the majority of bins will be capable in the right hands.
November 26, 2007 7:34:21 PM

Well reading the OP's question I didn't actually read anywhere that they wanted to overclock? Why does everybody assume that every person is going to overclock their CPU lol some people might actually want to keep their warranty intact.

As to the original question.....

The Quad core has the advantage because it's fast in single core applications, but it will really shine with crysis and other upcoming games that can take advantage of the 4 cores.

AMD 6400+ X2 is fast, but the jump in price from the 6000+ for a measly 200mhz gain is not good value. That little more extra cash gets you the Intel quad!
November 26, 2007 7:34:58 PM

Thanatos421 said:
Not to mention that the 45nm chips are hitting over 4GHz on air. That IS the EE version, but I suspect that the majority of bins will be capable in the right hands.


I'd venture that 3.6-4.0 GHz will be pretty common... Even on the quads (with a good mobo).
November 26, 2007 7:42:42 PM

I sure do hope so. I didn't spend 300 bucks on the Maximus Formula to OC a 6750 :p 

Damn Newegg and their price hikes!! I bought one MF for my friends build, at 279, not on sale. 2 weeks later, the price has jumped 30 bucks@!!!!!@!@ /rant off

I got this board and memory with a nice hefty Penryn Quad overclock in mind. I'll be drooling with anticipation til January I guess.
November 26, 2007 7:45:55 PM

G0 Q6600. No questions. Remember when everyone was saying a couple years ago that games could not take advantage of two cores. Well, that's over now and the this talk about lack of multi-threading for quads should be over within the year.
November 26, 2007 7:48:14 PM

Thanatos421 said:
I sure do hope so. I didn't spend 300 bucks on the Maximus Formula to OC a 6750 :p 

Damn Newegg and their price hikes!! I bought one MF for my friends build, at 279, not on sale. 2 weeks later, the price has jumped 30 bucks@!!!!!@!@ /rant off

I got this board and memory with a nice hefty Penryn Quad overclock in mind. I'll be drooling with anticipation til January I guess.


HD3870s were $220 at launch. They are now close to $270 waiting on stock. Darn the supply/demand economics.
November 26, 2007 8:36:11 PM

I'm not a Intel fanboy, I often cheer on AMD to keep competing. That being said, I would definitely go with the Q6600 hands down. Quad Core will have more head room in the future. As more applications take advantage of the multiple cores the Q6600 will really start to pull away.
November 27, 2007 12:06:43 AM

Quote:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i145/Soldier36/amd-black-edition-08-20.jpg
Ive got to be the balancing act here, too many intel bandwagon faboys on these forums. Who cares if it gives you 2 more frames per second in this game or that. Where were you fanboys when Amd was kicking the crap out of Intel P4s couple years ago. Next year Phenom 3 + Ghz quad cores will own penryn...Let the flames begin...LOL


Where was I? I was putting Athlons in builds for people because AMD held the performance crown. Where am I now? Back with Intel, because they hold the performance crown.

You are right though, most games will be CPU limited. However unlike you I do more encoding/RAR's and the like, and some of my stuff does take advantage of all 4 cores.
November 27, 2007 12:33:09 AM

Quote:
There are More of us "dedicated dont care what Intel does" people out there than you know...Proud owner of a 6000+ and wont ever switch to Intel darkside of the force! Crysis runs fine on my setup 1920 x 1200 all high settings.


Indeed! I my self own a 3800+ and couldn't be more happy. However... I was more or less referring to the people who... well I still think this quote sums it up:
Quote:
AMD runs cooler, and more stable which leads to a greater O'clock %.

November 27, 2007 12:50:58 AM

I'll add another vote for:

Get a pentium dual core E21x0 to get you started and drop in a Penryn quad core early next year.


That's my plan anyway...
November 27, 2007 1:28:42 AM

cancelled
November 27, 2007 2:09:07 AM

I'm pretty sure 3.2 is nearing the max for an AMD processor based on their current manufacturing technology... realistically, what sort of OC can a user expect out of that 6400+? It just seems like virtually every other Intel CPU on the planet is going to have a LOT more OC'n headroom that this particular AMD chip.
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2007 2:09:43 AM

Okay here is how I see it.
AMD
CPU = $180 + $20 HSF
Mobo = $80

Intel
CPU = $270
Mobo = $100 for p35 one

So if you look at those 2 you have about ~$90 difference, assuming you would have basically the same memory, case, and drives. You than would have $90 more to spend on a GPU over the Intel based one. This $90 might get you to move up from a 8600gts (by budget) to a 3850(70) or even a 8800gt (if you were spending ~$150 on the GPU). Now I'd be willing to bet that if you have a 6400+ AMD and a 8800gt that you'd score better than a q6600 and an 8600gts (no OC'ing involved). If this was the case than I'd recommend the AMD setup. If the OP wanted to OC later, it would be still hard to recommend the Intel setup. If this ~$90 difference wasn't too big of a deal than the q6600 would make more sense. Now if OC'ing was involved than a e6550 or e6750 would make more sense to get than a q6600, IMHO. Yes you'd lose the 2 cores, but would also drop the difference between the 2 rigs to almost nothing. If the OP already had a AM2 mobo, than I would suggest the 5000+ BE or the 6400+ BE, since the OP would probably already have a HSF that could work, thus saving at least $20 onto the build plus the cost of the mobo. If the OP is just building from the ground up on this than one can argue either way and still be right. It just depends on budget and where the OP wants to go with this build.
November 27, 2007 2:33:29 AM

Ok i build systems for a living here are real prices

Q6600 = 250
Phenom = 310, 375

1st thing i can buy a q6600 cheaper than then phenom's
And a good motherboard for amd= same price as good motherboard for intel

Sure i can buy a $60 mb that will support the q6600 but thats not the argument here its cpu prices
and intel will beat amd on all gaming benchmarks thats what counts.

Sure suppliers will soak us because its new so will places like best buy.
November 27, 2007 2:47:14 AM

techguy911 said:
Ok i build systems for a living here are real prices

Q6600 = 250
Phenom = 310, 375

1st thing i can buy a q6600 cheaper than then phenom's
And a good motherboard for amd= same price as good motherboard for intel

Sure i can buy a $60 mb that will support the q6600 but thats not the argument here its cpu prices
and intel will beat amd on all gaming benchmarks thats what counts.

Sure suppliers will soak us because its new so will places like best buy.

The Op ask about Q6600 or X2 64 B.E ,not Phenom.Lets not beat a dead horse with a stick
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2007 2:59:25 AM

To the OP:

Between the two you asked about,definitely a Q6600.

November 27, 2007 3:38:32 AM

Quote:
So if you look at those 2 you have about ~$90 difference, assuming you would have basically the same memory, case, and drives. You than would have $90 more to spend on a GPU over the Intel based one.

You could carry that argument further and eventually reach ideal game performance in something like -
x2 3800+ CPU $63
AM2 o/c motherboard $80
8800gtx $490

With this you can run a current game at the best possible settings for that budget, but your computer wouldn't be very good for anything else.

So comparing the price of Q6600 to x2 6400+ is comparing apples to oranges. The latter may hold its own in 1-2 threads at stock, but the reason for a Q6600 is to have room for the 3rd and 4th threads, which the 6400+ doesn't have, as well as to o/c, which the 6400+ is known to fail quickly at. Otherwise, we'd have brought up Exxxx chips right away.
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2007 3:42:10 AM

techguy911 said:
Ok i build systems for a living here are real prices

Q6600 = 250
Phenom = 310, 375

1st thing i can buy a q6600 cheaper than then phenom's
And a good motherboard for amd= same price as good motherboard for intel

Sure i can buy a $60 mb that will support the q6600 but thats not the argument here its cpu prices
and intel will beat amd on all gaming benchmarks thats what counts.

Sure suppliers will soak us because its new so will places like best buy.

First off, the q6600 is $280 here on newegg.com. The Phenom 9500 is at $260 on newegg, so not sure where your getting the 310-375 price?
Secondly, you must always consider all of the components when doing a build. If your just asking about an AMD AM2 CPU to a AMD AM2 CPU comparison, than the other components don't matter too much. But in this case if your comparing a Intel to AMD CPU, than you need to consider all parts involved to see what your comparing to. Yes the q6600 is a solid CPU to get, but if part of the equation is that you must consider any price differences than you have to look at that. If you want to compare mobo's at the equivalent prices (AMD vs. Intel) than we can discuss that somewhere else, but you know that a $100 AMD mobo will have more options than a $100 Intel board for the most part. I'm not going to go into that here. even if you equal the cost of the mobo's, you still have a ~$70 difference, which can allow one to move up in GPU performance one way or another. That is why I stated what I stated before. I'd be willing to bet that a 8800gt w/a $180 AMD CPU would do better in games than a 8600gts on a q6600. Those 2 systems would be about the same amount of $ and that was my original point stated earlier.
November 27, 2007 4:17:16 AM

Ok, sorry, couldn't resist the urge to step away from this thread. I have been a computer enthusiast for many many years now and I've seen the ages of the P and PII along with the classic Athlons, as well as most of you here. I have to say that this is all through point of view and experiences of users from past situations mixed in with, of course, a little passion. I have loved and owned processors from both ends. I ain't no fan boy! Just around two years the market was for AMD with their unbeatable 64bit and x2 processors and intel having heat issues with their P4 and PD/PEE. We saw how awesome and efficient AMDs were at that time. Now the table has turned, now Intel released their C2D and now they are awesome and efficient. What it comes down to is that one company produced a wonderful product while the other scrambles to provide competition in the market and then they releases a wonderful product and the previous company now scrambles to compete. I just say go for the one that best suites your needs: from OC'ing to Heat/power efficiency. comparing AMD to intel is like comparing batman with superman, sure their great in their own way and has strengths that the other lacks. Just my two cents.
November 27, 2007 5:23:11 AM

Quote:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i145/Soldier36/amd-black-edition-08-20.jpg
Ive got to be the balancing act here, too many intel bandwagon faboys on these forums. Who cares if it gives you 2 more frames per second in this game or that. Where were you fanboys when Amd was kicking the crap out of Intel P4s couple years ago. Next year Phenom 3 + Ghz quad cores will own penryn...Let the flames begin...LOL


:sarcastic: 
Dude, you forgot to take your pills this morning....
November 27, 2007 5:31:25 AM

Really, Intel and AMD make great products. For me, Ive been burnt by Intel enough this lifetime and will never look back.
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2007 5:44:52 AM

tvh said:
Ok, sorry, couldn't resist the urge to step away from this thread. I have been a computer enthusiast for many many years now and I've seen the ages of the P and PII along with the classic Athlons, as well as most of you here. I have to say that this is all through point of view and experiences of users from past situations mixed in with, of course, a little passion. I have loved and owned processors from both ends. I ain't no fan boy! Just around two years the market was for AMD with their unbeatable 64bit and x2 processors and intel having heat issues with their P4 and PD/PEE. We saw how awesome and efficient AMDs were at that time. Now the table has turned, now Intel released their C2D and now they are awesome and efficient. What it comes down to is that one company produced a wonderful product while the other scrambles to provide competition in the market and then they releases a wonderful product and the previous company now scrambles to compete. I just say go for the one that best suites your needs: from OC'ing to Heat/power efficiency. comparing AMD to intel is like comparing batman with superman, sure their great in their own way and has strengths that the other lacks. Just my two cents.

I totally agree with you here. I have 3 AMD's and 1 Intel (3.2g prescott) here at the house. Forgot the Core Duo on my laptop that I'm currently using. So that's 3 AMD's and 2 Intel's total. The only reason I have the Prescott is because it was handed to me, so that made my build cheaper at the time (about $230 cheaper). It has been a solid and hot chip (had to replace PSU due to high temperatures). The next build/upgrade is to an Intel e6700 (got for free too), so that is why I'll have another Intel build. Currently I buy what I can get for as little as I can, so I can afford the best GPU that I can get. If I was going to buy a cheap Intel chip right now, I'd go for the the e2160 and OC it to about 3 gig's. AMD just can't touch that performance right now at that price. The only drawback to the Intel way is the cost of the mobo. In order to get an affordable mobo from Intel that could OC well would cost me about $90 or so (abit ip35-e). The flip side is the AMD's don't OC as nicely as the current C2D's, so that has to be considered. Now with Phenom out, one can make a pretty good decision on which path to go to. If I had the $ to decide between the x2 6400+ BE or the q6600, I'd have to go with the q6600 hands down. /end of rant
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2007 6:13:15 AM

um yeah get the black edition if you wana have the better graphics card. I can honestly say you wont be dissapointed either way but use the money for a graphics card 3.2Ghz X2 is way faster than what you got now
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2007 6:53:48 AM

cnumartyr said:
Who said it wouldn't OC well? He's saying it will OC better with more headroom.

5000+ -> 3.5 GHz is a good jump.
6400+ -> 3.5 GHz not so much a large % OC.

Perhaps we should find some of the E6550s or E6420/6400s that OC so well. Or even some of the E21x0 that will pull 100% overclocks.

Noone is saying AMD's don't OC well. However the argument was a touch off base.


the intels will clock higher and perform clock for clock better as well.
!