Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Im sick of the AMD vs. Intel benchmarks. Please help.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 20, 2008 10:49:00 PM

I'm building a new computer on a slight budget and the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ Brisbane 2.1GHz was recommended to me but I can afford the X2 5000+ Black Edition.

What is the Intel equivalent and is it worth it?

I'll be playing games and using my new computer to network movies and videos throughout my house.

Thanks for the help.
January 20, 2008 10:53:11 PM

E2160, E2180, or E2200.

I think the Intel will be better once you consider OCing. If you are leaving it at stock I don't know.

The E2160 gets 1550ish on 3DMark06 CPU score and the 5000+ gets around 1900. I think the E2200 would be close at stock.. and once you get to OCing the E2200 would blow it away.

I would go Intel because of performance.. personal opinion, but the 5000+ BE is a solid choice as well.

January 20, 2008 10:56:26 PM

Cnumartyr, why dont we use the E2200 for the ocing test
Related resources
January 20, 2008 11:02:50 PM

Silverion77 said:
Cnumartyr, why dont we use the E2200 for the ocing test


Because it's more money? Lol.. I don't know.

I'm going to ask around to see if I can get someone to front the cash for the build, not charge labor, and give it to them OC'd when I'm done!
January 20, 2008 11:05:46 PM

you should be runing an E8400!
January 20, 2008 11:06:36 PM

dragonsprayer said:
you should be buning an E8400!


Considering he said he's on a budget, and the BE is $100 and the E8400 is around $190.. I think that might go over it.
January 20, 2008 11:12:13 PM

According to Tom's review on the 5000+ BE it performs about the same (at 3.1 ghz) as a 6550 which retails for $175 on newegg. The 5000+ is 99 on newegg (no fan). If you have an AM2 the 5000+ is easily the best choice. Otherwise I'd still go with the 5000+ but that's just because I have an AMD bias. I've bought AMDs since my first 1800+ and I don't see any reason to switch so long as they're competitive.
January 20, 2008 11:12:14 PM

Yeah, everything is on a budget these days. The AMD 4000+ is being recommended to me by a friend because of it's ability to be OC'd and it's cheap $50 price. I can afford a $100 and will be OCing eventually but only with air cooling. I just want the best bang for the buck, as I only build every 3-4 years.

The price for the amd vs. the intel Mother board would have to justify going intel too.

The AMD board I would get would be ASUS M2N-E AM2 NVIDIA nForce 570 Ultra MCP ATX AMD Motherboard at $94.99
January 20, 2008 11:17:35 PM

compy386 said:
According to Tom's review on the 5000+ BE it performs about the same (at 3.1 ghz) as a 6550 which retails for $175 on newegg. The 5000+ is 99 on newegg (no fan). If you have an AM2 the 5000+ is easily the best choice. Otherwise I'd still go with the 5000+ but that's just because I have an AMD bias. I've bought AMDs since my first 1800+ and I don't see any reason to switch so long as they're competitive.


Are you really comparing an OC'd processor to a stock processor? If so, I'd like to consider an OC'd E2160 that will perform on par with a stock 6400+ BE. Seriously.. You make a good point though. It took the 5000+ BE 3.1 GHz to match a stock E6750 at 2.66 GHz.

Best bang for the buck in my opinion is an E2160. Get a DFI Blood Iron.

If you don't mind me asking, what's the total budget? Wirelessfender and I have been throwing around some sub-$700 ideas for Intel based PCs.
January 20, 2008 11:24:03 PM

That's about my budget. I have a build list in the New system build thread.
January 20, 2008 11:24:40 PM

What is a DFI blood iron?
January 20, 2008 11:36:55 PM

I posted over there, and the DFI Blood Iron is a GREAT overclocking board for budget builders. It held my Q6600 at 3.2 GHz. It is insane for dual cores but problems overclocking quads really high. It could keep my Q6600 at 3.6 GHz for 5-6 hours at a time.
January 20, 2008 11:59:27 PM

Pick up a good HSF either way. I recommend the Big Typhoon VX.
a b à CPUs
January 21, 2008 12:08:20 AM

Here is a E2180 @3.05 (have it @ 3.2 now):



January 21, 2008 12:09:31 AM

cnumartyr said:
Are you really comparing an OC'd processor to a stock processor? If so, I'd like to consider an OC'd E2160 that will perform on par with a stock 6400+ BE. Seriously.. You make a good point though. It took the 5000+ BE 3.1 GHz to match a stock E6750 at 2.66 GHz.

Best bang for the buck in my opinion is an E2160. Get a DFI Blood Iron.

If you don't mind me asking, what's the total budget? Wirelessfender and I have been throwing around some sub-$700 ideas for Intel based PCs.


Actually, at 3.1GHz it only matches a stock E6550 @ 2.33GHz...

I'd agree with you, an overclocked E21x0 chip is the way to go. Even with 1MB L2 cache it's still about 10% faster clock for clock compared to K8.
January 21, 2008 12:17:13 AM

epsilon84 said:
Actually, at 3.1GHz it only matches a stock E6550 @ 2.33GHz...


Where did you read this???

At THG @ 3.2 it matched a E6750
January 21, 2008 12:19:24 AM

The E2160 simply rocks any other chip out there for the budget concious shopper. It will OC far enough to give more than enough performance for most things and is dirt cheap.

Of course Clubit is now selling the E2180 less than they sell the E2160.
The E2180 there is also less than the E2160 at NewEgg.

Sorta odd and not really a big deal but you may save $2-$3.
January 21, 2008 12:21:56 AM

cnumartyr said:
Are you really comparing an OC'd processor to a stock processor? If so, I'd like to consider an OC'd E2160 that will perform on par with a stock 6400+ BE. Seriously.. You make a good point though. It took the 5000+ BE 3.1 GHz to match a stock E6750 at 2.66 GHz.


To OC the E2160 you have to overclock everything else in your system. The BE only requires you to OC the processor. With both at stock the AMD would still perform better. I don't care what clock speed is to match the intel, I just care about $/performance. Op is clearly looking to build a budget PC. I can tell from your picture that you're an Intel fan. To each his own I guess. I don't think there's much of a difference between either choice. I just like supporting the little guy :) .
January 21, 2008 12:25:14 AM

compy386 said:
To OC the E2160 you have to overclock everything else in your system. The BE only requires you to OC the processor. With both at stock the AMD would still perform better. I don't care what clock speed is to match the intel, I just care about $/performance. Op is clearly looking to build a budget PC. I can tell from your picture that you're an Intel fan. To each his own I guess. I don't think there's much of a difference between either choice. I just like supporting the little guy :) .


I understand your point.. Only a bit though.

You don't have to OC everything in the computer, just the CPU and Motherboard. The Memory can be left alone.

Oh btw, I don't support either team, I have built both systems for people and have used a 5000+ BE in a build recently. The reason I have it as my avatar is it's my current "flagship" system. If you have an AMD system that can match that with a single card be my guest to show it up and I'll gladly switch! :D 

Anyways.. Now that it's cleared up some. Let me say that once you start OCing; the 2160 and a decent motherboard will easily reach and surpass anything AMD has to offer in the dual core arena right now. That's just how it is, I'm sorry.
January 21, 2008 12:32:05 AM

compy386 said:
To OC the E2160 you have to overclock everything else in your system. The BE only requires you to OC the processor. With both at stock the AMD would still perform better. I don't care what clock speed is to match the intel, I just care about $/performance. Op is clearly looking to build a budget PC. I can tell from your picture that you're an Intel fan. To each his own I guess. I don't think there's much of a difference between either choice. I just like supporting the little guy :) .


Oh noes! I'm overclocking EVERYTHING else in my system! Including my mouse, my keyboard, my HDD, my LCD, my soundcard, my DVD, my NIC, OMG dude! :lol:  :whistle: 

It's called FSB overclocking dude, the only thing besides the CPU that is 'overclocked' is the chipset, and it's not any more difficult that pure multiplier overclocking.

An E2200 would be a good match for an X2 5000+ BE at stock, and own it in overclocking. Nuff said.

January 21, 2008 12:40:43 AM

epsilon84 said:
Oh noes! I'm overclocking EVERYTHING else in my system! Including my mouse, my keyboard, my HDD, my LCD, my soundcard, my DVD, my NIC, OMG dude! :lol:  :whistle: 

It's called FSB overclocking dude, the only thing besides the CPU that is 'overclocked' is the chipset, and it's not any more difficult that pure multiplier overclocking.

An E2200 would be a good match for an X2 5000+ BE at stock, and own it in overclocking. Nuff said.


I gots an idea.

$1000 Budget. Full system, Speakers, mouse, monitor, OS, everything top to bottom.

He can build an AMD system, I'll build an intel system. Benching 3DMark06 default settings.

Winner takes home both systems.
January 21, 2008 12:42:09 AM

cnumartyr said:
I gots an idea.

$1000 Budget. Full system, Speakers, mouse, monitor, OS, everything top to bottom.

He can build an AMD system, I'll build an intel system. Benching 3DMark06 default settings.

Winner takes home both systems.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking...???
January 21, 2008 12:45:11 AM

compy386 said:
To OC the E2160 you have to overclock everything else in your system. The BE only requires you to OC the processor. With both at stock the AMD would still perform better. I don't care what clock speed is to match the intel, I just care about $/performance. Op is clearly looking to build a budget PC. I can tell from your picture that you're an Intel fan. To each his own I guess. I don't think there's much of a difference between either choice. I just like supporting the little guy :) .


Absolutely not true.
It clearly shows your lack of understanding of adjusting the speeds of Intel Chips.

If you buy an E2160 (Default 200FSB) and set the FSB to 333 (Standard FSB for Current Intel Chipsets) the result will be 3.0Ghz and nothing else is even slightly OC'd. Likely your RAM may even still be under clocked at this point in time.

Considering you still need be buy a cooler for the 5000+, it costs more to start, it does not look like the choice for someone on a budget.

Feel free to buy AMD to support the "Little Multi-Billion Dollar Company", but I will just suggest what best serves the small guy and not a multi-billion dollar corporation.
January 21, 2008 12:46:54 AM

Evilonigiri said:
Are you thinking what I'm thinking...???


I don't know, I was thinking about Kiki...
January 21, 2008 12:49:04 AM

cnumartyr said:
I don't know, I was thinking about Kiki...

:( 

No it was Lauren.
January 21, 2008 12:50:43 AM

Evilonigiri said:
:( 

No it was Lauren.


Lol... why are you thinking about one of my friends? :kaola: 
January 21, 2008 12:52:00 AM

cnumartyr said:
I gots an idea.

$1000 Budget. Full system, Speakers, mouse, monitor, OS, everything top to bottom.

He can build an AMD system, I'll build an intel system. Benching 3DMark06 default settings.

Winner takes home both systems.


My odds would be:

AMD: $101
Intel: $1.01

There is always a 1% you get a dud Intel chip that doesn't wanna overclock. :p 
January 21, 2008 12:53:40 AM

epsilon84 said:
My odds would be:

AMD: $101
Intel: $1.01

There is always a 1% you get a dud Intel chip that doesn't wanna overclock. :p 

Just spend another $80 on another intel cpu.

You still have $20 profit.
January 21, 2008 1:31:06 AM

Call me a noob, but why isn't anybody talking about ocing the AMD chip?
January 21, 2008 1:33:24 AM

Dunkel said:
Call me a noob, but why isn't anybody talking about ocing the AMD chip?


Because it will OC to about 3.2 GHz and that's normally around it's peak?

The Brisbane core (65nm K8s) don't even run as fast as their Windsor core (90nm) counterparts and don't perform as well. A Windsor BE would perform better, but the 5000+ is mainstream. If you OC'd the 2160 and 5000+ BE all the way.. the 2160 would win.
January 21, 2008 1:34:18 AM

Dunkel said:
Call me a noob, but why isn't anybody talking about ocing the AMD chip?


Because AMD chips don't overclock as well as Intel chips atm...

AMD is actually competitive in the low/midrange at stock speeds but falls behind when overclocked.
January 21, 2008 1:37:49 AM

Any ideas as to what this will clock to? AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ Brisbane 2.1GHz
January 21, 2008 1:39:08 AM

Dunkel said:
Any ideas as to what this will clock to? AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ Brisbane 2.1GHz


2.8 GHz or so with a good motherboard.
January 21, 2008 1:40:27 AM

cnumartyr said:
2.8 GHz or so with a good motherboard.

I'd say more like 3.0GHz.
January 21, 2008 1:41:52 AM

Evilonigiri said:
I'd say more like 3.0GHz.


Close enough.

I just did 250x4 = 1 GHz HTT, 250x11 = 2.750 GHz.
January 21, 2008 1:46:25 AM

AMD Chips do not Overclock nearly as well as Intel Chips.

The E2160 which sells for about $80, when Overclocked will beat any AMD Chip when Overclocked regardless of price.

The lone exception may be the AMD Phenom for programs that support 4-cores for multi-threading. Most don't do this and in such cases the Phenom will be slower than many of the older AMD X2 Chips as well as the E2160.

If you will never Overclock, then AMD has some good price points.
This means if you are looking to buy a retail systme which prevents Overclocks, they may be a good buy.

Since Overclocking an Intel Chip is so simple, does not require any special cooling equipment nowaways, and provides such extreme boosts in performance w/o any danger to your hardware: Most people on this forum strongly recommend that you overclock your chips if you need anything but the most basic of performance.

Basically, AMD had the best chips for a long time but the X2 Chips that are now shipping are the same chips that they have been shipping for many years w/o change. When they first shipped, they were far superior to anything Intel had to offer. In the Summer of 2006, Intel released the first Core2Duo which then surpassed AMD. Intel has further improved this chip since then quite a bit while AMD still has done nothing. They had hoped the Phenom would be the couter-punch, but they have had many techinical difficulties with this chip.

On this Forum you will find "Intel" Fanboys who will always claim Intel is better. You will find "AMD" Fanboys who will claim AMD is always better. Most However, just tell you what is best.

Right Now, Intel holds that post.
Prior to Summer 2006, AMD owned that position.
However, AMD has not been able to make a good counter.

Myself, I pick whatever is best.
I now buy Intel Chips.
I used to buy AMD.

Both Companies are Multi-Billion dollar companies and I don't care to support either. I would rather support the lowly individual and tell him what is best for him.
January 21, 2008 1:46:26 AM

So the AMD 4000+ at $50 will clock to the same speed or close to the Intel E2160 at $80.

This conversation is over.
January 21, 2008 1:50:23 AM

Dunkel said:
So the AMD 4000+ at $50 will clock to the same speed or close to the Intel E2160 at $80.

This conversation is over.

Speeds yes.

Performance wise, E2160 will shatter the AMD 4000+.
January 21, 2008 1:50:52 AM

Dunkel said:
So the AMD 4000+ at $50 will clock to the same speed or close to the Intel E2160 at $80.

This conversation is over.


If that is what you took from this conversation, enjoy your new AMD system. :pfff: 

What's IPC? I have no idea.
January 21, 2008 1:54:09 AM

cnumartyr said:
What's IPC? I have no idea.

I used google and got this:

international plumbing code
January 21, 2008 2:04:43 AM

Evilonigiri said:
Speeds yes.

Performance wise, E2160 will shatter the AMD 4000+.


There is no helping people.

Wait wait.

DUDE! For just $100 you can get a 3.0 GHz processor!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I had totally forgotten about that thing, it's such a gem!

3.0 GHz > 2.1 GHz, right?
January 21, 2008 2:08:44 AM

Evilonigiri said:
Careful, someone might believe you :lol: 


What?? I'm being serious and trying to help the guy. I had totally forgotten there was a 3.0 GHz processor out there for under $100.


Disclaimer: Core2>K8>P4 in IPC. If you don't get it, buy a Dell.

Edit: AND IT'S A DUAL CORE!
January 21, 2008 2:12:07 AM

cnumartyr said:
What?? I'm being serious and trying to help the guy. I had totally forgotten there was a 3.0 GHz processor out there for under $100.

Yeah and you're right in everyway...in the wrong way.
January 21, 2008 2:20:41 AM

Evilonigiri said:
Yeah and you're right in everyway...in the wrong way.


I changed my personal quote for a reason.

Edit: If you don't get it, you don't get it.
January 21, 2008 2:22:30 AM

I get it. I really appreciate the help. You were all a lot of help. I didn't mean to sound like an ass.
January 21, 2008 2:24:45 AM

If I can afford it, should I get the E2200? I have decided to go Intel based on the idea that it's easier and safer to OC. I have never OC'd but would like to tinker with it, I think it will be fun. So thanks again.
January 21, 2008 2:25:09 AM

cnumartyr said:
I changed my personal quote for a reason.

I win in every debate I get into...but first I make sure I can win. :kaola: 

As for my sig, I got invited to a club just yesterday. On the spur of the moment I decided to join...not sure if that was such a great idea...
!