Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New build AMD vs INTEL

Last response: in Systems
Share
January 19, 2008 7:53:37 PM

OK im thinking of building a new pc.
if i do ill defo get
2 gig 800mhz ram
8800gt

but with cpu which way do i go for around the same price i can get a core 2 duo e6750 or a athlon x2 6400+ i know the intel is better but with the motherboards for around £60 i can get intel: EVGA 650i ultra, but with AMD: i can get a ASUS M3A 770, which has am2+ and can run faster ram and also has pci-e 2.0, so its a bit more future proof so what way if i do, do u suggest i go?

More about : build amd intel

January 19, 2008 8:12:54 PM

Intel, for sure

Dont get an nvidia board unless you plan to go SLI
Get a P35 board instead, specifically Asus or Gigabyte

I have the Gigabyte P35-DS3L and love it.
Related resources
January 19, 2008 9:09:40 PM

Why buy a system that is much slower now, in hopes of upgrading years down the road to a faster system?

In general, Selling your current system and buying new is the way to go.
January 19, 2008 9:32:41 PM

zenmaster said:
Why buy a system that is much slower now, in hopes of upgrading years down the road to a faster system?

In general, Selling your current system and buying new is the way to go.


Cost.
The GB MB and the unlocked AMD BE with 2GB Corsair DDR-800 ram are onsale as a combo unit online for under $300 USD.
A modern AMD/Intel CPU running at 3Ghz is more than enough to run any game made and still choke high end GFX cards.
Also if you look around you can pick up a 8800GT for just under $240.
January 20, 2008 12:20:02 AM

This week I saw the unlocked BE for $99 and the Optron 175 for $1 more and both can hit the same speeds.
January 20, 2008 1:06:22 AM

I am planning to go 5000 BE + MSI K9A2 CF end of month hopefully :p 
Oh and maybe 5400 Brisbane + Biostar T770 for family/hall computer (no OC)
My bro i recommended waiting for E8400 for his uses/budget ^^
January 20, 2008 1:07:22 AM

ZOldDude said:
Cost.
The GB MB and the unlocked AMD BE with 2GB Corsair DDR-800 ram are onsale as a combo unit online for under $300 USD.
A modern AMD/Intel CPU running at 3Ghz is more than enough to run any game made and still choke high end GFX cards.
Also if you look around you can pick up a 8800GT for just under $240.


Not a very good deal IMHO.......

You can Grab an E2160 and DS3L on sale for about $150 on sale.
Toss in 2GB of Corsair Ram and you are at abour $180 and have a MUCH faster system.
You don't even need to buy a cooler.
January 20, 2008 12:07:07 PM

thanks for the advise
January 20, 2008 1:13:51 PM

zenmaster said:
Not a very good deal IMHO.......

You can Grab an E2160 and DS3L on sale for about $150 on sale.
Toss in 2GB of Corsair Ram and you are at abour $180 and have a MUCH faster system.
You don't even need to buy a cooler.


MUCH faster system ?!?

What are you talking about? where did you get this, what test,...?
2160 faster than 5000?
i thought people helping each other here on this forum.
January 20, 2008 2:03:36 PM

torcida_kutina said:

MUCH faster system ?!?

What are you talking about? where did you get this, what test,...?
2160 faster than 5000?
i thought people helping each other here on this forum.


Don't you ever read any product reviews?
I guess not, but here we go............

We will use the Intel X6800 Extreme at the Comparison point.

The E2160 beats it hands down when OC'd
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium-e2...

The X2-6000 Can't come close to matching thge X6800 Extreme
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-x...

The 5000+ BE is even slower than the X2-6000+ at the same speeds.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/22/budget_overclock...

The Result is that the Intel Solution is both Cheaper and Faster.
January 20, 2008 6:05:28 PM

zenmaster said:
Don't you ever read any product reviews?
I guess not, but here we go............

We will use the Intel X6800 Extreme at the Comparison point.

The E2160 beats it hands down when OC'd
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium-e2...

The X2-6000 Can't come close to matching thge X6800 Extreme
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-x...

The 5000+ BE is even slower than the X2-6000+ at the same speeds.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/22/budget_overclock...

The Result is that the Intel Solution is both Cheaper and Faster.


Yours knowledge is based on some payed tests? shame!
1. I have x2 5000 BE working on 3,6GHz, and on that speed he's MUCH FASTER then E2160 on 3,4GHz.
2. I've tried E2160, and when compared (not only in games) to 5000 BE on every frequency - he's MUCH SLOVER then 5000 BE
3. When you writing that kind of "conclusions", and trying to help anybody, try some testing at home first, don't believe everything you read.
January 20, 2008 6:09:28 PM

zenmaster said:
Don't you ever read any product reviews?
I guess not, but here we go............

We will use the Intel X6800 Extreme at the Comparison point.

The E2160 beats it hands down when OC'd
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium-e2...

The X2-6000 Can't come close to matching thge X6800 Extreme
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-x...

The 5000+ BE is even slower than the X2-6000+ at the same speeds.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/22/budget_overclock...

The Result is that the Intel Solution is both Cheaper and Faster.



What you are saying here is absolutely insane. This is same as you were saying that Reggina beats Inter, Inter beats Real, so conclusion is Reggina is better than Real.
January 20, 2008 6:11:02 PM

No offense, but you have to try some testing at home. I don't mean to insult.
January 20, 2008 6:42:55 PM

torcida_kutina said:
What you are saying here is absolutely insane. This is same as you were saying that Reggina beats Inter, Inter beats Real, so conclusion is Reggina is better than Real.


I presume you have never taken any classes in Logic.
It's not insanity, it's simple analysis.
The same tests were run for the X2-6000, X6800, and E2160.
Not all results are shown on the same chart since the testing took place on different dates since on set was specfically to test the X2-6000 when it was released and the other was specifically to test the E2160 when it was released.

The Tests clearly show the X2-6000 is slower than the baseline and the E2160 is faster than the baseline.

Yes, I have done home testing, but I don't have a limitless number of hardware configurations.
However, There are many hardware sites that have done independent testing and have reach similar results.

You will find similar results also on AnandTech and THG.
There are also many other sites with similar reviews and results.


Perhaps you could provide me links to data that disputes the results I have found?
As you stated, It's our job to assist others.

Unless your claim is that the BE-5000+ is superior to other chips, but it is impossible for professional review sites to see the results and the results from the chip used in your home will be different?
January 20, 2008 6:55:13 PM

torcida_kutina said:
Yours knowledge is based on some payed tests? shame!
1. I have x2 5000 BE working on 3,6GHz, and on that speed he's MUCH FASTER then E2160 on 3,4GHz.
2. I've tried E2160, and when compared (not only in games) to 5000 BE on every frequency - he's MUCH SLOVER then 5000 BE
3. When you writing that kind of "conclusions", and trying to help anybody, try some testing at home first, don't believe everything you read.



Ah.......
You can't backup your claims.

Well, I we can just presume the laws of Physics in your bedroom are different from that ever every professional review site. I guess if the OP buys and uses his computer in your room he will be set.

For those who must use theirs elsewhere, we can only expect to see the results closer to professional review sites.
January 20, 2008 7:01:30 PM

I have 7 systems on my home LAN (two years old) and do not plan to upgrade anything for a few more years.
See my system specs in my profile...OC are on stock volts.

To me OC a E2160 to 3.5 and running it 24/7/365 as I do seems rather hard on it's life span.
You may be able to do it...but I won't be doing it.
January 21, 2008 5:39:08 PM

zenmaster said:
Ah.......
You can't backup your claims.

Well, I we can just presume the laws of Physics in your bedroom are different from that ever every professional review site. I guess if the OP buys and uses his computer in your room he will be set.

For those who must use theirs elsewhere, we can only expect to see the results closer to professional review sites.


So, i presume you compare e2160 on 3,4GHz vs 5000 on 2,6GHz and 2160 was better? BRAVO! Good work! Try on same frequencies and let us know.
I don't want to spend any more words on this circus!
a b å Intel
January 21, 2008 6:09:16 PM

torcida_kutina said:
Try on same frequencies and let us know.

A 3.0Ghz X2 6000 is easily beat by a 2.66Ghz E6700.
A 2.6Ghz X2 5000 is beat by a 2.2Ghz E6400.


January 21, 2008 8:02:26 PM

It's pretty obvious intel is faster but in the 5000+ BE vs the E2160 i'd take the OC'd 5000+ vs. the OC'd 2160 for the simple fact that it will last longer, i mean really when you're doing a 1.4ghz OC, how long is that chip going to last? while the 5000+ is merely a 400-600 mhz oc which is much less significant.
January 22, 2008 5:14:00 PM

better to wait if you getting phenom as it hav TLB bug present in it
January 22, 2008 5:34:13 PM

True, but even with the bug, it is still faster, and the bug is not as big a deal as has been made. Both Intel and AMD have had eratta bugs for years. If you are running mission critical applications, an erratum might be a concern, but for a home gaming system it is trivial.

A friend recently got this Gateway system, and I must say it is pretty impressive for a store bought system. No issues so far. http://www.gateway.com/systems/product/529667887.php
January 22, 2008 6:38:44 PM

hmm..yeah as i was reading reviews of phenoms its the best in price/performance ratio....but if u dont choose to oc it, its the best processor
a b å Intel
January 22, 2008 7:00:42 PM

The Inq says the bug has been fixed in Phenom's B3 stepping. I know, it's the Inq, but I believe it because AMD has got so much sh** about it they must have made priority #1. Also, from what I've read, that bug would never appear in games anyway.
January 22, 2008 8:04:39 PM

PsychoFanatic said:
It's pretty obvious intel is faster but in the 5000+ BE vs the E2160 i'd take the OC'd 5000+ vs. the OC'd 2160 for the simple fact that it will last longer, i mean really when you're doing a 1.4ghz OC, how long is that chip going to last? while the 5000+ is merely a 400-600 mhz oc which is much less significant.


It will last a long time, you must remember that the E2160 is still based on the Core 2 architecture which has no problem handling over 3GHz clockspeeds. The 5000+ BE is based on the older, soon to be replaced, K8 architecture which has trouble getting beyond 3.2GHz with consistency(depends on revision, newer AM2s are doing well, but older ones would top out as low as 2.6GHz). I would say they would last about the same time as long as you keep both properly cooled and didn't mess around too much with the voltages, its really the heat and voltage that kills the processor when it comes down to it.

torcida_kutina said:
E6750 and E2160 are not the same processors. What are you talking about?


He was merely using it as a comparison, because 2 processors based on the same architecture will perform similarly at the same clockspeed.

For the sake of a close comparison of CPUs at the same clockspeed, let's use Tom's charts to analyze two processors, one the E4300, a 1.8GHz dual core processor on the Core2 architecture, the other CPU an X2 4000+ Brisbane, based on the K8 architecture. The Brisbane has a clockspeed advantage of 2.1GHz as opposed to the Core2Duos 1.8GHz. I did this intentionally, because the smaller L2 cache will have a small performance deficit to the E2160, and to simulate this, I chose a faster Brisbane.

Let us start with the tests, the first one up, Prey:

E4300 - 84.2 FPS
4000+ - 77.6 FPS

Next up, Supreme Commander:

E4300 - 24.1
4000+ - 18.6

In the gaming scenarios, the Core2 architecture prevails over K8.

Now for encoding:

DivX 6.6.1:

E4300 - 2:36
4400+ - 3:04

Lame 3.98:

E4300 - 4:00
4400+ - 4:23

Once again, you see the Core2 have a lead over K8, even with the K8 having a higher clockspeed.

To be fair, the 4000+ wins the SiSoft SANDRA synthetic benchmarks relating to memory, however still loses in multimedia integer and floating point. The 4000+ also wins in Windows Vista Experience Index, but that is based solely on clockspeed, and is not a real benchmark in that respect. The 4000+ had a 2 second lead in the iTunes benchmark, about a 20 second lead in CloneDVD and 16 seconds ahead in Cinema4D. I have now mentioned every victory for the 4000+.

The newer Core2Duo architecture seems to have a pretty good lead in most applications, even if it has a slightly lower clockspeed then the K8 it is competing against. In gaming, the Core2Duo wins all the tests, so if that is your main intent with the computer, go for a Core2Duo based CPU. The AMD fanboys are sadly still touting K8 as the best thing, but its day is over, its moved on, I loved my AthlonXP to death, but I didn't say it was the best CPU after the Pentium 4s higher clockspeeds and hyper-threading managed to take the lead(although I did say mine produced less heat, Prescotts were like freakin' space heaters, but that's not really on-topic.)
January 22, 2008 9:42:18 PM

The new Intel processors have no shorter lifespan when overclocked as long as you don't get crazy with overvolting. My 6400 (2.13 ghz stock) has been running at 3.9 ghz for over a year now (1.375 core volts). I'm using a cheap watercooling system from Newegg that was $15 after the rebate. I added an extra radiator and fan for $20, and after 3 hours running Orthos temps are around 50c. I usually build a new system each holiday season, but this year only needed to upgrade the video card (8800GT 512mb). System has 3gb of Crucial PC2 8500, and 2 raptor HDs and a Biostar Tforce P965. Playing Crysis with all setting on high, with the DX10 mod, res. @ 1440 x 900 on a Hanns G 281. All new builds for friends have been the E2160 lately, which runs rock steady at 3.2 ghz on a stock Intel cooler. I have been using the stock copper cored units from higher end dual and quad cores (These guys usually want water cooling, or some high-end HSF). Bang for the buck I can't see anything beating the E8400... My point here is that some people may just like AMD, and want to pay extra for less CPU, which is fine. Intel needs the competition... Other than that, you would have to be very naive to not have an Intel in your case these days.
January 22, 2008 10:29:28 PM

WR2 said:
http://firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_athlon_64_x2_6000/images/quake800.gif
A 3.0Ghz X2 6000 is easily beat by a 2.66Ghz E6700.
A 2.6Ghz X2 5000 is beat by a 2.2Ghz E6400.


They're closer in other gamers or 3D programs. Quake 4 is a really bad benchmark. It's not as cutting edge as Crysis or Supreme Commander and it's OpenGL. Sure, many people who play FPS still like it, but it's not the best comparison out there.

Besides, I'd wait on buying any high end dual core right now. Wolfdale is just around the corner for Intel and B3 Phenom dual cores are also on the horizon. I can see buying a low end CPU with a midrange motherboard that will support a new CPU in a few months.

tlmck said:
True, but even with the bug, it is still faster, and the bug is not as big a deal as has been made. Both Intel and AMD have had eratta bugs for years. If you are running mission critical applications, an erratum might be a concern, but for a home gaming system it is trivial.

A friend recently got this Gateway system, and I must say it is pretty impressive for a store bought system. No issues so far. http://www.gateway.com/systems/product/529667887.php


What I'm doing is waiting for B3, after all the triple cores might be a nice price performance build. I'm making sure my motherboard's are all Phenom ready, though. People should keep in mind that a Phenom core is 17% to 25% faster than an X2, so it's worth waiting. They will still be beat by Wolfdale, I'm quite sure, but some of us don't need a few extra FPS at Intel's prices.

Though I have a couple of 690G's with an Athlon X2 3800+ and X2 4600+, I'm giving away the X2 3800+ to a relative and building a new X2 4200+ Brisbane with a Gigabyte GA-MA770 DS3 with DDR2 1066 with a Gigabyte 3870 DDR3 with a Zalman cooler (some are saying it's just an overclocked 3850).

The CPU will only stay on the motherboard until May when I'm sure I can get a B3 stepping CPU that meets my needs. I'll compare the dual, triple and quad core Phenom's for price performance. Everything else in the system will be the same as I have right now; a couple of WD 160 SATA and a Maxtor 100 SATA, Antec Neo 550, with Windows XP and Vista in dual boot.

Sure, it's not a C2D, and a Phenom won't be a Wolfdale or the equivalent quad core, but it's a better motherboard for the price than most Intel equivalencies, when I get the faster CPU, I'll get 1066 out of the RAM and it won't break the bank considering I'm also getting a 20" Viewsonic LCD.

For those with money and no preferences: Intel, but still wait for Wolfdale. For those who don't mind AMD and who want to upgrade to a Phenom later this year, then get the cheapest X2 CPU that works for you, spend more on a motherboard and GPU and then switch out the CPU later.

You'll only be CPU limited if you game at resolutions of 1280 x 1024 or below. Anything higher and it depends more on your graphics card. I'm only getting the midway Gigabyte 3870 for $229 because I'm waiting for R700 next holiday season.

Gravemind123 said:

In the gaming scenarios, the Core2 architecture prevails over K8.

Now for encoding:

Once again, you see the Core2 have a lead over K8, even with the K8 having a higher clockspeed.

To be fair, the 4000+ wins the SiSoft SANDRA synthetic benchmarks relating to memory, however still loses in multimedia integer and floating point.


I grant you all the points you made, but answer me this? Why did so many people stick with Intel during the Netburst days when there was no C2D on the horizon and the best performing Intel CPU's were in notebooks? It strikes me that people who stick with AMD still have better relative performance now then people who stuck with Intel.

I say that acknowledging that Tom's frying an egg video with the Athlon X2 when the heatsink was removed made me go P4 Williamette 1.6 to be able to play Morrowind (I went from an AMD K6-2 450). I stuck with Intel because I could swap out that Williamette for a 2.4 Northwood. I also built a Celeron 2.6 (Northwood core) and then years later, swapped it out with a really cheap pulled 2.8 Northwood. I guess I stayed instead of going Athlon 64 because I didn't want to buy two new motherboards.

I went Athlon X2 for dual core instead of Pentium D, because I'd have to buy new motherboards after all. Overall, it's been a good experience, even when C2D showed up. Now, it's a price plus loyalty to the underdog sort of thing.
January 22, 2008 10:45:56 PM

Agreed - if i want to go Intel i would definitely go with E8400+P35 cos X38s are off my not so bottomless wallet :(  However for me personally i have an upgrade path in mind later that involves phenoms B3 eventually so :p  Besides this why do i read in various forums that if you choose AMD then you're being idiotic and ill informed? Obviously some if not most of us had researched performance, benchmarks, etc before making choices based on our budgets. In short for me cheaper CPU = better GPU and that also i feel the AM2+ boards out seem to have a lot going for them for the price we are paying
January 22, 2008 11:01:49 PM

Low budget,buy AMD,if you dont mind spending a little extra,and want the superior product,get E8400 Intel,or hold out for Q9450,or Q9550.I love Intel cpu's,but honestly when it comes down to it,all cpu's do the samething.(some just do it faster and run cooler and use less power)
January 22, 2008 11:25:23 PM

how about get a Wolfdale E8200 at the same price range as a AMD 6400. This new E8200 performs very close to E6850 and overclocks well.
!