Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD quad core vs Intel quad core

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 28, 2008 10:00:31 PM

Just wondering if some of you on here can give me some advice. I'm considering what seems like a pretty good HP system at Sam's Club for approx $1400. I comes with a AMD Phenom X4 9500 quad core processor. I ran this past my bro-in-law, who isn't an expert, but knows more than I do, and he said that the Intel quad core is infinitely better than the AMD. I'm looking for performance plus value. I'm not a power user, but I'm looking to be able to play some games (Flight Sim), audio/video (not power editing), multitasking.

I have noticed that the Intel is more expensive than the AMD. Am I going to get value for this? Should I pay more for Intel, or will I notice much difference?

Sorry if this is a rehash. I couldn't find my question with a search.
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 28, 2008 10:11:33 PM

there is a reason for the phenoms to be cheaper than intel's quads, performance... U pretty much get what you pay for, well maybe not in the intels ultra highend...

anywhoo, it would likely be cheaper (and a lot more fun) to build similar rig from scratch, lets say from newegg
May 28, 2008 10:12:53 PM

Stay away from the amd x4s that don't have a 50 in the name, if you go amd get one with a 50 in it, 9750 or 9850. Intel is more expensive if you want comparable features on the motherboard, i.e. pci express 2.0 and high speed ddr2 support. But intel's lowest speed quad core is still a fair bit faster than the highest amd offers. If you're building a new system i'd say go with intel but amd offers a little more future upgrade options.
Related resources
May 28, 2008 10:12:56 PM

You do definetly dou not want the X4 9500. this cpu this cpu and other X3 & X4 with the b2 timings ag a big bug or however you want to call it. so DO NOT TOUCH. You could always go with an AMD with B3 timing and you can tell this by the the 50 in the name 9550 / 9750 / 9850. they do not have this bug.

But Intel is the better cpu at the moment but it does not have to cost more if you get a Q6600 (low end intel quad core )the price will be the same as a AMD cpu. or you could get the Q9300 this one replaces the Q6600 but will cost about 80 bucks more but run cooler and use less power. and performance wise the intels are better the X4 9850 might outperform the Q6600 in a few benchmarks but not the majority.
May 28, 2008 10:29:46 PM

Okay...I work on all my buddies HP's (they buy them because they are all shiny pretty at walmart) and I am warning you that HP computers are a pile of crap ! Their dvd drives and wifi cards specifically, but basically they are ****, better to go with dell or build your own !
May 28, 2008 10:35:57 PM

royalcrown said:
Okay...I work on all my buddies HP's (they buy them because they are all shiny pretty at walmart) and I am warning you that HP computers are a pile of crap ! Their dvd drives and wifi cards specifically, but basically they are ****, better to go with dell or build your own !

Better to go with Dell?? Ummm...
I wouldn't recommend that, they are probably worse than HP. I own a one year old Dell laptop and its really buggy, has trouble shutting down, freezes from time to time, basically its looking like I need to re-install vista. Plus its made out of low-grade plastic.

Anyways, I would suggest to you to do the same as others have said, learn to build your own! And do not get a phenom 9500....
May 28, 2008 10:40:34 PM

seriously, you local PC builder can give you a better deal than that, and MUCH better support..
or try newegg.com if you dont need any support after the sale. ... don't even think about buying a walmart / wholesale club PC . I beg of you..

as of right now, Intel is still the overall winner, and don't bother with a quad core. it has been proven that if your choice is a slower quad or a faster duel core, the faster clocked duel core will be the better value.

$1,400 at newegg will get you .. a 3.0 ghz duel core loaded machine with all the bells and whistles

DO NOT GET VISTA ... ask for windows xp pro...





May 28, 2008 10:42:52 PM

I'll be so glad when AMD can compete again with Intel on a performance level.

...but that day is quite certainly not today. You want performance today? Intel. Period.

That's sad. :( 
May 28, 2008 10:44:36 PM

royalcrown said:
Okay...I work on all my buddies HP's (they buy them because they are all shiny pretty at walmart) and I am warning you that HP computers are a pile of crap ! Their dvd drives and wifi cards specifically, but basically they are ****, better to go with dell or build your own !


Agreed with building your own, but not everyone has the time or knowledge to do this! Like Kari said, you get what you pay for with AMD. I would definitely go with an Intel Q6600 system. Its fast and will be fine for quite awhile, seeing AMD's benches and problems, I just can't recommend a Phenom.

Seeing as you're not a power user, you may not even notice a difference between the Phenom and an Intel Q6600 or Q9300. But for multitasking and gaming, Intel is the way to go. Good luck on your buy.
May 28, 2008 10:55:04 PM

doomturkey said:
Better to go with Dell?? Ummm...
I wouldn't recommend that, they are probably worse than HP. I own a one year old Dell laptop and its really buggy, has trouble shutting down, freezes from time to time, basically its looking like I need to re-install vista. Plus its made out of low-grade plastic.

Anyways, I would suggest to you to do the same as others have said, learn to build your own! And do not get a phenom 9500....


Well, I can't argue on that, but HP knowingly put incompatible hardware in their vista machines (optiarc) is NOT officially supported by microsoft, not only that, stuff seems to last 30 days and fry...

Too bad about the dells too, I know they aerent awesome, but if they are junk heaps like hp's then he better roll his own or buy from a custom builder.
May 28, 2008 11:34:38 PM

Dell actually makes great laptops... but like all resalers, any low-mid range systems with Vista will suck, because of the "Vista compatible / Vista Ready" nonsense Microsoft put out...

I'd avoid ANY resaler on a desktop though. While building your own PC can be a pain, the next best thing is to find a trustworthy local computer shop and have them do it for you. You'll pay a bit more than if you do it yourself, but you will still get a good deal (and if they screw anything up and fry a component, THEY pay for it, not you!).
May 28, 2008 11:44:14 PM

Boo HP! Go Dell! I say this from experience.
May 29, 2008 12:09:49 AM

I like Dell. I work on Dell systems at work. Of course, I'm working on business class models.

My wife has a cheap consumer class Dell she bought for college back in the day and it has never had an issue. In fact, it's still using the original OS install.
May 29, 2008 1:10:23 AM

Quote:
i like hp....for laptops....

me too.
a c 108 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 29, 2008 4:01:23 PM

TPallidum said:
Just wondering if some of you on here can give me some advice. I'm considering what seems like a pretty good HP system at Sam's Club for approx $1400. I comes with a AMD Phenom X4 9500 quad core processor. I ran this past my bro-in-law, who isn't an expert, but knows more than I do, and he said that the Intel quad core is infinitely better than the AMD. I'm looking for performance plus value. I'm not a power user, but I'm looking to be able to play some games (Flight Sim), audio/video (not power editing), multitasking.

I have noticed that the Intel is more expensive than the AMD. Am I going to get value for this? Should I pay more for Intel, or will I notice much difference?

Sorry if this is a rehash. I couldn't find my question with a search.


In a prebuilt OEM computer it comes down to PRICE PRICE PRICE. Your bios OC options will be highly limited or non-existent. That really thumps Intel.

Most AMD HPs I've upgraded lately have been Asus motherboards with 533 DDR2 RAM and ""Best Data"" PSUs. Check this out rite cheer ...
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c01...

If this ...
http://www.samsclub.com/shopping/navigate.do?dest=5&ite...
is the computer you are considering, I would look at this ...
http://www.shoplocal.com/usatoday/detaillocal.aspx?list...
from Circuit City for $880.

The only 'downgrade' is see is the 19-inch LCD vs the 24-inch LCD. You can purchase an additional HP W1907 19" monitor for $230 at Circuit City ...
http://www.circuitcity.com/ccd/Search.do?c=1&searchType...

That model HP (m8400f) is an ECS mobo.
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c01...
I've had good experience with ECS mobos but I think someone recently bought them out ...

Basicly, for less than $150 I upgrade the psu and bump the RAM to 4gb DDR2 800.

The psu upgrade replaces the most suspect part of the HP - and sets you up for a nice video card upgrade (maybe an 8800gt ???) over the 8400gs or 8500gt.

Circuit City also has an Intel q6600 HP for $900 this week (but does not include monitor). Lookee here ....
http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/HP-Pavilion-Media-Center...
It's an Intel G33-based Asus - - -
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c01...

As noted ..... your options are expanded greatly when you build your own. I volunteer the Brainiacs at THG to help you - :) 

a b à CPUs
May 29, 2008 8:37:26 PM

edwilson said:
seriously, you local PC builder can give you a better deal than that, and MUCH better support..



Quoted for Truth - *AND* you get a nice, clean computer, sans vendor installed crap.
May 29, 2008 9:40:25 PM

TPallidum said:
Just wondering if some of you on here can give me some advice. I'm considering what seems like a pretty good HP system at Sam's Club for approx $1400. I comes with a AMD Phenom X4 9500 quad core processor. I ran this past my bro-in-law, who isn't an expert, but knows more than I do, and he said that the Intel quad core is infinitely better than the AMD. I'm looking for performance plus value. I'm not a power user, but I'm looking to be able to play some games (Flight Sim), audio/video (not power editing), multitasking.

I have noticed that the Intel is more expensive than the AMD. Am I going to get value for this? Should I pay more for Intel, or will I notice much difference?

Sorry if this is a rehash. I couldn't find my question with a search.




Be careful when purchasing a new system. I'm not sure if the Intel Penryn is out yet but, the "Core 2 Quads" as Intel calls them when looked at under the hood, are mere packages (Multi Chip Modules). They are not native quad core. The Multi Chip Module suffers from bandwidth bottleneck. The two dual cores it has communicate with each other via a narrow roadway. Because of this, the chip's full potential will not be realized.

Phenom is native quad core. It doesn't suffer from a bandwidth bottleneck like a Multi Chip Module.
Phenom also has four 128-bit floating point units where as Intel's MCMs have four 64-bit floating point units.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ipfxIgD8DU

Waste your money with Intel or save it with AMD.
Do the math.
May 30, 2008 7:37:56 AM

enigma067 said:
Be careful when purchasing a new system. I'm not sure if the Intel Penryn is out yet but, the "Core 2 Quads" as Intel calls them when looked at under the hood, are mere packages (Multi Chip Modules). They are not native quad core. The Multi Chip Module suffers from bandwidth bottleneck. The two dual cores it has communicate with each other via a narrow roadway. Because of this, the chip's full potential will not be realized.

Phenom is native quad core. It doesn't suffer from a bandwidth bottleneck like a Multi Chip Module.
Phenom also has four 128-bit floating point units where as Intel's MCMs have four 64-bit floating point units.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ipfxIgD8DU

Waste your money with Intel or save it with AMD.
Do the math.


Ummmm.... Wow... no.. "I'm not sure if the Intel Penryn is out yet" means you're not up-to-date on Intel releases. If the Phenom has shown us anything, it's that native quad-core gets the utter living crap kicked out of it by two of Intel's dual-cores slapped together. Q6600 FTW, Phenom FTL.

Sit Down
K thx
a b à CPUs
May 30, 2008 10:25:26 AM

For the things you want to do with your PC I wuld recommend you look at an E8400 Dual core CPU rather than a quad core.

If you do still want a quad core then I suggest you get an Intel Q9450 and stay away from the AMD 9500 Phenom as well as the Intel Q6600.

Although the Q6600 is cheaper than the Q9450, it runs quite a bit hotter and needs an after market cooler to ensure you don't end up with heat problems.

The Q9450 is a newer chip and has several improvements incorporated into its design.

Remember to get a case with decent cooling particulalry if buying a quad.

Too many new quad owners are posting here with processors overheating mainly because of cheap cooling solutions, or poorly designed heatsinks, or badly fitted heatsinks.

A tip ... get a decent case and aftermarket cooler with any quad core rig.

I hope this helps.
May 30, 2008 12:08:57 PM

enigma067 said:
Be careful when purchasing a new system. I'm not sure if the Intel Penryn is out yet but, the "Core 2 Quads" as Intel calls them when looked at under the hood, are mere packages (Multi Chip Modules). They are not native quad core. The Multi Chip Module suffers from bandwidth bottleneck. The two dual cores it has communicate with each other via a narrow roadway. Because of this, the chip's full potential will not be realized.

Phenom is native quad core. It doesn't suffer from a bandwidth bottleneck like a Multi Chip Module.
Phenom also has four 128-bit floating point units where as Intel's MCMs have four 64-bit floating point units.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ipfxIgD8DU

Waste your money with Intel or save it with AMD.
Do the math.


Pure fanboy drivel.

Look at benchmarks from what you want to do and decide that way.

Intel has faster chips and they OC far better as well.


The benchmarks, posted by many independent sites, including Tom's, speak the truth in letters and numbers.

AMD (as well as Intel) has a lot of good offerings in the $50-$200 range. However, if you're willing to spend more and want more horsepower, Intel is the only player.
May 30, 2008 12:27:28 PM

enigma067 said:
Be careful when purchasing a new system. I'm not sure if the Intel Penryn is out yet but, the "Core 2 Quads" as Intel calls them when looked at under the hood, are mere packages (Multi Chip Modules). They are not native quad core. The Multi Chip Module suffers from bandwidth bottleneck. The two dual cores it has communicate with each other via a narrow roadway. Because of this, the chip's full potential will not be realized.

Phenom is native quad core. It doesn't suffer from a bandwidth bottleneck like a Multi Chip Module.
Phenom also has four 128-bit floating point units where as Intel's MCMs have four 64-bit floating point units.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ipfxIgD8DU

Waste your money with Intel or save it with AMD.
Do the math.


Did you copy and paste that off of the AMD marketing site? Yes AMD offers a Native Quad Core and yes it's technically more advanced, but is it faster? No it's not and because it's not faster means that being 'Native' is irrelevant. The facts speak for themselves and benchmarks show this.
That said the B3 Phenom is by no means bad, but AMD's advantage of offering something for the 'Band for Buck' has vanished. The Phenom 9850 is slower than the Q6600, More expensive than the Q6600, Overclocks less than the Q6600 and Most motherboards will not support it and that's mainly budget boards, so an AMD system can be more expensive.




a b à CPUs
May 30, 2008 1:02:56 PM

speedbird ... in a rare moment of delusion quoted "Most motherboards will not support it and that's mainly budget boards, so an AMD system can be more expensive".

Less of the fanboi drivel and some decent advice ... jeez ... what weetbix packet did you study?

The 50 series Phenom's are good ... just the Intel Q9450 beats any of them out stock and runs cooler ... across the tasks the OP asked for.

The Phenom system complete will be cheaper ... a good proposition.

The Q6600 is in between and a great overclocker ... provided you adequately address the cooling - you need an aftermarket cooler and a clean case with decent fans first.

If I were recommending a system stock that would last I'd suggest a Q9450.

None of the quad core systems are crap ... they are all good ... depending on what you want.
a c 108 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 30, 2008 4:42:51 PM

Lest we digress (as usual) into a p'ing contest we are considering ...

FSX & light transcoding / multitasking on an OEM build.

I don't usually suggest a quadcore but it this limited case it's the WTG.

The OP needs guidance, not obfuscation - I tried to point him down the road toward upgraded video and multimonitors for his FSX on his prebuilt. I don't do FSX but that type configuration is ""joy"" in my understanding of FSX-dom. Can we try to help him out?

In the correct multithreaded 'parallelism' environment as noted: ""None of the quad core systems are crap ... they are all good ... depending on what you want."" FSX & 'light transcoding' is that environment.

It's an OEM with a limited bios. Not much interest in a custom or home build from the OP. OC'ing (we give you your props, Intelistas) is not really an option ... right?

From Tom's CPU Chart
AMD/Intel Quads @ 2.4GHz

Divx 6.6.1
2 Minutes DVD Terminator 2 SE (Encoding 720x576 16:9 @ 25 fps)


q6600 = 90 sec
Phenom 9700 = 96 sec

Mainconcept H.264 Encoder
24 sec HDTV 1920x1080 mpeg2 (mpeg2 to H.264)


Phenom 9700 = 63 sec
q6600 = 69 sec

Premiere Pro 2.0
MPEG2 (24 Sec. HDTV 1920 x 1080) to (WMV9 (1920 x 1080))


q6600 = 154 sec
Phenom 9700 = 158 sec

Pinnacle Studio 11 Plus
Private MPEG2-Cam-Movie (Encoding and Transitions Rendering to MPEG-2/DVD)


q6600 = 88 sec
Phenom 9700 = 89 sec


I personally use Premiere Pro with the MainConcept encoder plugin. For the OP Adobe Premiere Elements would be an excellent inexpensive option and AFAIK can pump up those four cores in parallel.

Jeez. Focus people. :pt1cable: 

(end of rantage)
May 30, 2008 4:55:01 PM

Intel wins all but one of those benchies (by narrow margins) and is 1 cent cheaper than the 9750 on newegg.

Looks like a tie to me.
May 30, 2008 5:18:26 PM

Reynod said:
speedbird ... in a rare moment of delusion quoted "Most motherboards will not support it and that's mainly budget boards, so an AMD system can be more expensive".



Quote:
The Phenom system complete will be cheaper ... a good proposition


Are you denying that Phenom 9850 Motherboard support is poor? I've just built a new Quad system and I weighted up the Pro's and con's of the Q6600 and the Phenom 9850. I didn't want to pay too much on a Motherboard, but I had trouble finding a Budget motherboard that would support the Phenom 9850 because of it being 125W. Where as Intel Q6600 supported motherboards are vast. If I could of built a Phenom system cheaper I may have considered it despite being a worse performer, but why pay more for something that's inferior? it's commonsense. I do however think the Phenom 9550 is a good Choice for a budget Quad build, but just not enough performance for me.

May 30, 2008 6:14:57 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:

Looks like a tie to me.


Hey STOP TALKING LIKE THAT!

(Or you will lose the Intel Fanboy status that you always claim not to have.)

The current Intel fanboy handbook says to obfuscate those results and ignore the fact that the Q6600 does not have a superior lead anymore. Intel fanboys are supposed to ignore simple facts and play the "AMD just can't compete" card even when the results are do not support the position. (Pages 343-346: Intel FanBoy Handbook: Decoded)
May 30, 2008 7:18:29 PM

keithlm said:
Hey STOP TALKING LIKE THAT!

(Or you will lose the Intel Fanboy status that you always claim not to have.)

The current Intel fanboy handbook says to obfuscate those results and ignore the fact that the Q6600 does not have a superior lead anymore. Intel fanboys are supposed to ignore simple facts and play the "AMD just can't compete" card even when the results are do not support the position. (Pages 343-346: Intel FanBoy Handbook: Decoded)



ROFL. I love you Keith.

AMD can compete, AT THAT PRICE POINT (and lower). However, if you need more performance AMD doesn't have options for you. Also, don't forget who is making more money at that price point, no doubt Intel with it's cheaper "double cheeseburger" design (that still performs).


So yes, AMD is competitive on those benchmarks at that price point. Is it profitting? Probably not, or if they are, it is a slim margin.
May 30, 2008 9:52:41 PM

I hope someone can help. Here is my system:
E6750, Abit IP35 Pro, 1 IDE Connection, 6 SATA, Crucial Ballistic 2048 MB, ATI Radion HD 2600 Pro,
HP DVD+-R/RW DL IDE, LiteOn DVD +-R/RW DL IDE, ViewSonic VA2226w, Windows XP Home SP3, all drivers current including BIOS

I have been very happy with my system EXEPT for the fact that I can only use 1 DVD at a time. (1 must remane unplugged) With both drives connected they will read, rip, but not burn. I have spent many an hour researching this problem, including removing Roxio and Nero, using an adapter to send one drive to SATA, checking cables, etc. Abit is no help- they offer basic troubleshooting help or risky RMA. I finally, out of frustration, took my case to Best Buy and let them try. They were also unsuccessful. I have come to the conclusion that it must be a IDE controller issue. Am I offbase? Anyone else experienced anything like this? Love to hear from you. Please let me know what additional info you need. Thanks in advance....
Kyle
k_brew929@yahoo.com
May 30, 2008 10:15:22 PM

PS After successfully posting my questioned I realized I was not on the right topic page. Rookie mistake. Please do not be bothered that I am off topic. However if you can help...
a c 108 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 31, 2008 2:50:52 PM

kbrew929 said:
I hope someone can help. Here is my system:
E6750, Abit IP35 Pro, 1 IDE Connection, 6 SATA, Crucial Ballistic 2048 MB, ATI Radion HD 2600 Pro,
HP DVD+-R/RW DL IDE, LiteOn DVD +-R/RW DL IDE, ViewSonic VA2226w, Windows XP Home SP3, all drivers current including BIOS

I have been very happy with my system EXEPT for the fact that I can only use 1 DVD at a time. (1 must remane unplugged) With both drives connected they will read, rip, but not burn. I have spent many an hour researching this problem, including removing Roxio and Nero, using an adapter to send one drive to SATA, checking cables, etc. Abit is no help- they offer basic troubleshooting help or risky RMA. I finally, out of frustration, took my case to Best Buy and let them try. They were also unsuccessful. I have come to the conclusion that it must be a IDE controller issue. Am I offbase? Anyone else experienced anything like this? Love to hear from you. Please let me know what additional info you need. Thanks in advance....
Kyle
k_brew929@yahoo.com


That's messed up.

Is this cable select or master/slave? 'Black' is master on your cable, right?

Have you reviewed/manipulated all the recording settings under the OS drive properties?? If you can read from each - maybe Windoze is conflicted on drive recording/drive image ???

Good luck --- let us know how you figure it out.


May 31, 2008 3:24:08 PM

there should be jumper on the driver where you can select master or slave.thats why the new SATA drive select the slave and master itself and no jumper to be selected.
!