Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Amd or Intel for new Gaming PC

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 10, 2008 9:10:32 PM

I am going to be building a new gaming pc here in the next week. I need help with opinions.

The 2 systems are either.


1:AMD Phenom 9850 Black Edition
ASUS M3A32-MVP Mother Board

2:INTEL Quad Core Q6600
ASUS P5N-D Motherboard.

The constants are 4 gigs of OCZ Ram
ATI 4850 From Saphire.

Also Running Vista Home 64bit.

What processor shold I go with and please tell me why. Also do you think there is a reason to goto 8 gigs or ram, and will running Vista 64 Be ok?

Thank you for any anwers.


More about : amd intel gaming

a c 127 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
July 10, 2008 9:16:35 PM

Running Vista 64bit is fine. Vista 32bit is great for me and for 4GB+ you need 64Bit. Vista is a great OS with good features.

If it was me I would go for the Q6600. Its equal to the 9850BE and can OC easier and almost every single Q6600 can get to 3GHz with no voltage change.

I will let you in on my experience with the Q6600. Its fast, stable and very smooth. But to say the truth you should really get a E8400 as it will be better for gaming than a quad. But if you do go quad I suggest the Q6600.

Now I will just wait for kassler to bust in with his BS, please don't listen to him though as he is wrong.
July 10, 2008 9:17:32 PM

If your monitor is 1680x1050 or above then AMD is better. Intel can't run fast video cards at full speed because the FSB limit. Also the socket is soon change so there is difficult to upgrade, Nehalem is knocking on the door.
AMD will last longer and you can upgrade
Related resources
July 10, 2008 9:19:58 PM

Quote:
you couldn't have just browsed the first 3 pages of here or the homebuilt section, no, you had to have that title.


word
July 10, 2008 9:23:38 PM

+1 for jimmy.
+1 for stranger.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
July 10, 2008 9:23:39 PM

Quote:
you couldn't have just browsed the first 3 pages of here or the homebuilt section, no, you had to have that title.


I know. Its sad. I tried to help him too.

I was right about kassler. And the stupid link he tries to use as proof only makes it that much more sad. A article talking about the uses of the IMC and he thinks it means the FSB is bottlenecked in the desktop market when thats clearly all about the server market.

Oh well.

LET THE FLAMIN BEGIN!!!!!!!!!!
July 10, 2008 9:25:16 PM

Ummm...WTF are you talking about, the FSB is currently no bottleneck in a single processor system, which is obviously what would be used for gaming. The Core2Quads outperform t he Phenoms despite the lower memory bandwidth, so buying something just for an IMC is stupid. The Core2Quads seem to be at least equal clock-for-clock, and some cases a bit higher then the Phenoms for gaming, and as far as overclocking it is no comparison, the Core2Quad wins hands down. The K10 architecture of the Phenom is a great architecture for servers and other multi-processor setups, but the Core2 architecture still shines in single processor use.
July 10, 2008 9:25:43 PM

LOL I sense dejavu in this thread!
a c 111 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
July 10, 2008 9:30:56 PM

Do I need to break out my AMD/Intel unpaid consultant cut 'n paste Budget Gaming Rigs of the week?

lol
July 10, 2008 9:31:07 PM

Gravemind123 said:
but the Core2 architecture still shines in single processor use.


It shines on 800x600 ;) 
Low graphics likes intel

Show one test with advanced/high graphics where intel wins over amd with a speedy card

I only know reviwes where AMD wins when the graphics is high for fast video cards
July 10, 2008 9:38:26 PM

Gravemind123 said:
Ummm...WTF are you talking about, the FSB is currently no bottleneck in a single processor system, which is obviously what would be used for gaming. The Core2Quads outperform t he Phenoms despite the lower memory bandwidth, so buying something just for an IMC is stupid. The Core2Quads seem to be at least equal clock-for-clock, and some cases a bit higher then the Phenoms for gaming, and as far as overclocking it is no comparison, the Core2Quad wins hands down. The K10 architecture of the Phenom is a great architecture for servers and other multi-processor setups, but the Core2 architecture still shines in single processor use.


Never argue with idiots like this, when you come down to his level he will beat you with experience.
July 10, 2008 9:41:53 PM

rgsaunders said:
Never argue with idiots like this, when you come down to his level he will beat you with experience.

I can tell you that if intel was better on high graphics there would be a lot of tests showing that. the have a lot of $$$$ and that is a selling argument.
I know a last three very big review sites that has some economical interest in showing better reviews for intel

a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
July 10, 2008 9:45:30 PM

kassler said:
It shines on 800x600 ;) 
Low graphics likes intel

Show one test with advanced/high graphics where intel wins over amd with a speedy card

I only know reviwes where AMD wins when the graphics is high for fast video cards


See here for what REALLY happens when you bump up the resolution: the graphics card becomes the bottleneck, and the CPU is increasingly irrelevant.
July 10, 2008 9:55:08 PM

The bottom line is it does not matter who makes the CPU.
If you have a dual core running @ 3Ghz then you will never bottleneck your GFX card(s).
Games and office software are still P-4 rated on the boxs.

Go with the brand/company you want yet @ 3Ghz stock speed AMD is less cost (as low as $111 USD boxed with cooler) and the MB's for them are less as well.
July 10, 2008 10:09:31 PM

I would say it depends on the budget for your computer. If you have about 1500USD, quad core would make more sense, because game developers are starting to multi-thread game engines, and spin off physics and other calculations onto CPUs.

Generally I recommend Intel CPUs, because they're more suited for gaming, consume less energy, and have more performance. However, if you've decided to go quad, stick with Intel's quad core.
July 10, 2008 10:18:27 PM

kassler said:
It shines on 800x600 ;) 
Low graphics likes intel

Show one test with advanced/high graphics where intel wins over amd with a speedy card

I only know reviwes where AMD wins when the graphics is high for fast video cards


Riiiiiight...

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1376/10/amd_phenom_x4...

Try harder next time.
July 10, 2008 10:40:47 PM

People really shouldn't ask which one is better. Intel fans will say Intel, and AMD fans will say AMD. ATM, Intel has the faster processors. DONE. NO other questions.
(And yes, I am an AMD fan)
July 10, 2008 10:43:35 PM

the last resort said:
People really shouldn't ask which one is better. Intel fans will say Intel, and AMD fans will say AMD. ATM, Intel has the faster processors. DONE. NO other questions.
(And yes, I am an AMD fan)


Now if all AMD fan is as cool-headed as you... ;) 
July 10, 2008 10:45:57 PM

I say get the 2500+ barton with a Soyo dragon KT400 PLATINUM ED. and a 9700 PRO with 2 gigs of some GEIL Golden Dragon memory. That would be an awesome gaming machine. It would blow all these rigs away.I bet you could max out Crysis @ full settings.
July 10, 2008 11:03:14 PM

9950 black edition and 3870x2
a c 127 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
July 10, 2008 11:34:02 PM

cjl said:
See here for what REALLY happens when you bump up the resolution: the graphics card becomes the bottleneck, and the CPU is increasingly irrelevant.


OMG NO WAY!!!!!!!!! Well its interesting how this conflicts with kasslers info.... I mean this just can't be because it makes sense and we live in a crazy world of make believe according to him.

kassler said:
?


Um he is saying you are wrong and that games are GPU limited normally when they hit a res os 1920x1200 or higher and that the CPU does not play any part in the FPS.

Was that clear enough?
July 10, 2008 11:42:53 PM

kassler said:
?


You wanted a site that proves Intel can outperform AMD at high resolution, which I provided. As evident in the site I linked, FSB is clearly not a limiting factor at high resolution (1600 x 1200).

Now, can you stop spreading misinformation?
a b à CPUs
July 11, 2008 12:28:43 AM

I love the AMD vs Intel threads. They make me laugh.

Just get the one you want. If you like AMD get the Intel, and If you like Intel get the AMD.

1Haplo
July 11, 2008 12:44:18 AM

OK all I will not be overclocking at all. I will run stock settings. It looks like the intel is faster. I just not have owned one in years. Thanks all for help. I stil have no idea which one to get thanks to this thread! LOL
July 11, 2008 12:47:48 AM

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?p=2740928

I think I have found the culprit: It's the FSB!

I did the following:
- changed my CPU clock from 2400 (9*266) to 1600 (6*266) - no change, 27 FPS
- changed my memory clock from 400 to 266 - no change, 27 FPS
- changed my FSB from 266 to 333 - success, 34 FPS

The FPS actually changed exactly according to my FSB change - a 25% increase in both cases.
It might still be memory bandwidth though, since with Intel CPUs the FSB is the limiting factor.
I have never actually seen any game that is limited by FSB or memory bandwidth nor any mention of such behaviour. I think we have found a new type of bottleneck here.

EDIT: I just ran another test: I decreased the memory clock to 266 while keeping the FSB at 333: Still 34 FPS. So it actually is the FSB.
Time for Nehalem, I'd say.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
July 11, 2008 1:36:28 AM

Please ignore this guy. He is just a troll.

As for you, trust me on this get the Q6600. Its a great chip and will not let you down.

Just a little note, with a Zalman CPNS 9700 I have temps of about 30c idle and 50c under 100% all 4 cores Prime95 load and thats when its OCed to 3GHz. Its a great chip and lets me play all my games and do more than just that at the same time without any slow down.
July 11, 2008 2:16:21 AM

The system with the Q6600 is better off, and if you plan to overclock, its even better :) .
July 11, 2008 2:36:20 AM

sniperstorm1 said:
OK all I will not be overclocking at all. I will run stock settings. It looks like the intel is faster. I just not have owned one in years. Thanks all for help. I stil have no idea which one to get thanks to this thread! LOL


If you aren't overclocking then the two processors are pretty close in performance, with a slight edge going to the Q6600. Since the Q6600 and 9850 are currently priced almost the same you are probably better off with the Q6600. Supposedly AMD will be cutting prices soon now that the 9950 has been released, but unless you can find a 9850 for $20+ cheaper than the Q6600, the Intel chip is the better deal. I personally tend to buy AMD processors as they have always given me the performance I've wanted at the price I've wanted to pay and have always been reliable. Even I will admit that at the moment the Intel chip is a better deal though.
July 11, 2008 3:01:08 AM

If not overclocking the e8400 wolfdale would be a better buy than either of those. And would also go with an Intel chipset board p45/x38/x48 if x-fire is possible and a p35 if just going to use a single card.
July 11, 2008 4:09:24 AM

Ancient_1 said:
If not overclocking the e8400 wolfdale would be a better buy than either of those. And would also go with an Intel chipset board p45/x38/x48 if x-fire is possible and a p35 if just going to use a single card.


I agree with you on this for the most part. For most applications a dual core is all that is necessary at the moment. However, the ability to run multiple tasks at once that a quad core gives you is appealing to many users. Personally I plan to build a quad core rig myself later this year for that reason as I frequently multitask when using my computer and I have been finding that my dual core is not always up to the task as well as I would like it to be. Perhaps that is what the OP is thinking as well since he/she was specifically asking about quad cores.

Still, it is good to explore all of the options. Before this turns into yet another dual vs. quad argument however it should be noted that this particular subject has already been covered in dozens of other threads and people interested in the topic would do well to read through those since there is some good information contained within.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
July 11, 2008 4:42:05 AM

Actually Intel is doing a price cut as well so I don't think the 9850BE will be lower in price than it anytime soon.

I would suggest the P35 mobo since it is very stable and the only need for CF is at really high resolutions and with the 4800 series or the GTX200 series thats above 1920x1200 res really since they both play most every game at that res with max details at great FPS.

The only real difference between PCIe 1.1 and 2.0 is about 1-2% in FPS. Nothing amazing or big right now.
July 11, 2008 5:35:53 AM

The price cut is rumoured to be July 22.
a b à CPUs
July 11, 2008 5:42:58 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Actually Intel is doing a price cut as well so I don't think the 9850BE will be lower in price than it anytime soon.



I noticed several days ago at newegg that the 9850 BE dropped in price to $205 probably due to the 9950 BE being introduced for $235.Besides the Q6600 was dropped in price to $199 a while back.
When I obtained the 9850BE a month after being sold at newegg the price was $235 at introduction.
At the time the Intel Q6600 was either $269 or $259 at newegg so the 9850 BE was less expensive at that point in time.
July 11, 2008 10:08:12 AM

kassler said:
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?p=2740928

I think I have found the culprit: It's the FSB!

I did the following:
- changed my CPU clock from 2400 (9*266) to 1600 (6*266) - no change, 27 FPS
- changed my memory clock from 400 to 266 - no change, 27 FPS
- changed my FSB from 266 to 333 - success, 34 FPS

The FPS actually changed exactly according to my FSB change - a 25% increase in both cases.
It might still be memory bandwidth though, since with Intel CPUs the FSB is the limiting factor.
I have never actually seen any game that is limited by FSB or memory bandwidth nor any mention of such behaviour. I think we have found a new type of bottleneck here.

EDIT: I just ran another test: I decreased the memory clock to 266 while keeping the FSB at 333: Still 34 FPS. So it actually is the FSB.
Time for Nehalem, I'd say.


Oblivion is one of the many games that actually take advantage of the wider bus. However the difference is not significant, as reported by Anand.



Total difference? 6% in Oblivion. Again, show me that FSB is the limiting factor for Intel's CPU on desktop.
July 12, 2008 4:36:02 AM

The things is i was also planning on getting the so named processor quad core from Intel due to people telling me how it would be future proof but in the end the q6600 is one of the older models not to mention the intels are not exactly natural quads to be specific. I decided on buying something efficient and cheaper with a motherboard that can support other higher models. This i can watch how the processors actually develop and see whats next. I believe the q6600 to be more experimental than anything else and since the quads are at an early stage i prefer to lay back and watch how the scenery dis involves. Just my opinion, Buy something efficient but not as expensive wait a while and maybe something that will definitely outshine will come up.
July 12, 2008 6:50:53 AM

If you do not overclock, Q6600 is not as outstanding as you may think.

Consider your budget. At low budget (around 80USD for CPU) AMD is a better option if you don't overclock (and AMD board is a bit cheaper), plus there is possibility for a cheap upgrade later. (With the assumption that AMD will not repeat itself in 1995 producing K5 like things)

At moderate budget consider E7200. Quad core is rather expensive, and the money is better spent on a better video card, or crossfire.
!