Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel E6850 vs AMD 9350e

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 3, 2009 5:35:34 AM

I recently upgraded my Intel dual core E6850 to an AMD 9350e because I wanted to see what the AMD's are actually like and I was surprised at just how good the AMD is. Yes the Intel scores better in benchmarks but in the real world the AMD seems to be faster than the Intel. For example I found the 9350e to be snappier in Vista, converts RAW files in photoshot faster and is heaps better at playing COD4 on a 24'' screen. Yes the Intel has a much higher maximum framerate in 3DMARK 05 and COD4 but I noticed the AMD has a more consistant framerate and is much smoother to play. In COD4 the Intel wasn't playable over 1680x1050 on medium settings but I am now playing at 1920x1280 with everything maxed out and it is still smoother than the intel at 1680x1050. That's a big difference when you consider the Intel has a %50 higher clock speed. The only change to the system was the board and processor so this is a very fair real world comparison. Also you can't say that I am an AMD fan boy because I actually have 3 intel dual core systems at home and I haven't owned an AMD since the Athlon 3500. Buy one for yourself and give it a go. The 9350e is dirt cheap and runs cool. Let me know if anyone else has had a similar experience.

More about : intel e6850 amd 9350e

January 3, 2009 5:51:55 AM

snappier than what? old core 2 lol
January 3, 2009 6:07:47 AM

Ok, The E6850 isn't new but there is vertually no difference between it and the E8400. The 9350e is the same price as an E7300 and I know which one I would prefer. If you check out the customer reviews at Newegg a lot of people prefer the AMD 9550 over the Q6600 after trying both.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2009 6:20:44 AM

You should consider that some of those comparisons may be limited by their motherboard. The quality of the motherboard affects Core2 CPUs more due to the fact that the memory controller is on the northbridge while AMD CPUs are less affected in performance by the motherboard chipset chosen.
January 3, 2009 6:21:08 AM

its your choice to pick what ya want, but if you think any amd is snappier than any intel... cant help ya, buying an amd is like buying stock in the Ford Edsel back in the day, they're done, they're stuff sucks, used to love all their stuff back in the FX/x2 days, since core 2 smoked em, but now core i7.... LOL what a joke, its like Mike Tyson in his Prime headlining in vegas against Screech from saved by the bell, but face it, its garbage and a waste of money.... (preparing for nasty comments)
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2009 6:55:04 AM

Well sharken, people were saying the same thing about Intel being done back when the Athlon 64 was beating down the Pentium 4, and then the X2s came out. Point is that counting AMD out is a bit premature, since while they are certainly down, they aren't out just yet.

Anyway I think this makes the case for AMD as a low end platform. Obviously tasks that take advantage of quad core CPUs are going to seem "snapier" on a low end quad core than a low-mid end dual core. As for comparing the 9550to the 6600, a 9550 would certainly be put to shame by a 6600 on a P45 board, but how many people skimp on the motherboard and go for something cheap? As a result the 9550 can look better as it's performance is less dependent on the main board it resides in. It looks even worse if you're comparing the two chips with integrated graphics, for the 9550 with a 780G will certainly seem to spank the 6600 in on any board with intel integrated graphics on tasks that are graphic intensive or even watching HD movies.

Now I'm not saying that it's fair to compare the two CPUs on boards with integrated graphics, but it is how people are going to compare them. In that light AMD as a platform certainly comes out ahead especially for people trying to cut down on cost. While the argument can be made to include boards with nVidia integrated graphics on the Intel side, the fact is that people buying intel CPUs, who don't know any better, want Intel Based boards with Intel integrated graphics, which looks bad compared to AMD boards with ATI or nvidia integrated graphics.
January 3, 2009 7:21:48 AM

Ok, The Intel E6850 is running on a XFX 680sli (prior to that it was on a gigabyte p35-ds4) and the AMD 9350e is on the XFX 750a motherboard. I am running 8 gig of A-DATA 800 ram and the graphics card is a Galaxy 8800gt 512mb. I also have an Areca 1231 raid card with 8 hard drives in a raid 5. My favorite game is COD4 and when played on a 24'' screen the AMD craps on the dual core Intel. As for the new Intel i7 it's obsenely overpriced. In Australia a 920 processor, Gigabyte motherboard and 12gig of ram would set me back $2000. The AMD 9350e and XFX motherboard set me back $400 and I already had the ram. My very first PC was an intel 2.26gig p4 with rambus ram and a ti4400 graphics card. It was the fastest thing around and cost me $3000. Twelve months later it was worth $1000 and wasn't good enough for running photoshop. I might loose $200 in value on the AMD over the next twelve months but if I buy an i7 I might as well throw away $1500. Does anyone want to buy an i7 now.
January 3, 2009 7:29:19 AM

Sure do! Cost $745 here for Asus P6T deluxe, Core i7 920 and Corsair dominator 1600mhz, lol
January 3, 2009 7:35:45 AM

In the End 12 months later you have a quad core with Hyperthreading that still smokes any amd even then, its not like it will be crap in a year, hardly.... Pay attention
January 3, 2009 7:45:48 AM

Hey Sharken, What I am saying is the AMD is better value than a dual core intel and it also handles high res screens better than the Intel. I have included a link to a review at Overclockersclub. It clearly demonstrates the AMD pulling ahead of the intels when playing COD4 on a 24" screen. This is the same thing that I experienced between the E6850 and 9350e. If your spending **** loads of money on an i7 your going to be using a screen bigger than 19".
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2009 7:58:10 AM

Prices are different here in the U.S.A.
The low end Core i7 920 is a good deal here.
The 2.5 Ghz Phenom X4 9850 BE is cheaper here than the slower 2.0 Ghz 9350e.
I'll agree with you that the Phenoms run smoother but that point is moot now that Core i7 is out.For a new system build Core i7 is the way to go.
The AM2+ based Phenom II's will be a fine upgrade option though but honestly I don't see how the AM3 Phenom II's will compete.One might as well spend a few bucks more and go Core i7.
I think that the AM2+ Phenom II's and the AM3 Phenom II's may very well end up as the last CPU's from AMD due to competition,a poor financial situation AND due to the worsening global economy.
By the way last year I did build a AMD Phenom X4 9850 BE system to help AMD out a little.Yes,I like the system a lot but I don't think AMD stands much of a chance for very much longer.

January 3, 2009 8:01:33 AM

Ok,It won't let me include a web link. Just go to overclockersclub.com and look for the review on the x3 8750. It's a good site because they test on low and high res screens. As for my own tests when I benchmarked the AMD 9350e in 3dmark05 and watched the framerate in COD4 I noticed how consistant the AMD is. The Intel has a %20 to %25 higher maximum framerate but the minimum is the same as the AMD when played on a 22" screen and on a 24" screen the AMD has a higher miminum framerate and is **** loads more playable. A higher minimum framerate is more important than a high maximum framerate.

January 3, 2009 8:02:26 AM

The purpose of his thread in first place is Fanboyism lol "I wanted to see what the AMD's are actually like and I was surprised at just how good the AMD is"... cant say he is a fanboy though comparing an old core 2 with a newer quad Amd lol at a few certain tasks, I just replied with "i doubt its any better than any intel counterpart quad, THen just big pictured it....
I dont hate on amd for no reason, These are amd's i had, give you an idea of what i used over the years, Amd 2600, first 3000 barton core, 3200+ Fx 51, 53, 55, 57 60, x2 4800 etc, I even have a phenom box in other room... Impressions, Its sucks ass, weak as $##% COMPARED.... Nuff said by me, im tired bud...
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2009 8:03:28 AM

Yes I've noticed the smoothness effect last year especially in Microsoft Flight Simulator X
January 3, 2009 8:13:02 AM

LOL!
January 3, 2009 8:29:02 AM

If the i7 was that price in OZ then I would try one out however the benchmarks for the i7 in COD4 are no better that the 775 quad. No real reason to upgrade. This system is also my workstation which is why I run the areca raid card. When handling RAW files in Photoshop drive speed is a lot more important than the processor. It's like the number of mac owners running a dual XEON workstation with one **** 7200rpm hard drive. If people want real system performance they need to look further than just the processor.
January 3, 2009 8:36:17 AM

but no one telling you to upgrade, nor suggesting you upgrade, has nothing to do with any of the post bud lol was main topic and thats it...
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2009 8:40:11 AM

AMD did have some interesting things that I saw though.Their Fusion Utility and even more interesting was their (not perfected) Avivo video encoding software that ran off of their ATI GPU's.Like someone said before it's too bad that it wasn't a full video editing app.If they concentrated more effort into running more apps off of the GPU it would be very attractive since GPU's are more powerful than CPU's as processing units.
January 3, 2009 8:48:22 AM

Wicked! Let me send back my core i7@3.8 and get right on an amd quad FTW, FUsion... Sweet!
January 3, 2009 8:50:46 AM

I'm just saying there is no reason for people to be rubbishing the AMD Phenom. In my experience it's a better low cost option than the dual core intel. I have also gone through 5 faulty 775 motherboards so I really wanted to try something else.
January 3, 2009 8:57:47 AM

I understand bud, just being funny.... Happy new Year, hope ya like it, but if you dont, we can donate it to the National scientific museum where they can mount it on a plaque surrounded by pretty lights with a title under it that reads "Behold! The Phenom"
January 3, 2009 8:58:45 AM

I can't believe you guys are arguing over a processor.. lol

Just get what you're happy with and leave it at that. Enough said.
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2009 9:00:23 AM

Well here is what I think should happen.AMD as a corporation would have to abandon making CPU's (if it wants to stay in business by not losing money by a losing price war with Intel) and instead concentrate all their effort on the utilization of the GPU for processing more applications and the faster development of more powerful GPU's.In other words more of an alliance between Intel (CPU's) and AMD (GPU's) rather than competition.
January 3, 2009 9:03:10 AM

wouldnt that be cool, Everyone working together for the betterment of mankind hehe,
January 3, 2009 9:04:25 AM

Tell me Sharken. is there any noticable difference at 3.8gig while surfing the net, listening to music, watching a DVD or playing games on a 30" screen. If your a full time graphic designer doing animation for a living then yes get an i7 and overclock the hell out of it because time is money. However I don't think the average user is going to notice. I stopped overclocking because it made very little difference to my work. I would love to have an Intel Skulltrail or a AMD Opteron but the truth is they cost a fortune and would make no difference to my workflow.
January 3, 2009 9:12:02 AM

If AMD went down the tubes intel would triple it's prices and you wouldn't see a new chip for two years. AMD needs to keep going and people should buy the new Phenom if they want to see a competitive market.
January 3, 2009 9:16:47 AM

sharken said:
I understand bud, just being funny.... Happy new Year, hope ya like it, but if you dont, we can donate it to the National scientific museum where they can mount it on a plaque surrounded by pretty lights with a title under it that reads "Behold! The Phenom"



We could put the Phenom next to the Prescott P4 and Pentium D.
a c 108 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 3, 2009 2:05:38 PM

I come back to Tom's after 3 months and an episode of Jackass breaks out ... :ouch: 
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 3, 2009 4:23:54 PM

Wisecracker said:
I come back to Tom's after 3 months and an episode of Jackass breaks out ... :ouch: 

Same ****, different posters. :lol: 
January 3, 2009 5:40:53 PM

you enjoyed it now.... it wasnt in anger
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 3, 2009 8:28:56 PM

I'm just wondering which cars are going to be used for comparisons. ;) 
!