Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E8500 vs X2 7750

Last response: in CPUs
Share

Is an Intel E8500 system worth paying 30 more bucks than a AMD 7750 system.

Total: 65 votes (12 blank votes)

  • Yes
  • 84 %
  • No
  • 17 %
January 3, 2009 8:28:24 AM

Ok im building a system soon...and i jus went on the egg and made a wishlist on what i think would suit my needs. Im a college student..with media taste so i want a pc thats capable to playin videos email..documents..all that stuff...now i know that doesnt require much power...but i am a causal gamer..and avid photoshop user...so i need pc and video card power...


My video card choice will be the HD 4830...the price is nice for the performance it seems...But my processor choice is a lil hard...I choose a AMD 7750 orginally...but i made another wishlist with an Intel E8500...they have a 100 dollar difference....so the intel should and is a whole lot better than the AMD version no question. But I cut some corners on the INtel system and got it to be only 30 bucks cheaper than the amd system...

With the AMD SYstem i get a blu ray drive and a dvd burner...and 2 hard drives...an seagate 160 gb and a seagate 1tb...

With the INTEL I only get a 1 blu ray drive..and 1 Samung 1 TB.

The amd system total would be 1370 while the intel system total would be about 1400


My question is would it be worth it to pay 30 more bucks to get the intel system over the amd system?

Sorry for all the writing...i did it so you dont have to ask questions later
Thanks in advance

More about : e8500 7750

a b à CPUs
January 3, 2009 8:29:34 AM

absolutely.
January 3, 2009 9:51:25 AM

I just changed the processor in my workstation from an Intel E6850 to an AMD 9350e and I was very surprised. It certainly seems quicker in Vista and Photoshop CS2 but the big difference was in COD4. On a 24" screen the AMD is heaps better than the Intel. A more consistent framerate, smoother and overall a lot more playable. It's also cheap and runs cool. Just make sure you have 8gig of ram. Either that or wait a few weeks for the new Phenom. I hope this helps you out.
Related resources
January 3, 2009 9:55:06 AM

Just go and look at the bench marks, To many fanboys around to get a honest answer. Remember, Benchmarks wont lie.
January 3, 2009 10:09:39 AM

it acuallly depends if you want a 64bit OS. AMD is acually ahead of that CPU in the 64bit OS range. But for 32bit Operating system the E8500 would smash it. Any ways if you want to save some green get the E8400 which is about $10-$20 dollars cheaper and you can overclock it just as good.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037

PS. I was totaly for AMD until I decied to see what it was like to build an Intel computer and I was amazed and now I'll buy from both companies.
January 3, 2009 11:05:10 AM

At this point in time, there is not questions about it. It's totally worth spending that 30.00$ on the Intel system. Even though, AMD seems to have promising products around the corner, Intel still holds the bucket especially in the mid to high end processor market. That being said, it doesn't mean that you can't get an AMD system and be happy with it. BTW, I use both companies for different purposes. Main rig is Intel, HTPC is AMD......
January 3, 2009 12:07:07 PM

Actually after trying the AMD and doing my own testing I can see the benchmarks like 3dmark are completely meaningless. If you run two systems, one intel dual core and one phenom quad side by side in 3dmark you will see what I mean. The intels frame rate goes up and down like a yoyo and the Phenom cruises along at a much more consistent, smoother rate. Yes the intel racks up more total frames over the test but the Phenom has a higher minimum frame rate and is a lot more playable. Here is a link that demonstrates the same thing that I worked out. In COD4 my dual core is playable up to 1680x1050 on medium settings. The AMD is now running at 1920x1200 with everything on max and it is still smoother and more playable than the intel.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_phenom_x3_8...
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2009 12:51:27 PM

Malcolmk said:
I just changed the processor in my workstation from an Intel E6850 to an AMD 9350e and I was very surprised. It certainly seems quicker in Vista and Photoshop CS2 but the big difference was in COD4. On a 24" screen the AMD is heaps better than the Intel. A more consistent framerate, smoother and overall a lot more playable. It's also cheap and runs cool. Just make sure you have 8gig of ram. Either that or wait a few weeks for the new Phenom. I hope this helps you out.


Yeah quads ARE stronger then duals in multithreaded apps etc - ofcourse it will seem faster in some areas :sarcastic:  .

Compare an Intel quad (even the Q6600) to and AMD quad and you will see an even greater leap in performance.

Comparing two different spec'd and priced chips is stupid.
January 3, 2009 1:07:57 PM

Malcolmk said:
Actually after trying the AMD and doing my own testing I can see the benchmarks like 3dmark are completely meaningless. If you run two systems, one intel dual core and one phenom quad side by side in 3dmark you will see what I mean. The intels frame rate goes up and down like a yoyo and the Phenom cruises along at a much more consistent, smoother rate. Yes the intel racks up more total frames over the test but the Phenom has a higher minimum frame rate and is a lot more playable. Here is a link that demonstrates the same thing that I worked out. In COD4 my dual core is playable up to 1680x1050 on medium settings. The AMD is now running at 1920x1200 with everything on max and it is still smoother and more playable than the intel.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_phenom_x3_8...


Well, I wouldn't say benchmarks like 3dmark are completely meaningless. However, it could be argued that they should be upgraded to show how consistent the processors perform.

If processor A can average a game at 100 fps, with highs as much as 200 fps and lows as low as 10 fps (and radically spikes framerate in either direction constantly)... and processor B can average a game at 70 fps with highs as much as 100 and lows as low as 45 fps (and stays relatively steady throughout)... which gives the better gaming experience? I would contend that processor B would be the better choice. This is one of AMD's strong points with the Phenom architecture. It is relatively consistent.

You may also find that Phenoms tend to lose less steam than the Core 2's when running in higher resolutions. But you rarely see that these days, as most sites test CPU's using extremely low resolutions so that they can remove the GPU bottleneck from the equation. This made sense up until the Phenom architecture (and now the i7 architecture), which have gobs of bandwidth at their disposal, which apparently helps alleviate the CPU bottleneck to some extent.

But these days the enthusiasts are too lazy to test and more interested in flaming, the reviewers are too set in their ways or have been bought out to some extent, and benchmark companies don't feel the need for their software to offer more comprehensive testing if nobody thinks it necessary and their competition doesn't have it.
January 3, 2009 1:52:12 PM

Malcolmk said:
Actually after trying the AMD and doing my own testing I can see the benchmarks like 3dmark are completely meaningless. If you run two systems, one intel dual core and one phenom quad side by side in 3dmark you will see what I mean. The intels frame rate goes up and down like a yoyo and the Phenom cruises along at a much more consistent, smoother rate. Yes the intel racks up more total frames over the test but the Phenom has a higher minimum frame rate and is a lot more playable. Here is a link that demonstrates the same thing that I worked out. In COD4 my dual core is playable up to 1680x1050 on medium settings. The AMD is now running at 1920x1200 with everything on max and it is still smoother and more playable than the intel.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_phenom_x3_8...



Youre comparing Intel's dual core against AMDs quad core, only the OP is not asking about the AMD quad core. There is no comparison between an Intel e8400 and AMD X2 7750, the Intel smokes it.
January 3, 2009 2:09:13 PM

I am saying go for the quad AMD because in Australia the AMD 9350e which I have upgraded to costs $200 and an intel E8500 is $300. When using 64bit Vista and 8gig of ram the AMD quad is superior to the intel and a lot cheaper. As for the q6600 take a look at the link. On a 24"screen the AMD quad is the best processor on the market. Even the q9450 and i7 only manage to match the AMD in COD4 at 1920x1600. The i7 is five times the price and has no advantage at all. On top of that the AMD quad is smoother in game play.
January 3, 2009 2:44:56 PM

Well MalcolmK...i could go for an AMD Quad...the 9950 is only 170 which about the same price of the E8500...but lookin over benchmarks...that quad doesnt deliver power where i need it...photoshop...games....and power director....im sure its a good processor...but it doesnt seem more powerful than the E8500 in most applications....

and for the other comments...I was comparing a system with a intel dual core vs and amd dual core...so the playing field is even...those comparing quads to dual cores are unfair since generally a quad should outperform a dual.

i did notice that a intel Q6600 is about the same price as intel E8500..should that be considered into the system?

And also...i was plannin on using a 64 bit OS....would that change the outcome at all?
January 3, 2009 3:06:39 PM

The E8500 is better in games, but games will be getting better with quads, in photoshop the q6600 will be a lot better...

I have a E8400+9800GX2 for gaming and a Q6600+7600GT for my VM servers.

I tried my Q6600+9800GX2 for gaming and the E8400 was better with more games.

But for you if you do a lot of multitasking and photoshop you should go for Q6600, games will still play very good.
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2009 3:16:47 PM

I'm not sure why you would choose to get a Segate 160GB in addition to a 1TB drive. Anyway, with that budget I'd rather go with the AMD system and cut out the 160GB Segate and the DVD burner to get a better video card like a 4850 1GB. Since the 7750 has an unlocked multiplier it will be rather easy to over clock and you should get at least 3.1 GHz out of it. Of course the E8500 is worth the extra money as it is significantly faster than the 7750 and of course overclocks much better, but you can't really be cutting too many corners on the motherboard or Power supply if you want to overclock the E8500. For the Intel system I would rather go with an E8400 to save a few bucks, since it has the same OC potential as the E8500, and put that towards a better board of vid card. For an Intel setup I wouldn't go with anything less than a P45 based board.
January 3, 2009 3:33:39 PM

CPU: I7 920
Mobo: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
RAM: 3GB http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Total: 740 + shipping + other stuff

Another 3 gb of ram will cost you another 130.

A light gamer could get away with a 4850 or 4830. 150 for that.

A HDD (640gb drives are better than 750gb or 1TB drives) could run you in the 70$ range.

A DVD drive is 30$
A BluRay reader is 100$

Power supply and case are up to you.

1000$ for a system that will dominate in PS, light gaming, and everything else sounds good to me, but maybe you were aiming a bit lower?


January 3, 2009 3:34:15 PM

/facepalm

Consider what you loose for that 'extra' $30, your DVD drive and a secondary hard drive, and perhaps a bit of overclocking headroom. From your usage scenario, AMD FTW.

You can get the best of both worlds however, grab cheeper Intel, such as the E7xxx or E5200 and do a bit of overclocking, and use the saved cash to get your DVD and hard drive back.
January 3, 2009 3:55:52 PM

For your $1370 budget you could get the suggest Toms I7 system + BluRay reader.

you could save ~$200 if you switch from a 4850X2 to a 4850 and you could still get a second hard drive.
January 3, 2009 4:02:35 PM

3dmark benchmarks may be "meaningless" by it is definitely CPU bound more so than it should be. that is why quads typically score higher nut do not necessarily pack the same punch in gaming. if my only choice is between the two mentioned then spend the extra 30 dollars. i am running an e8400 and i sure dont see frames jumping up and down. if it werent for my bad habit of spending money meaninglessly it would get me by for a good while. B-Unit is correct though. a couple adjustments in the BIOS and a decent aftermarket cooling solution and you are cruising a e5200 or e7xxx at 3.6Ghz or better.
January 3, 2009 4:40:10 PM

i must add...that the price was 1370 and 1400 because everything was including in that price....the 1920 x 1080 mointor...keyboard mice...sata cables...everything from head to toe on a new pc..

.I read that 1250 build by tom..with the i7 and followed it accordingly...the total would be about 1750...vs 1370 vs 1400 with everything....not sure...if its worth the 400 dollar price increase... only a 5 to 15 performace increase in the benchmarks i need...but i do understand once software gets optimized for it...it may be better...not suree 400 dollars better tho
January 3, 2009 4:47:47 PM

The Phenom 9350e is garbage, why was it even brought up here?

@ OP Just get the E8400/E8500 and overclock it. Also keep in mind that 4830 wont be able to handle any modern games at decent settings at that resolution. You mind listing your entire cart/specs? We might be able to help you cut cost elsewhere so you can gain in other areas.
January 3, 2009 5:12:59 PM

ok Intel System
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500
ASRock P45XE-WiFiN LGA 775
ASUS EAH4830/HTDP/512MD3 Radeon HD 4830
Crucial Ballistix 4GB DDR2 800
1x SAMSUNG Spinpoint F1 HD103UJ 1TB
ZEROtherm ZEN FZ120 120mm CPU Cooler
6x Blu ray Rom Drive

AMD system has identical specs...except different processor and mobo of course...and different hard drive..and addition of another optical drive

GIGABYTE GA-MA790X-DS4
AMD X2 7750
2x Western Digital Caviar Black 640 GB
22x DVD burner
Wifi N pci e card
January 3, 2009 5:19:39 PM

don't get the ASrock MB... better get Asus P5Q... and get a wifi card if you absolutly need a wifi board...
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2009 5:23:31 PM

Without a doubt whatsoever, I'd get the E8500 (or even E8400) over ANY of the AMD chips available currently. If we were talking Phenom II (when it comes out) I might think it over and review some benchmarks.

For now though, I can't find a performance reason to buy an AMD chip unless you're on a really tight budget. I'm not an Intel fanboy either. My Q6600 is the first Intel chip I've ever personally owned. Every system I ever built was AMD before this.

Facts are facts. Intel simply dominates right now.
January 3, 2009 5:25:44 PM

which Asus P5Q...i see a pro, deluxe, -e, and a regular one (i guess)
January 3, 2009 5:34:04 PM

I dont see how your build is comming to $1400.
January 3, 2009 5:41:59 PM

Ok, I used the specs listed by you and built your system in the cart on newegg. I even included some things you didnt list (power supply, case), and I used a $300 24" monitor and it came to only $1120. This was the AMD build.

With this build here, you could drop $100 by using a 22" monitor with 1900 x 1080 support. The zerotherm nirvana is expensive at $50 and really isnt all that great, you can save $30 here by switching that for a Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro. Drop one of the 640gb harddrives in exchange for a single 1TB drive to save another $60.

Just those simple susgestions there cut $200 off the final price, and you havnt really lost anything. You can use this money saved to upgrade the video card, as I mentioned about a 4830 wont be able to handle modern games at 1900 x 1080 with decent performance without sacrificing all visuals.
January 3, 2009 5:51:53 PM

The Intel build comes to $1150 in my cart, once again using the specs you listed and adding a case and PSU, same I used in the above AMD build.

Same rules apply here, can cut $100 off by switching monitors, and another $30 by switching CPU coolers. Once again use this money saved to upgrade the video card.
January 3, 2009 5:55:16 PM

Since the OP's main uses are multimedia and photoshop first and casual gaming second, I think he should be looking at the Q6600 instead of the E8500 for about the same price.
January 3, 2009 6:02:42 PM

ok so what im understanding is i should go down on processor (E8500 vs E7300) to go up on video card power (4850 vs 4830)...so now i got an intel system as follows

Intel Core 2 Duo E7300
HIS Hightech H485QT512P Radeon HD 4850
LG 22X DVD±R DVD Burner
ARCTIC COOLING Freezer 7
ASRock P45XE-WiFiN LGA 775
Crucial Ballistix 4GB DDR2 800
1x SAMSUNG Spinpoint F1 1TB
LG Black Blu-ray/HD DVD-ROM & 16X DVD±R DVD Burner


This equals about 900...when i add all the other goodies...tv card.. monitor..keyboard..then it equals 1400...i didnt think about that...

the amd setup is about same with a different mobo with an added wifin card...and 2x WD Black 640 drives instead of 1x TB samung drive




January 3, 2009 6:11:33 PM

and im kind of worried about getting the Q6600 since its been out over a year...its kinda of dated...so idk if i should consider it....considering its age on the market....
January 3, 2009 6:20:33 PM

The Q6600 even 1 1/2 year old is still one of the best out there... there're the q9X50 that are better and the I7, the Q8200 and even the Q9X00 are either on par with or a little behind.

I have 1 Q6600 and I won't upgrade that CPU until the Q9550 or Q9650 come down to about the same price.

To save on cost get the P5Q... the regular 8 phases not the deluxe or any other. If you OC it'll be a lot better than the ASrock you picked.

And if you wait a week or so the Phenom 2 will be out and might drive the price of some CPU down a little and enough for you to save a few $$ and upgrade your Videocard.
January 3, 2009 6:31:34 PM

OK so i think ima just wait a few weeks to see if AMD new cpus are any threat to intels dominance at mainstream level...hopefully it will be good enough to drive intel's prices down...i refused to pay more than 200 dollars for a processor when the performance isnt greatly increased...

im findin that a 150 cpu greatly outperforms and 80 cpu usually...but a 500 dollar or 1000 dollar cpu...jus barely outperform the 150 cpu...mayb by 10 to 15 percent while costing 200 to 500% percent more.

But i do thank everyone for helping...!

but that dont mean stop helpin by all means keep the comments coming!
January 3, 2009 6:41:09 PM

It's a good idea to wait a week or 2 for the Phenom 2 to come out... it's not like waiting a few months...

The early unofficial review of the P2 show it should be between the Q9x50 and the I7.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the NDA for the P2 official review is Jan 8th.
January 3, 2009 8:25:26 PM

If your worried about performance in Photoshop spend more money on hard drives because that is the biggest limiting factor and not cpu performance. Thats why I am running an Areca 1231 raid card with eight hard drives in a raid 5. BTW I have an Intel 3gig dual core and an AMD 9350e and I know which one is faster. The AMD is clearly faster and out performs it in COD4. When converting RAW files in Photoshop the AMD is %15 faster than the Intel. I realise the pricing in the states is different but personally after using both platforms I would go for a cheap AMD cpu so you have an upgrade path when the Phenom II comes down in price. Also save up for an Areca raid card. The 1210 is cheap in the states and will give you the biggest performance improvement. You will get a %50 improvement in drive performance just by connecting a single drive to the Areca raid card. Run four drives in a raid 5 and you will have five times the drive performance compared to a single drive connected to the onboard controller.
January 3, 2009 8:41:36 PM

ok then now thats something i never heard...maybe i should look into that...would it be wise to get maybe at 100 dollar ssd...

i dont really understand this whole raid talk.. ima have to do some research on it
January 3, 2009 9:12:49 PM

SSD's are a waste of money. If you dont understand RAID, just go with a single 1TB drive like I susgested above. It will be cheaper than two drives and you wont have to worry about a RAID setup.
January 3, 2009 10:12:35 PM

Yes I agree the SSD's are a waste of money but if your handelling a lot of files or like your games loading up quick get the Areca raid card. My workstation will load a COD4 map in 4 seconds. If I get on someone elses machine even if they are running a q6600 @3.8gig I think gee this is a slow piece of ****. Ever since the first P4 the biggest limiting factor to system performance has been drive speed. It took me two weeks to convince a friend of mine to try my spare four chanel raid card. Now he wants to buy both of my cards. Raid 5 is a great way to go because if one drive fails you don't loose anything. Just replace the drive and it will rebuild the array and keep going. If you run four Samsung F1 drives or Western Digital Black drives in a raid 5 you will get roughly 400 mb/s read and write speed and a file copy speed of 120 mb/s. A single drive connected to the onboard controller is good for 110 mb/s read and 25 mb/s file copy. If you then run the OS on a 200gig partition you will drop the drive latency from 13ms to 8ms which is the same as the 10000rpm drives. It's a lot of performance out of four standard drives.
January 3, 2009 10:18:54 PM

Yea, and for a hefty price. Raid cards arent cheap, not to mention the multiple drives. Hes on a budget
January 3, 2009 10:37:24 PM

spathotan said:
Yea, and for a hefty price. Raid cards arent cheap, not to mention the multiple drives. Hes on a budget


pretty much. Unless the board comes ready to raid 0. Most of them come.

A 2x640GB WD Raid 0 was a good choice.

To the OP, for you use, i would simply forget dual cores. Q6600, 9850 are good choices. Or wait for phenom 2 and see the Phenom 1 prices fall. And then grab one.

I was going for a 7750 also, but ill wait and in meanwhile ill hope my cpu just fries (4800+ X2 Oced to 3Ghz, 1.35v) in the process. And remember get a nice GPU !!!!! Adobe CS4 already uses it a OpenCL is here !!
January 3, 2009 11:07:49 PM

I have picked up Areca 1210 cards off ebay for $200 and new there $290. I just can't get them in Australia for that price. He is already looking at buying two drives. One more drive and he has a raid 5. Ok I just added up a list on Newegg based on a intel dual core.

Areca 1210 Raid card $290
Intel E5200 $84
4gig A-DATA ram $35
Powercolor 4850 $145
DFI P45-T2RS $110
LG DVD burner $20
3x 640gig Caviar Black $240

Total $924

Just remember it is easy to upgrade a processor or ram down the track. You could do the same with the AMD 7750. Get it now and upgrade to the Phoeom II in six months. That's why I went for the 9350e. In OZ it's the same price as the E7300 and better suited for what I do. I can also upgrade the processor to the Phenom II without having to change anything else. Just a bios update and drop the new CPU in. Also if you get a 22" screen there will be no difference between the Intel and AMD for gaming. It just depends what your using it for.
January 4, 2009 12:12:39 AM

Add another $70 for a PSU, $50~ for a case, and $300 for his 24" monitor to your list Malcom, and you are at $1400. He needs to buy a complete build.
January 4, 2009 1:02:17 AM

Plus another $200 for Windows and the Blu-ray drive he wanted.

I dont see the point in spending $290 on a raid card and have to drop down to a E5200. Is it worth it to have lower FPS in a game just so a level will load faster? I certainly dont think so.
January 4, 2009 1:21:09 AM

RAID isnt a great as everybody thinks, its something you use if youre impatient.

Also, dropping down to a E5200 shouldnt even be considered.
January 4, 2009 1:43:00 AM

Ok, I will say this one more time. On a 24" screen there is no difference between any of the current cpu's because the biggest limitation is the graphics card. My 9350e runs at %50 cpu usage during COD4 and is a **** more playable than the intel 3gig dual core. And yes the raid card is worth the money. If your handling a lot of files it gives you superior system performance and redundancy. If you run a raid 0 with your onboard controller either of the drives can die or if the board dies you loose everything. With the raid 5 you just replace one drive and it rebuilds itself or if the motherboard dies you just replace it and away you go. Priceless really.
January 4, 2009 1:52:05 AM

I would also like to add there is only 1mb of cache difference between the E7300 and E5200. The E5200 has the advantage an 800 fsb so all you have to do is set the fsb to 1066 and you have the E8500 clockspeed all for $84. Also the cpu is easy to upgrade and your not going to care if you loose $40 in value over the next six months.
January 4, 2009 1:54:44 AM

Usually any C2D @ 3.0Ghz with a good VC like the 4870 1Gb with a 24" screen will play most games at max setting, and depending of the game you can enable AA...

So a E5200 oc @3.0Ghz should be enough if the VC is right.
January 4, 2009 2:22:34 AM

Yes I am running 8gig of ram with the 9350e on Vista 64bit and I am amazed at how good it is. DDR2 is dirt cheap so try it out. I just wish I had purchased a gigabyte motherboard so I could run 16gig. One other thing about the Areca raid card. I started using them two years ago and in that time I have changed the board and processor in my workstation three times and I will still be using it untill pci-express is phased out. $290 is dirt cheap for something that performs so well and outlasts many generations of cpu's. Like I said it's priceless.
January 4, 2009 2:26:13 AM

If he wants RAID 5 that bad he can just get a P5Q Pro or a handful of X38/X48 boards, which supports it.

Just stressing that the last thing he needs on a budgeted build is a $300 RAID card and 3 harddrives.
!