Intel vs AMD!!!

I was looking at mid range CPU's from both Intel and AMD.

I checked out the CPU performance charts on this site to get a good idea of what I want to go for.

The AMD X2 6000+ or 6400+ = £70 + £80 respectively.

A slightly better but still comparable Intel E6750 costs £170.

Wtf?

Am I missing something really stupid here?

Why is there such a huge difference in price while a lack of great difference in performance.

Going by the stats on the site it would seem the AMD mid range CPU's are much better VFM than any of the Intels.

Advice, opinions?

Thanks.
54 answers Last reply
More about intel
  1. look at the more recent 45nm products, the e5200 and e7300 - the old stuff that has been discontinued tends to increase in price as demand for people to upgrade to it increases
  2. The E6750 is a far more superior chip in performance and thech than the 6000 or 6400+ AMD chips.

    the price is mainly because apart from the x3 phenoms, there is no real competition in the dual core sector for Intel, so the prices are remaining the same,

    also the Conroe chips are overpriced as they were maid almost obsolete when the Penryn chips were released.

    have u also looked at the Phenom x3 chips, as they are around the same price as the 6000+ chips and with a marginal difference in performance.
  3. Thanks for your replies.

    The main thing that was gearing me more towards the AMD's is that on performance charts they are competing with Intels that are much more expensive.

    I'll check out those other CPU's you've both mentioned.

    I'm looking at building a mid range desktop that'll do me for playing most games for a while.

    I also record music so I'll get a Mobo which can take alot of RAM.

    I know Intel are the "best" CPU makers but would you agree that in my price range AMD may be the best price\performance option?

    Thanks again. Appreciated. :)
  4. If your building from the ground up go Intel if have have an existing am2 or am2+ go phenom2..
  5. spuddyt said:
    look at the more recent 45nm products, the e5200 and e7300 - the old stuff that has been discontinued tends to increase in price as demand for people to upgrade to it increases


    Both the E5200 and e7300 should both be easily configurable to outperform any AMD x2 CPU.
  6. Thanks for the replies.

    Hmmm. I've got more possible CPU options than when I started now. lol

    I've got an old AMD Sempron 2600 atm with 1GB ram and a 6600GT Geforce so that rules out upgrading on the same board.

    Has anyone got any of the processors mentioned and how well do they cope with DirectX10 games etc?

    Thanks for all your help.
  7. Personally I would skip intel S775 chips - the platform is at the end of the road - no more CPU's on this socket coming...

    That leaves you with AM2+ or i7 based systems - both with a good few years of upgrades possible...
  8. Thanks.

    I was hoping to get one with a view to a possible CPU upgrade at a later point in time so I'll go for one or the other of those boards.
  9. I'd say go with a new x2 7750 ($79). Guru3d shows it just a bit slower than the E8200 ($160) http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-athlon-x2-7750-be-review/1
  10. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/AMD-X2-6400,review-29612.html

    As this review shows, the 6400 does compare well against the E6750. It comes out on top a few times, and isn't that much slower when it loses. If the price difference is small, its not a bad choice. The E6750 is still better overall as it outputs much less heat, and can overclock better. As already mentioned however, there are other current Intel CPUs that are a better choice.
  11. What does the nm stand for?

    I guess this processor is more energy efficient and as it can be overclocked better due to that I guess it could possibly outperform a 6400?

    The 65nm does have 1mb less cache compared to 2mb's for the 6400. Would that make much difference?
  12. whiteshadow_22 said:
    What does the nm stand for?

    I guess this processor is more energy efficient and as it can be overclocked better due to that I guess it could possibly outperform a 6400?

    The 65nm does have 1mb less cache compared to 2mb's for the 6400. Would that make much difference?



    It's basically the size of the cpu a 90nm cpu will eat more power output more heat and overclock less than the same cpu built on say a 65nm process.

    I think the 65nm 6400 would be a good cpu but i would rather you go for the zx 7750 instead as it is faster clock for clock and is much newer.
  13. nm = nanometer, a microscopic measure of the thickness of the engraving node. Generally, a smaller nanometer figure indicates a finer process. However, when the process is new, the engraving can be rough and not measurably better than a coarser but optimized engraving process.

    AMD's 65nm, while not new any more, was never that well optimized. The 65nm "Brisbane" Athlons are slightly slower clock-for-clock than the 90nm "Windsor" Athlons, but the Brisbanes do consume less energy and overclock 100-200MHz more. Close call, if you ask me. From AMD's point of view, they can sell Brisbanes for cheaper because they consume less silicon real estate; therefore, it's usually more cost effective to get the 65nm part.

    The Athlon64 x2 7750 is based on a "Kuma" core (really an "Agena" Phenom die with 2 cores deactivated) and is also done on the 65nm node. Overall performance is measurably better clock-for-clock than either Windsor or Brisbane, but power consumption is in between the two, and overclocking seems less stable (it only needs to be validated up to 2.7 GHz, not 3 or 3.2). Power consumption is no surprise, because performance enhancements alone tend to increase power usage, and the 7750 has an additional 2 MB of shared cache not found on the Brisbanes/Windsors.

    Considering the list price of a 7750 and the average overclocking headroom, I'd say it's a marginally better value than even the Brisbane.
  14. i7 920 ! :) do it... you know you want it.
  15. For a midrange build you may want to look at the 5400 Black Edition as it's pretty cheap now and overclocks well enough. The 7750 is better, which is why it costs more, and is about on par with the E5200 in all aspects with the exception of heat. Users often get the E5200 to overclock it to around 3.0GHz, and it will offer simular performance to a 7750 overclocked to around 3.1-3.3GHz. Difference is, the E5200 will be running a bit cooler :D, while the AMD platform cost is likely to be less and more room for upgrades.
  16. i want to build a new CPU but my budget is only $300?? is this enough to build a new cpu for amd??? what is the spec.???
  17. Quote:
    i want to build a new CPU but my budget is only $300?? is this enough to build a new cpu for amd??? what is the spec.???


    Its do-able but it really depends on what you are using it for. At that price you'd be pretty much limited to integrated graphics.
  18. well AM2+ is at the end of the road too... AM3 coming soon for next gen phenom II's.
  19. I hate when people say not to go 775 because its a dead platform. If you can only afford or need a core2duo or a Q6600 then go for it. It is still upgradable to a Q9xxx which will probably be in the $150 range in the next year or so. Plus I dont foresee many programs utilizing the full power of an i7 anytime soon that would warrant the need for it over a Q9xxx.

    On the other hand, if you have cash to burn and dont want to upgrade for over 2 years then yes i7 is the way to go.
  20. Athlon 5400 BE. $66
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103289

    BIOSTAR A780G M2+ SE $59.99
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138134

    APEVIA X-Dreamer II 420W PSU Green $59.99
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811144022

    Kingston 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR2 800 $36.99
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820134730

    Light on DVD burner, light scribe $24.99
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106229

    Western Digital Caviar SE WD3200AAJS 320GB $49.99
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136098

    Leaving you with a total of 297.95 before shipping. While most decent 780G based board should support an upgrade to a Phenom II you will have to check the BIOSTAR website to be sure. This price does not include an Operating system and I assume you already have a keyboard, mouse, and monitor.
  21. ok... tnx 4 the idea megmanx00..Im not a AMD fanatic i just want to try it so i can compare what is the diff. of the 2. The only thing i'd like in AMD they are cheaper than intel.
  22. i want to ask if AMD 64 x2 6000 or AMD 64 x2 5200 is compatible in 790GX chipset???
  23. any AM2 or AM2+ processor will work in the 790gx
  24. You're comparing the wrong CPUs...

    As been mentioned, the E5200 is probably the closest to being the direct competitor to the X2 6000+, performance is around the same level: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e7300-pdc-e5200.html

    It costs a little more than the X2 but runs cooler and overclocks better. Of course there is also now the X2 7750 which is in the same pricerange, so theres definitely a lot of choice here, each CPU has its pros and cons in terms of performance, power consumption, price, overclocking, etc.
  25. I think the 5400+ BE is a better buy than the 7750 or 6000, it will run at 3.0ghz at stock voltage and 3.2 with some tweaking. It also consumes less power.
  26. papalarge123 said:
    The E6750 is a far more superior chip in performance and thech than the 6000 or 6400+ AMD chips.

    the price is mainly because apart from the x3 phenoms, there is no real competition in the dual core sector for Intel, so the prices are remaining the same,

    also the Conroe chips are overpriced as they were maid almost obsolete when the Penryn chips were released.

    have u also looked at the Phenom x3 chips, as they are around the same price as the 6000+ chips and with a marginal difference in performance.


    Intel chips are more expensive then AMDs solution, PERIOD.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwcKyrHHQac

    The video need to be rescanned obviously because of poor quality. But it still illustrates a most important point; VALUE.
  27. After having read up on all the replies and done a bit of research I reckon maybe a Q6600 represents great value for a mid range system.

    Do you think that's a good buy? I assume they come with heatsinks?

    I was looking at making a new system for around £400-£500.

    I only need the following.

    CPU - Possibly the Q6600 @ around £140-150.

    A new motherboard with RAM. I record music so a decent amount of RAM. I guess 4GB's? I know that 32bit OS's will cut the ram if I install 4Gb. How does it work exactly. Is there any point anyone having above 4Gb on any non 64bit OS?

    A mobo with decent options to add cards and upgrades etc would be nice.

    A new graphics card. I was thinking of going for a Radeon 4870 which costs around £170. If I have to cut costs I'd go for a Radeon 4850 which is around £100.

    A new case with a PSU that can power the CPU. Would I be looking at around £40-50?

    I just want a case that looks conventional and discreet, is easy to access for upgrades and possibly has a couple of fans built in for additional cooling.

    Rundown

    Q6600 - £150.
    GFX Radeon 4870 - £170.
    Mobo with 4Gb's Ram - ???
    Case with PSU to run it - ???

    Would I be able to make that system within my budget?

    Any recommendations for the Mobo and case?

    Thanks for any help.

    PS. I've forgotten what the cables are called but I need the cables that connect the parts in the comp up to the power unit.
  28. As for the power supply take a look at the link below.
    I know it is for a nvidia card but the 4870 would be comperable in power
    requirements.
    I picked up a 650 watt for around $70 2 months ago form newegg.
    As for the cables they are generally included with the power supply and is another consideration when buying to be sure that you get enough of each.

    http://nvidia.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/nvidia.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=2003&p_created=1166607492&p_sid=dfMthm_i&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MTUsMTUmcF9wcm9kcz0yJnBfY2F0cz01OCZwX3B2PTEuMiZwX2N2PTEuNTgmcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9ubCZwX3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PXBvd2Vy&p_li=&p_topview=1
  29. Thanks for the reply and link.

    Appreciated. :)
  30. Mobo - Asus P5Q series from £90-£140
    Ram - OCZ Platinum rev 2 4Gb from £45
    PSU - Coolermaster and Zalman are great makes for a budget although the coolermaster is cheeper from £55

    roughly around the £500 mark

    All good quality brands
  31. Thanks alot. :)

    I had no idea what to go for with the mobo or PSU.
  32. BTW - the 4850 has a better bang for bucks, ie it is better value

    4850 = 15% slower than the 4870
    4850 = 30-40% difference in price

    too be honest with u, there realy aint that much difference inspeed unless u r playin on 1920 1200 res = 24" or above monitor
  33. Ah. Thanks. I didn't realise that. Saves a bit of money too.

    Do you think the CPU etc should give me enough power to play most games at a decent level?
  34. i have the Q6600 @3.2ghz,
    Asus P5Q-pro,
    4Gb of OCZ platinum
    Asus 4850 512mb
    Coolermaster real power 520w modular PSU

    im playin all games at full (apart from Crysis and Farcry 2)
    never had any issues

    the money u would save on the 4850, get urself a Freezer pro 7 cpu cooler and maybe a VGA cooler to help with temps and overclocking if that is what u want to do.
  35. Thanks. You've overclocked yours alot.

    I've never overclocked before. Does it make alot of difference and is it easy enough to do?

    I'm reasonably good with computers so don't mind doing it as long as it's not too risky.
  36. Piss easy to do, all i did was to

    up the FSB from 266 to 400,

    dropped the multiplier from 9 to 8

    upped the Vcore from 1.2v to 1.2125v (which isnt much off of the stock 1.2v setting)

    then when windos booted up, i used Prime95 on small fft's for 8 hours.

    Temps range from 25,25,21,21 on Idle to 58,58,56,55 on full Load

    i have had the CPU up to 3.5ghz, but the temps were too high for my liking
  37. Sounds cool.

    You adjust those settings in the BIOS?
  38. yes

    the P5Q-pro has a very easy Bios setup, as most new boards do nowadays for overclocking

    i upped from a 4200+x2
    2GB ddr400
    MSI neof 939 board
    x1950GT

    the difference was asstounding

    loving every minute.

    all i can say is

    have fun with the new system, and dont be scared to push it a bit.

    with the system setup recommended, u should be able to hit similar speeds and overclocks as i have and many others with this very popular setup.
  39. Thanks alot for all the help. It's been invaluable.

    Cheers. :)
  40. nsimo86 said:
    I think the 5400+ BE is a better buy than the 7750 or 6000, it will run at 3.0ghz at stock voltage and 3.2 with some tweaking. It also consumes less power.


    The 5400BE may be cheaper and overclock to that level easily, but while the 5400BE is overclocked to 3.2Ghz the 7750 at its default 2.7Ghz will still out perform it in many tasks. Add the fact the 5400BE requires purchase of a heat sink, while the 7750 comes with one, I find the 7750 the better buy. If you wanted to overclock the 7750 you would need a better heat sink as the stock one is terrible, but either way the 7750 is capable of a higher level of performance than any Brisbane.
  41. I hate to break it to you but the 7750 isnt faster than the 5400. Take a look at Tom's charts to see for yourself. Even in a CPU intensive game like supreme commander the 5400 beats the 7750.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Supreme-Commander-Forged-Alliance-1680x1050,821.html

    I wasnt aware that the 7750 had a stock HSF since it is a black edition but apparently it does. Anyways I still stand by my statement.
  42. Well, I've just today gone back along the AMD path. I've had a C2D for a couple of years, but quite honestly was not prepared to pay for i7 at this moment in time.

    Had delivered a 9950 Phenom black ed. This, coupled with 6gb RAM and a 9800gtx+ and things are much faster than I thought they'd be. It's nice to be able to run Crysis on high at a smooth frame-rate (what the frame rate might be I haven't a clue - probably terrible going by benchmark scores, but it's smooth to my eyes!).

    Managed to spend not more than £350 on everything, and I've got a machine that'll do the job for a year or two acceptably, with the nice thought that I'll be able to upgrade fairly easily to Phenom 2 after that.

    Although by that time there'll be much more out there, no doubt ;)
  43. nsimo86 said:
    I hate to break it to you but the 7750 isnt faster than the 5400. Take a look at Tom's charts to see for yourself. Even in a CPU intensive game like supreme commander the 5400 beats the 7750.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Supreme-Commander-Forged-Alliance-1680x1050,821.html

    I wasnt aware that the 7750 had a stock HSF since it is a black edition but apparently it does. Anyways I still stand by my statement.


    That's one benchmark. Did you bother to look at any others?
    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Unreal-Tournament-3-1680x1050,819.html

    7750 does much better than 5400 in UT3.

    Here's the only review I found that actually compares Kuma and Brisbane clock for clock in one nice chart.
    http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon-x2-7750_4.html#sect0
  44. Joekar. The price of a new mobo and the RAM was included in your cost of £350?

    Is the Phenom faster than a Q6600?

    Thanks.
  45. no the phenom is not faster than the Q6600,

    Then Phenom 2 is closer to the Q6600 than the Phenom1, but the Phenom 2 only beats the Q6600 on a few benchies
  46. Ok, thanks alot. :)
  47. whiteshadow_22 said:
    Joekar. The price of a new mobo and the RAM was included in your cost of £350?

    Is the Phenom faster than a Q6600?

    Thanks.


    I'm assuming the Q6600 is the faster chip going by all the comments and reviews, but like someone else mentioned above, it's the value aspect which did it for me. A good DSI Lanparty mobo and the 9950, along with 4gb RAM, an Antec 300 case and a new PSU came to the £350 mark (well, £360 really, but there we go).

    I have no doubts that the Intels are the speedier chips (and more efficient etc), but my satisfaction levels are high - everything runs brilliantly, and for me it was definitely the right move.

    It's very easy to get completely and utterly swept away in the speed factor, but unless you have the money to get the absolute best, then you just have to settle for what you can! Most of the time, you're not looking at vast gulfs of speed difference really. No denying it's there and ready to be benchmarked etc, but I've given up on that really!
  48. Yeah. Well argued case.

    You got good value for money with the setup you went for. :)
  49. everyone keeps pushing how intel performs better. but they are not telling u how much heat and watts they use up to get their. the amd chips are a tad slower, but use 1/3 less energy to do it. if ur gaming, ur cpu play a small part in the game. the video cards do most of the work now.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Performance Intel AMD Product