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.

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.

The E6750 2.66ghz is NOT far superior than the new 6000+ 3.1ghz, it may have more cache but it lacks speed. Id say the 6000+ would outbench it. The E6750 is older therefore it costs more, the new 45nm Intel chips are better and cheaper.

If your building from the ground up go Intel if have have an existing am2 or am2+ go phenom2..

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.

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.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/AMD- [...] 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.

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?

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.

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 , while the AMD platform cost is likely to be less and more room for upgrades.

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.

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.

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.

any AM2 or AM2+ processor will work in the 790gx

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.

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.

Thanks for the reply and link.

Appreciated.

Thanks alot.

I had no idea what to go for with the mobo or PSU.

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?

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.

Sounds cool.

You adjust those settings in the BIOS?

Thanks alot for all the help. It's been invaluable.

Cheers.

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 [...] 0,821.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?
[url=http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Unreal-Tournament-3-1680x1050,819.html][/url]

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.
[url=http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon-x2-7750_4.html#sect0][/url]

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