AMD vs Intel
which is better AMD phenom II X4 or Intel core i3... in terms of reliability n.... performace??
Read through this benchmark and decide for yourself for your needs... http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=143
You will not get a "straight" answer on reliability as you will receive both sides as which is best. Basically... they both are reliable!!
As for the better buy NOW, I would go with the Phenom II X4 since the LGA 1156 platform is being replaced in the coming months with the LGA 1155 platform, where with AMD, you have room to expand to new and better chips with their new platform.
^+1 Basically, the Phenom is a Quad core, while the i3 is a Dual core. I wouldn't say they're comparable. If you take the i5 Lynnfield, however, then we might see some debate here. By that time, I'll be long gone. I've had enough of flame wars.
BTW, is it just me or the title looks provocative. Flame bait?
soumyasmruti said:thank u guys..
That was a relieve... . Well, while you're at it, just pick a best answer so the moderators can close the thread. I wouldn't even wanna think about having to report a flame war on a deserted thread. Let's say, it was a traumatic experience...
The title is very "alluring", if you know what I mean...
i'd buy the true quad core.. but if you can wait sandy bridge is coming up soon so prices on everything should fall, and with bulldozer also coming next year it really depends when you wanna do your build...
but for today i'd go with the amd... just don't overclock too liberally and reliability wont be an issue for either chip
It really depends on your budget. For $300USD and below, AMD is the better choice but for above that, Intel stands uncontested. It's hard to beat a 6-core 3.2GHz CPU for under $300 and although some Intel i7 quad-cores do beat it, remember that there was a time that highly-clocked Core2Duos beat AMD Quad-Cores. Those days are long gone. When software starts taking advantage of 6 cores (and believe me, it will), you'll be still sitting pretty with the Phenom II X6 while the Intel Quad-Cores become overloaded in comparison.
I'll use an automotive reference to explain. Imagine that software is a load and the more complex that software is, the heavier the load is. Well imagine 2 Dodge Ram Trucks, one has the 8.0L V-10 gas engine out of the Viper and one has the Cummins 5.9L L-6 turbodiesel. Sure, a drag race between two unloaded trucks will see the V-10 killing the L-6 but if you were to have them towing 5 tonnes, the V-10 would become very sluggish while the L-6 diesel would be barely affected at all and would crush the V-10. The Cummins turbo diesel is still wickedly fast and has all the power you would ever need on the street. The Phenom II X6 is the same way. Fast enough to do all you ever needed it to and strong enough that you can depend on that performance to remain even as the workload increases. Physics gets in the way eventually and 6 real cores > 4 real cores and 4 hyperthreaded virtual cores when there complexity of the software bogs the hyperthreaded chip down. Hyperthreaded virtual cores are an amazing thing, no doubt, but they are not the equal of real, physical cores that actually exist.
AMD is more reliable on the long run. My barton 2500+ runs windwos 7 at 3200+ on a asus a7n8x e deluxe , and my core2duo e4300 on gigabyte ga 965p s3 cannot install or run windows 7 . I also got and 754 rig that runs 24/7 as a gateway server, stable, with centos 5 64 bits on it.
My intel rig have never been stable. First year was the worst, until gigabyte made an update for the audio driver that crashed randomly and quite often. After the update it was better , but not ideally.
If I could sell my intel rig, I would go back to AMD platforms.
soumyasmruti said:which is better AMD phenom II X4 or Intel core i3... in terms of reliability n.... performace??
1) Both are sufficiently reliable.
2) A quad core either AMD or Intel is better for multi core(3+) enabled applications. Very few games can use more than two cores effectively today. Over time, that will change.
3) The Intel i3 Has integrated graphics which is good if your needs do not include gaming.
4) In general, the current Intel processors are more effective on a clock for clock basis. Perhaps 10-15% or so.
Quote:^One of my buddies experienced the exact opposite.From that day he threw all his amd rigs in garbage since they are all unreliable.
You say they're all unreliable yet both my Desktop (Phenom II X4 940) and my Craptop (Athlon 64 2650e) have given me no trouble in over a year of owning them. In fact, they've been rock-solid no matter what. Making statements like that cause flame wars. So far, we've been able to avoid that by conceding things on both sides. As for that unreliable Intel rig, it doesn't sound like Intel was the problem. It sounds like it was a bum Gigabyte motherboard. Motherboard defects have nothing to do with Intel or AMD for something like construction quality or an audio chip that was probably made by Realtek.
Hmm, I dunno - my 3-yr-old kid is using the same Pentium-166 machine that my daughter used when she was in grade school some 15 years ago. Given the fact that he turns it off without shutting down, leaves it going all day long, and all other forms of abuse - that's a pretty good indication of reliability :P...
fazers_on_stun said:Hmm, I dunno - my 3-yr-old kid is using the same Pentium-166 machine that my daughter used when she was in grade school some 15 years ago. Given the fact that he turns it off without shutting down, leaves it going all day long, and all other forms of abuse - that's a pretty good indication of reliability :P...
A CPU lasts generally 10-15 years in which case it has likely lost usefulness, and the mobo, HDD, PSU, and possible other parts have already died. So CPU reliability is the last thing that should be worried about!
ares1214 said:A CPU lasts generally 10-15 years in which case it has likely lost usefulness, and the mobo, HDD, PSU, and possible other parts have already died. So CPU reliability is the last thing that should be worried about!
+100 . I just now tried installing some old games for my kid on that 15-yr-old Pentium 166, and found out that he has messed up the mouse. It's an old Microsoft mouse that uses an actual rubber ball, and connects to the computer by a game port connector (sorta like a serial port, only different). Tried cleaning the rubber ball but no joy so far.
Anyway, here I am with a boatload of optical mice, bluetooth and other wireless mice, and nothing is gonna work. Guess I'll look for a game-port to USB adapter if there is such a thing :P.
PS - also found out that my 5-disc Nakamichi CD changer doesn't like any of the CDROMs that the old games come on. Spits them back out after attempting to load. I'm guessing he deleted the DOS driver for it. Hopefully I still have the installation floppy disc that it came with, and that the floppy and 5-1/4" drive still work after 15 years...