Better one Intel or AMD

Hi Everyone,

I am planning on getting a new desktop for running GNS3 and HD videos. Previously, I have tried using GNS3 on my laptop (Intel Core2 Duo, 2GB RAM) and other desktops (Dual Core, 2 GB RAM). It works well with maximum of 5 routers after which it just hangs up. I did try tweaking and tuning idle pc values and the results were still the same. Both Intel and AMD have recently launched dual and quad core processors and so was wandering if these processors are really worth buying to work with GNS3 labs. I am assuming, these processors will be able to support labs with more than 10 routers on GNS3. Kindly suggest or share your experiences if anyone here has tried out GNS3 or applications pretty similar that are CPU and memory intensive on INTEL & AMD's new offerings.

Anxiously looking forward to your replies.

17 answers Last reply
More about better intel
  1. Thanks for the quick response dipankar and yes its the same software used by networking professionals to create simulation environment. I am not a gaming freak (FIFA and Cricket) and will be using it for GNS3 and HD videos. Also, would be trying out multi booting and intensive applications. My budget is between 25k and 30k Rupees (MoBo + Processor + 4 GB min RAM + Graphics card)

    Thanks again

  2. A network simulator gets limited by resources (primarily ram).. Adding more ram will sure help.. Are you running it on windows.? Try running it on Linux which is less resource hungry and thus should give more headroom with your current hardware..
  3. I was going through GNS3 for your query. I saw your thread in there as well!

    Anyways, I would recommend the six core Thuban! 1095T would do it for you. Also lots of RAM. What is the budget that you are willing to spend?

    But if you have some cash to spend, the i7 950 is also a good option!
  4. Oh well... didn't notice that. The Thuban 1095T would easily come into that and would help GNS3 quite a lot. It is quite taxing on the CPU.
  5. Thnaks to both of you Emperus and Dipankar. GNS3 being resource intensive, increasing RAM will definately help. Also, dual and quad core processors could help in as well. I have tried it on Ubuntu and the results were much better than Windows XP. However, creating a lab with 10+ routers still remains a much sought after dream for me. So, I have been looking at people who have tried successfully achieving the same on higher end PC's.

  6. For GNS3 queries it would be best you discuss these topics on their forum, since you may find customized queries in there about GNS3, and lots of people who have actually used the software. I went through some of the posts there and found out that it uses all cores when let lose to 100%. So the 6 core processor would definitely help.

    AMD 1095T.
    Asus 785G motherboard.
    6GB of GSkill/Corsair 1333MHz RAM's.
    For GPU you can pick up HD5750 or HD5670 or anything of your choice.
  7. ^^How do you know it uses more RAM than CPU?

    Also i7 920 with triple channel RAM and an X58 motherboard would shoot past 30k easy. So no point considering that with a 30000 INR budget! Also 920 is no longer available.

    I know you work for Intel. But it is best you leave your favoritism outside the forum and help people logically rather than through your heart.
  8. Hey guys ... take it easy ... this isnt about who's working for whom and all the crap.
    Thanks to hell_storm to for his suggestion.

    GNS3 does use both CPU and RAM (resource intensive as I have mentioned). I am also looking forward to suggestions on GNS3 forums as hell_storm has rightly pointed out, since its a dedicated forums. More surprisingly, some i5 and i7 users have also been facing the same problems as I am and so this really does make it quite a tricky decision to choose (Cisco and other networking forums).

  9. I have a few things on my mind right now. An AMD 1090T/1100T with ASUS MoBo and 4GB or higher RAM or I3 540/I3 560/I5 650 with ASUS MoBo and 4GB or higher RAM.
    With AMD Black Edition, I might have to spend more on heat sink as has been clearly specified by them.
    Feel free to add your views guys

  10. Anyways, why is everyone so anxiously waiting for Sandy Bridge. Even AMD will be launching Bulldozer to compete with Sandy Bridge. Will it be much better than the present Nehalem architecture. Are people relying on facts based on test results or word of mouth. If thats the case, there is no harm in waiting for their launch
  11. They are dual core and choke as soon the software reaches it peak or needs more. I would say 1095T is the best option. The higher clock would also help. Also AMD chipsets are cheaper. Its not like Intel if you have 15000 INR proccy, you would need a 10000 INR mobo to take advantage of it. You can pair a 1095T with a 4000INR mobo and still make use of it well. CM Hyper 212+ is only 1700INR and is one of the best entry level coolers you may find out there.

    EDIT: We are excited since its coming very soon, January 5th. Bulldozer will be Q2 2011 at least. When it would be close, we would be excited about it as well. Also it would be server processors first. So desktop one's may take a little more time.
  12. I was a die hard Intel fan till the day I found AMD also gives better results and is much more reasonable. Even some of my friends have been cribbing about how their customers were not quite happy with the performance of new batch of Intel processors. Imagine waiting for almost 30 minutes to install Nero on Intel, while the same take much lesser time on Intel equivalent AMD processor.
  13. I was talking about i3/i5 series processor. If I am not wrong, you have a quad core processor which again is great one. Is it still available, cause someone once suggested me the same. They are better than the i3/i5 considered to replace them
  14. Expensive as well, compared to AMD. An AMD Phenom 2 X4 is much cheaper than i5/i7 quad core cpu's. Coming back to my previous question, is Q series Core 2 Quad available
  15. Thanks again to everyone for their views. I will be checking out about q9550

  16. Whatever you choose, get the maximum amount of ram possible.. It possibly is going to make your software run smoother compared to a better architecture quad core.. Personaly, I like the AMD hexacore option better as i've seen simulators such as VMware run nicely on them (with good amount of ram ofcourse)..
  17. You know, this discussion of Intel vs. AMD is moot regarding this application. It's resource-intense and needs better interconnect between memory and processor, and this is really only addressed with workstation or server level hardware.

    Commodity consumer desktop systems have spare links between the CPU, memory and other resources on the board. Older Intel C2D and C2Q chipsets used FSB to connect to memory to the NB controller and then to the processor, and then PCIe lanes to connect all the other chipset resources. This meant that communication was either in or out, but never both at the same time. With i3, i5 and i7, the memory controller came off the NB and was incorporated to the CPU die. 1156 chipset now uses DMI (call it the last gasp of the venerated FSB) and moves the on-die memory controller in place of the NB, while the 1366 chipset uses QPI (a bi-directional communication bus) to interlink the CPU, memory and chipset resources. Hence, 1366 supports much better memory throughput than 1156.

    On the other hand, AMD has been using Hypertransport ever since the socket 754 days to connect the memory, CPU and chipset resources. Modern AMD processors use 2 separate HT links, though at varying speeds and bandwidths depending on what level of HT the processor uses (HT1, HT2 or HT3). Server processors make use of up to 3 HT links, allowing the processors to interconnect as well, hence the reason why AMD servers tend to be very good at leveraging multiple processors, not just cores on die. Intel Xeon processors and chipsets also leverage multiple QPI interlinks for the exact same reason. Hence, the OP would see better throughput going to server/workstation level hardware though it would blow their budget.

    I recommend taking a look at workstation-level hardware from AMD. It might be more affordable than the equivalent architecture from Intel.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Processors AMD Intel