• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

AMD or Intel?

i_got_a_mohawk

i_got_a_mohawk

Feb 9, 2005
17,483
505
40
Edinburgh & Dundee, Scotland
#1
Again, just as off the GFX card thread, just looking at parts with the thought of putting together a new pc at some point in the near future.

What CPUs are the ones to check out right now?

Ive always been an intel fan, and the P4 ive got now has served well, and id still use it if i could, but no motherboards seem to support the socket.

From having a quick look about AMDs seem to be alot cheaper in comparison.

Whats the best to go for? Looking at gaming and audio work being the most taxing processes on the computer.

Also, how good is the Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 "LGA775 Conroe" 3.00GHz (1333FSB) CPU? (if anyone has any experience)

Cheers

- Will
 
#4
Not a one sided view at all :p

I always did prefer Intel, but at the time when i last looked, they were pretty much neck and neck, with AMD being the choice for dedicated programs and Intel being better at multitasking, granted the differences were subtle it seemed. Never used AMD before, but thought i should ask to be on the safe side :)
 
#5
You can't go wrong with Intel.

Some may disagree, but I don't have anything bad to say about AMD and I currently have two of my four main computers running their chips with absolutely no complaints. AMD's chips are cheaper for the same specs (on paper) than Intel, but you get what you pay for. My experience is that for the same $ to $ comparison, the differences are negligible.
 
#7
I'd go for AMD. All my systems here are AMD. AMD is not as expensive and it's off equal quality.

The only downside to AMD CPU's is that some heatsinks are a real bitch to install due to the mounting setup. I had a viindicator heatsink and i had to return it becuase it was damaging the CPU and MB
 
#8
AMD is nice, but from what i have read intels seem to perform better but that comes at a much higher price. as for that E6850 it seems to sound like a very nice chip, however at least over here in canada you can get the core 2 quad q6600 which is a quadcore and is very overclockable, i have heard of people running these chips at 3.2 ghz stable. Also i don't know if there is any truth to this but some believe that a 775 socket is faster than the am2 used by AMD. For an AMD if you can find one i would reccomend the x2 5000+ black edition, it has an unlocked multiplier so it is very easy to overclock, you can get it running at 3.1 ghz without adjusting the voltage or any of that, or with a slight vcore boost you can get it to 3.3 ghz, all this for 148 canadian.
 
#9
The Q6600 being 2.4 Ghz ? Just had a quick look and its a little bit cheaper. Im just not sure what would be better, two faster cores, or four slower cores?

As much as it may seem wasteful, im not planning on overclocking anything, i did that before with this PC (got up to just shy of 3.8Ghz! ), but, im just wanting something that is good stock :)
 
#10
Have had a read about, and there is quite a bit of debate between these two chips!

Basic jist is the E6850 is the better stock processor right now. But as more programs are released to utilise multiple cores, the Q6600 would function better. And there is alot of mention of overclocking and how well that CPU handles it, maybe just buy a good quality zalman heatsink setup or something when putting the PC together, and crank the clock a bit. A few places have even noted getting the Q6600 to 3.6Ghz!
 
#11
flakeh said:
I'd go for AMD. All my systems here are AMD. AMD is not as expensive and it's off equal quality.

The only downside to AMD CPU's is that some heatsinks are a real bitch to install due to the mounting setup. I had a viindicator heatsink and i had to return it becuase it was damaging the CPU and MB
Click to expand...

+1 Considering Microsoft coded their 64b operating systems on AMD's it would seem more accurate to say Intel are more popular but popular doesn't mean a standard. If we talk about compatibility or the I've never had a problem with my Intel well so what.

If you wanted the more compatible CPU for Windows you'd be running an AMD.

The quad core Intels are a bunch of sticky tape patched up dual cores.

Intel CPU's were once made by AMD.

The most powerful PC based system tested less than a year ago was AMD running a 64b Linux kernel.

Some prefer Intel, some prefer AMD, each to their own but to say Intels better because of it's marketing hype and popularity than AMD is BS.

Clock speed alone is hardly an indicator of performance.

Lucasfilm could be considered heavy performance demanding users, AMD users.
 
#12
Im a big computer geek and I hang out on a tech-forums.net and id suggest going there and looking around.

The top choice right now is Intel. They just blow AMD away right now because they can be Overclocked very well.. And overclocking is everything. ***Honestly*** the only reason to buy AMD is if you're a fanboy and just want AMD. Intel is very superior for the moment, AMD might fight back when their Phenom's get the bugs worked out.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If you want something fast, cheap and are NOT concerned with Overclocking, id recommend (Dual Core) AMD 64 x2 6000+ 3.0GHz Processors. If you REALLY wanna stick with AMD and Overclock id get an (Dual core) AMD 64 x2 5000+ Black Edition and you can Overclock it to 3.5GHz safely.

If you want the extreme, go for an Intel Q6600 (Quad core) which comes at 2.4GHz but can be overclocked to 3.7GHz + on AIR (no liquid cooling)

If you Overclock you WILL need a strong heatsink, id suggest Tuniq.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me, or check out my forum.
 
#13
Rakie said:
Im a big computer geek and I hang out on a tech-forums.net and id suggest going there and looking around.

The top choice right now is Intel. They just blow AMD away right now because they can be Overclocked very well.. And overclocking is everything. ***Honestly*** the only reason to buy AMD is if you're a fanboy and just want AMD. Intel is very superior for the moment, AMD might fight back when their Phenom's get the bugs worked out.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If you want something fast, cheap and are NOT concerned with Overclocking, id recommend (Dual Core) AMD 64 x2 6000+ 3.0GHz Processors. If you REALLY wanna stick with AMD and Overclock id get an (Dual core) AMD 64 x2 5000+ Black Edition and you can Overclock it to 3.5GHz safely.

If you want the extreme, go for an Intel Q6600 (Quad core) which comes at 2.4GHz but can be overclocked to 3.7GHz + on AIR (no liquid cooling)

If you Overclock you WILL need a strong heatsink, id suggest Tuniq.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me, or check out my forum.
Click to expand...

wow, i knew the q6600 was easy to overclock and could yield great results but 3.7... thats nuts. I would seriously consider that one if i were you. I had heard the 5000+ could get pretty high, 3.5 isnt bad for a 150$ cpu imo. But as you said if you want to really overclock and get the most from your chip i am gonna have to reccomend intels right now, at least until the phenom shows me something real special...
 
#14
There's no need to overclock an AMD, they already cut it. I'm also not surprised AMD have had bugs, their new cpu's are the result of a 4 year total ground up re design not strap on design. I also remember the days of Intel recalls.......

Intel will release their 45nm core quicker because they do have better facilities to manufacture. It will still be a crap design on a 45nm wafer.

Some time in the near future Intel will have to bite the bullet and start again with their quad core.

Sure the intel duals are good, no dispute there but the future for them sucks in terms of quad upwards unless they come up with something better soon.

Hey Rakie, forget overclocking for the minute, Why is an intel cpu better?
 
#15
Rakie said:
If you want the extreme, go for an Intel Q6600 (Quad core) which comes at 2.4GHz but can be overclocked to 3.7GHz + on AIR (no liquid cooling)

If you Overclock you WILL need a strong heatsink, id suggest Tuniq.
Click to expand...

How about this for a cooler? I was looking at either this or the copper version. Although, once ive picked out everything, ill need to check it'll fit in the case and on the motherboard.

cnps9700nt.jpg


Or would the Tuniq Tower models be better?

Just from all ive read, prompted from advice here, im leaning towards the Q6600 and OCing it to about 3.0-3.2Ghz.

And everyone will redesign CPUs if they ever work out how to get around the quantum tunnelling phenomenon displayed on SETs (among other things) :D :D :D
 
#16
mlowe said:
There's no need to overclock an AMD, they already cut it. I'm also not surprised AMD have had bugs, their new cpu's are the result of a 4 year total ground up re design not strap on design. I also remember the days of Intel recalls.......

Intel will release their 45nm core quicker because they do have better facilities to manufacture. It will still be a crap design on a 45nm wafer.

Some time in the near future Intel will have to bite the bullet and start again with their quad core.

Sure the intel duals are good, no dispute there but the future for them sucks in terms of quad upwards unless they come up with something better soon.
Click to expand...

That's hilarious. You are clearly uninformed on the state of the consumer processor industry at the moment.

Intel has been absolutely stomping AMD for the last so-many years and they continue to stomp them. AMD's new quad core has already been trounced by Intel's allegedly inferior quad-core. Funny thing is it was beaten by Intel's PREVIOUS generation quad core.

Wanna talk about crap designs? AMD's yields on their quad cores have been so poor that they decided to release a "tri-core". This tri-core is a quad-core with one bad die that has been deactivated. They had so many of them they released a whole new line!

bc

ps - I'm no Intel fanboy. My PC is an AMD but I can face the truth and my new build is Intel all the way.
 
#17
i_got_a_mohawk,

You might consider waiting about a month and seeing what the prices are on Intel's new Penryn line of processors that they're releasing in January. They're holding back some of the midlevel quadcores (due to having no competitive pressure from AMD) but the enthusiast duals will be out and they should be more efficient and easier to overclock.

bc
 
#18
DigMe said:
i_got_a_mohawk,

You might consider waiting about a month and seeing what the prices are on Intel's new Penryn line of processors that they're releasing in January. They're holding back some of the midlevel quadcores (due to having no competitive pressure from AMD) but the enthusiast duals will be out and they should be more efficient and easier to overclock.

bc
Click to expand...
Im not buying straight off til i have a bit more cash, so ill be waiting either way :)

Hopefully they are about the same price when they come out! If not, at least it will make the Q6600 cheaper, and im sure that processor will be good enough for a long time :)
 
#19
DigMe said:
That's hilarious. You are clearly uninformed on the state of the consumer processor industry at the moment.

Intel has been absolutely stomping AMD for the last so-many years and they continue to stomp them. AMD's new quad core has already been trounced by Intel's allegedly inferior quad-core. Funny thing is it was beaten by Intel's PREVIOUS generation quad core.

Wanna talk about crap designs? AMD's yields on their quad cores have been so poor that they decided to release a "tri-core". This tri-core is a quad-core with one bad die that has been deactivated. They had so many of them they released a whole new line!

bc

ps - I'm no Intel fanboy. My PC is an AMD but I can face the truth and my new build is Intel all the way.
Click to expand...

Design and manufacture are two different aspects.

Yes consumer, It seems I must be.

Yes, Intel has superior manufacturing abilities over AMD. It's common knowledge.

The architecture of the AMD opteron quads is technically superior to that of an Intel. Don't take my word for it, download the Intel core information pdf's from Intel, AMD from AMD and compare them yourself.

For me it's not about fanboy, I work with heavy processing demand servers day in and out for 20+ years and see what happens under real load using both cpus both in bare metal and VM situations. Talks cheap when you have to deliver the total system that cuts it.
 
#20
mlowe said:
Sure the intel duals are good, no dispute there but the future for them sucks in terms of quad upwards unless they come up with something better soon.
Click to expand...

Google "nehalem architecture".


mlowe said:
For me it's not about fanboy, I work with heavy processing demand servers day in and out for 20+ years and see what happens under real load using both cpus both in bare metal and VM situations. Talks cheap when you have to deliver the total system that cuts it.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about servers and that's not what this thread is about. In the consumer PC market people have, for years, looked at Intel quads and talked about the inferiority of their design. I used to be one of them. However, in real-world practical desktop applications and gaming as well as in artificial benchmarks Intel's Core 2 processors (both the dual cores and quad cores) almost universally crush AMD's best offerings in both performance and efficiency (look at the testing results from any of the highly-respected independent reviewers such as Tom's Hardware or Anandtech). To me and to the majority of computer geeks end-performance speaks louder than design. What you are saying would be like getting smoked in a drag race but then talking about how the car that beat you is poorly designed. So what..it still beat your car and could do it again and will continue to do it again as far ahead as we can see. AMD is losing processor game and has been for a couple of years just like they are losing in the graphics processor market. I sure wish they could get their feet on the ground and give Intel and Nvidia some competition but I think perhaps it's going to take a buyout for that to happen.

In the meantime....look at us..debating about PC procs. What a couple of nerds we are. :p

bc
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back