Vanity - Better Choice - Intel or AMD?

jonno ^ | 11-28-06 | Jonno

[jonno]

It's been a long, long time, but I'm back in the market for a new PC. The last time I built a machine (10 years ago 8^) I used an AMD processor, but there were always "issues".

I've been looking over at the Dell site, and they seem to have some very good deals. What is interesting is that the AMD-based machines are a good deal cheaper - and what about that Celeron?

So today I'm looking to tap into the deep pool of Freeper knowledge.

[Nancee]

I would go with Intel (INTC); but then I have a few shares of their stock. I guess this is a contlict of interest. I have "heard" some extremely negative things about Intel recently; so I am now researching for myself the accuracy of what I have read here. Just my two cents worth!

:-)

I hope you get exactly what you want in a PC regardless of where or from whom you purchase it.

Nancee

[steveegg]

Sounds familiar (Athlon 64 3200+/nForce 4 SLI/single Nvidia 7800 GT/1 GB memory clocked to the sweet spot on the timings here). I'm still bemoaning AMD's abandonment of Socket 939 and DDR for no appreciable gain.

If I had to start from scratch, I would be going with a Core 2 Duo. Of course, I'd have to get new memory (which I would have to do even if I stuck with AMD).

[Echo Talon]

If I had to start from scratch, I would be going with a Core 2 Duo. Of course, I'd have to get new memory (which I would have to do even if I stuck with AMD).

Actually... you're wrong... you can get a Core2Duo motherboard that supports DDR + DDR2 and AGP

This was just a quick link BUT others ARE on the market by other companies

Look

[kddid]

I don't think you are lying to me. You don't sound like a novice and I am certainly not a novice. I used Intel on all of my other computers until I built my most recent system. The AMD has performed better for me. I still have 2 of my older Intel systems but they are little more than bulky calculators now - 1.7 ghz.

The AMD is an X2 4400+ (overclockable, if you're in to that). I know it is old news now, but 6 months ago, it was the best bang for the buck (price/performance). A few months after I bought it, the price dropped dramatically. The AM2 was the new thing. But, as I'm sure you are aware, if you try to keep up with the latest and greatest, you'll be changing your system constantly. When all is said and done, what are a few milliseconds to the average user?

I guess the next question on this thread should be which is better, NVidia or ATI? LOL.

[Echo Talon]

Here this one is even better its from ASROCK(ASUS child)
It supports Core2Duo and Core2QUAD Core, DDR, DDR2, AGP and PCI ;)

ASRock 4CoreDual-VSTA Review
Enjoy

[Psycho_Bunny]

As of today, go with a duo Intel.

[daler]

Here's all I need to know:

Soros fund's stock holdings grows 38%

Billionaire investor's hedge fund takes stakes in AMD, Chipotle Grill, adds to Cisco holdings.

November 14 2006: 7:39 PM EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- An investment fund controlled by billionaire investor George Soros increased its long stock and options positions by 38 percent to nearly $2.9 billion in the third quarter, according to a quarterly disclosure filed with U.S. regulators Tuesday.

Unlike previous disclosures from Soros Fund Management LLC that showed particular sectors in and out of favor, the holdings across multiple sectors as of Sept. 30 showed a diverse set of new holdings. They included a nearly $20 million stake in Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (Charts), and an $11 million position in Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc.

[Echo Talon]

I guess the next question on this thread should be which is better, NVidia or ATI? LOL.

LOL! not thats where I have to start doing some research... I'm NOT a gamer and generally it depends on what you need it for...

Your processor is fine and im thinking strongly about upgrading my Athlon64 3500+ to a X2 4400

[kevkrom]

They see-saw for industry lead all the time... right now, I think Intel has the better top-end processors. If you're looking for middle-tier stuff, AMD will probably be less expensive than the most equivalent Intel chip.

In any case, consumers should have a great deal of affection for AMD simply because they forced Intel to be more competitive and not drag their heels so much trying to milk older technology.

[Echo Talon]

n any case, consumers should have a great deal of affection for AMD simply because they forced Intel to be more competitive and not drag their heels so much trying to milk older technology.

This is why I love AMD but Intel does currently have the crown up and down the price scales...

[Echo Talon]

I should have said Intel holds the crown up and down the price
and performance scales.

[kevkrom]

Hmm... I haven't priced mid-range in a while... Intel may have the current edge there with cut-rate prices on older designs and inventory.

[TChris]

I have built somewhere in the neighborhood of 750 computers, since the days of the Intel 486DX33. I'm currently a computer specialist and network engineer. I will happily pass along my experiences with both Intel and AMD.

• Both brands are very high quality CPUs. I have never had a failed CPU from either Intel or AMD. Never.
• The compatibility question on AMD is a red herring. There is no compatibility issue, and there hasn't been for many, many years.
• Both Intel and AMD have manufactured CPUs with minor design flaws in them over the years.
• 95% of average home users would never notice any difference at all whether they were using an AMD or Intel machine.
• Intel always used to be the leader, with AMD playing "me too". In the past few years, the tables have been turned. Intel was forced by market pressure to make an "AMD-compatible" 64-bit instruction set, and the jump to dual-core architecture was led by AMD as well.
• The AMD architecture is more efficient. It can perform more work with each tick of its clock, with less power and less heat than the Intel architecture. Intel largely overcomes this difference with a higher clock speed (GHz), using more electricity and generating more heat.
• The performance king of the hill right now is Intel. They have introduced a new architecture (Core/Core2) that is better than AMD's aging K7 architecture. But you pay for it. ($$)
• The best value (bang-for-the-buck) is still probably AMD.
• AMD systems have been upgradeable through more new processors without the need for a new motherboard.
• Multi-core and multi-processor design is nice in certain situations, but the average home user will probably never notice a difference. 64-bit is definitely a non-issue for home use at this time, but they both have it anyway.
• Windows 95, 98, Me and XP Home Edition can only use one core, no matter how many you have in the machine. Windows NT Pro, 2000 Pro, XP Media Center Edition and XP Pro can all use one or two cores/CPUs. To use more than two cores in Windows, you must run one of the server versions, which cost hundreds or thousands of dollars.
• The amount of system RAM available, speed of hard disk and speed of graphics card all affect the apparent performance of a Windows computer more than minor differences in CPU speed do. In other words, if you save money on the CPU and buy twice as much RAM, a faster graphics card and a bigger/faster hard disk, you'll probably be happier than you would be with the faster CPU.
• Bottom line: If you want peak performance and cost isn't a problem, go Intel all the way. If you want the best value for your money, choose AMD.

[thinkthenpost]

"I guess the next question on this thread should be which is better, NVidia or ATI? LOL."

Oh, now it's on!

[Echo Talon]

ok... Anand has a Christmas Processor buying guide...

for very (LOW END) and (Entry Level) he chooses AMD for price/performance and (MID-Range), (High Performance), and (Extreme performance) he chooses Intel...

Recommended CPUs by Market Segment
Market	Processor and Platform	Price
Ultra Budget	Sempron 2800+ AM2 (1.60GHz 128K)	$50
Entry Level	Athlon 3500+ AM2 (2.2GHz 512K)	$84
Midrange	Core 2 Duo E6300 (1.86GHz 2MB 1066FSB)	$180
High-End	Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.40GHz 4MB 1066FSB)	$310
Extreme Performance	Core 2 Extreme QX6700 (Quad 2.66GHz 2x4MB 1066FSB)	$1250+
Holiday 2006 Shopping Guide: CPUs

[USMCPOP]

I'm in the same boat. I generally avoid bleeding edge stuff because of the cost. I believe it's better to replace a system twice as often rather than pay twice as much. Of course it depends somewhat on your application.

I'm considering either a relatively low-end AMD X2 (3800+ or 4200+) or Core 2 Duo E6300 processor. You can get either CPU for $150-$200. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802

The question is which mobo to get.

[steveegg]

'Tis an interesting board, but I don't like the 4xPCIe. I already have my PCIe card.

[Echo Talon]

Some of your points are very good, other are very old.....

read some reviews of the core2duo's... the heat issue is gone... the C2D's are NOT expensive for the speed The $316 Intel E6600 is Faster than AMD's $600+ FX 62

[Echo Talon]

yea, just wanted to let you know you have some choices... i'm in a similar situation... although i have an AGP X800XT that I would like to keep using/recycle... along with some regular DDR ram ;)

[Echo Talon]

The question is which mobo to get.

the cheapest one with the features you want, that gets good reviews and overclocks the best... ;)