__THISRES__100357.jpg "Trick or Treat by ~chanelqueen17 3 weeks 5 days ago")
Intel or AMD Processor
Ok, so recently a friend of mine was considering buying a new computer. She talked to me about it, because I have an amateurs level of knowledge when it comes to comps, and she is pretty much a beginner. But she asked me an interesting question, whats the difference between Intel and AMD Processors (the athalon ones)? I don't really understand it myself. I know that both company produces dual core processors and someone else told me that only Intel currently does quad-core. But as lets go back to the dual and single core processors, how do these two compare? I think AMDs seem to be more readily available in stores like futureshop and bestbuy, so does this make them better? Or does it really depend on what you plan to do with the computer, whether you are a heavy graphics manager, or play games or do work on the computer.
Let me know what your thoughts or experiences are...
Let me know what your thoughts or experiences are...
1 year 9 months ago
I have listened that depends, for example, which very very heavy applications the Intel is better but for games and applications multimedia the AMD is better.
By the way, AMD is cheapest
By the way, AMD is cheapest
AMD's goal is usually more performance at less power usage. Thats why when you look at the back of a game box it usually says "AMD equivalent" because you cant really campare the Ghz of a intel vs amd core. An AMD cpu that is 2Ghz for example, is the same speed as a 3Ghz Intel; give or take a few points.
AMD is a very "green" company. The majority of their newer video cards dont need an extra power supply plug. Intel computers will need larger wattage power supplies.
my general theory is, if you ballin go blue; if you arent, go green. AMD's sales pitch is that it strives to provide a cheaper quivalent. I always recommend an AMD for the people like me who want to build an up to date PC for under $1k that will still be fast couple years from now. Intel cpu's will always be expensive.
AMD does make a quad core, but unfortunatley its slightly slower than a x2 dual core. Quad cores, are recommended if you do stuff like rendering, editing, modeling etc. I recently read there was server related/lockup problems with the new Phenom cpu, so i would stay away from them for a while until they release newer models.
daym i sound like an AMD sales rep...
AMD is a very "green" company. The majority of their newer video cards dont need an extra power supply plug. Intel computers will need larger wattage power supplies.
my general theory is, if you ballin go blue; if you arent, go green. AMD's sales pitch is that it strives to provide a cheaper quivalent. I always recommend an AMD for the people like me who want to build an up to date PC for under $1k that will still be fast couple years from now. Intel cpu's will always be expensive.
AMD does make a quad core, but unfortunatley its slightly slower than a x2 dual core. Quad cores, are recommended if you do stuff like rendering, editing, modeling etc. I recently read there was server related/lockup problems with the new Phenom cpu, so i would stay away from them for a while until they release newer models.
daym i sound like an AMD sales rep...
My friend who runs a computer-fixing company prefers Intels more. From him, and from other people, they say that Intel is starting to get a lead in the industry far ahead of AMDs. My friend says the same thing is happening to NVidia and ATI - NVidia seems to have the lead in industry. If Intel's Quad-core processors are faster, then I would most definitely select an Intel processor. I have an Intel Core 2 Duo Q6600 Quad Core 2.4 GHz processor right now and it runs extremely well.
Intel is topping the charts on this one:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=946&model2=871&chart=419
If you're playing games that are high in demand for system requirements, make and render movies, use photoshop, 3-D model software then I would certainly go with Intel, unless you seriously can't afford the money. For me though, I'd buy it even if it was expensive. The best Intel CPU can cost up to over $1,200, though. If you just want to play 4-year old PC games, watch movies and listen to music and just enough to write your history essay, then a cheap crappy CPU will do. Depends on how much you want to spend, really.
Intel is topping the charts on this one:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=946&model2=871&chart=419
If you're playing games that are high in demand for system requirements, make and render movies, use photoshop, 3-D model software then I would certainly go with Intel, unless you seriously can't afford the money. For me though, I'd buy it even if it was expensive. The best Intel CPU can cost up to over $1,200, though. If you just want to play 4-year old PC games, watch movies and listen to music and just enough to write your history essay, then a cheap crappy CPU will do. Depends on how much you want to spend, really.
1 year 9 months ago
Currently Intel has the best price/performance ratio. Right now Intel is CPU wise the best choice currently. They have good performance and they are the most energy efficient.
AMD Phenoms CPU's are good, but on pure power they lose to Intel Core 2 Duo:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/cpu-memory/review/2007/07/17/Intel-Core-2-Refresh-QX6850-E6850-E6750/p4
http://www.trustedreviews.com/cpu-memory/review/2007/07/17/Intel-Core-2-Refresh-QX6850-E6850-E6750/p5
http://www.trustedreviews.com/cpu-memory/review/2007/07/17/Intel-Core-2-Refresh-QX6850-E6850-E6750/p7
Quoting this article:
"With regard to the new 1,333MHz FSB dual-core processors, it’s fair to say that Intel has not only maintained its current dominance in the CPU market, but also extended its performance lead in the mainstream. That, by and large, is thanks to the quite ridiculous price cuts that come into effect on July 22nd. They’re ridiculous because they’re so massive, but then AMD’s various price avalanches have been at least equal to Intel’s."
AMD Phenoms CPU's are good, but on pure power they lose to Intel Core 2 Duo:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/cpu-memory/review/2007/07/17/Intel-Core-2-Refresh-QX6850-E6850-E6750/p4
http://www.trustedreviews.com/cpu-memory/review/2007/07/17/Intel-Core-2-Refresh-QX6850-E6850-E6750/p5
http://www.trustedreviews.com/cpu-memory/review/2007/07/17/Intel-Core-2-Refresh-QX6850-E6850-E6750/p7
Quoting this article:
"With regard to the new 1,333MHz FSB dual-core processors, it’s fair to say that Intel has not only maintained its current dominance in the CPU market, but also extended its performance lead in the mainstream. That, by and large, is thanks to the quite ridiculous price cuts that come into effect on July 22nd. They’re ridiculous because they’re so massive, but then AMD’s various price avalanches have been at least equal to Intel’s."
1 year 9 months ago
I mostly heard the same thing. I read online somewhere that Intel processors are faster and more efficient than AMD processors, and that most major companies prefer Intel because of that reason in their large computers, you know those massive ones use to store mega massive amounts of customer information and so forth?
Its interesting to hear that they are starting to edge out AMD, but its weird that you still see a lot more AMD processors being sold in computers more than intel. I am referring to desktop computers, as I think more laptops have intel than amd.
Its interesting to hear that they are starting to edge out AMD, but its weird that you still see a lot more AMD processors being sold in computers more than intel. I am referring to desktop computers, as I think more laptops have intel than amd.
There are many reviews online out there, and their test units are good considering the other parts (RAM, motherboard, video card, etc...). You can base your decision there but if you ask me, I prefer AMD due to their lower prices and good performance. They say that AMD is better at games and Intel is good at productivity tools. So it really depends what you will use you PC for. At home, I have an AMD 64 Athlon X2 and I don't have any problems with it, in fact, it is far more better than my old Athlon. At the office, I use Intel Core 2 Duo and I can't tell the difference in performance, both of them are good.
1 year 9 months ago
AMD is currently beaten on ALL fronts, performance, games, efficiency and price/performance ratio.
Check the game performance charts and there are probably more on other sites.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=946&model2=882&chart=422
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=946&model2=882&chart=424
Price AMD
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Dual Core Processor
(3GHz, 2x1MB, 1GHz Bus, Socket AM2 - MPN: ADX6000CZBOX)
Price Range: $158.90 - $297.00 from 25 Sellers
For about the same price you have this intel processor:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 Dual Core Processor
(2.33GHz, 2x2MB, 1333MHz FSB, LGA775 Socket T - MPN: BX80557E6550)
Price Range: $168.00 - $255.56 from 30 Sellers
And with upcoming releases of the Wolfdale processors (which will be probably priced around 200 dollars) intel will have a significant advantage. Wolfdale processors are even faster and energy efficient.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale_13.html#sect0
Well it is to be expected that a new CPU of AMD is better than an older CPU, it would not be to good if it wasn't . I myself am currently running a AMD Athlon 3000+, and doing some research for my next computer. So far all the reviews and benchmarks point to an Intel processor.
And yes it still depends on what you are going to use your computer for. If you are only going to surf the web and use it for typing documents, it doesn't matter what kind of CPU you use. If you do require a lot of your system eg. 3d Graphics, Illustrations (PS), Games and such, the facts are currently in favor of Intel.
Check the game performance charts and there are probably more on other sites.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=946&model2=882&chart=422
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=946&model2=882&chart=424
Price AMD
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Dual Core Processor
(3GHz, 2x1MB, 1GHz Bus, Socket AM2 - MPN: ADX6000CZBOX)
Price Range: $158.90 - $297.00 from 25 Sellers
For about the same price you have this intel processor:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 Dual Core Processor
(2.33GHz, 2x2MB, 1333MHz FSB, LGA775 Socket T - MPN: BX80557E6550)
Price Range: $168.00 - $255.56 from 30 Sellers
And with upcoming releases of the Wolfdale processors (which will be probably priced around 200 dollars) intel will have a significant advantage. Wolfdale processors are even faster and energy efficient.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale_13.html#sect0
Well it is to be expected that a new CPU of AMD is better than an older CPU, it would not be to good if it wasn't . I myself am currently running a AMD Athlon 3000+, and doing some research for my next computer. So far all the reviews and benchmarks point to an Intel processor.
And yes it still depends on what you are going to use your computer for. If you are only going to surf the web and use it for typing documents, it doesn't matter what kind of CPU you use. If you do require a lot of your system eg. 3d Graphics, Illustrations (PS), Games and such, the facts are currently in favor of Intel.
Intel and AMD both have quad-cores now, but intel's-quad cores are better, everyone, even most AMD fans (like myself) admit that intel has better quad-cores.
basically, the advice I give everyone is that if your going single or dual core, go with AMD all the way, no matter what kind of AMD cpu you get (sempron, athlon, opteron) you will be more than satasfied as long as you also have enough ram and a semi-decent videocard. my first gaming computer was a compaq with a sempron 2800+, an ATI x800xl AGP card, and 1 gig of ram. from there I built my own computer, an AMD opteron 128 venus, 1 gig of ram, and an ATI x1950gt. from there (and currently) I went to an Intel Q6600 Quad-core cpu, still have the ATI x1950gt, and 2gigs of OCZ ddr2 ram.
tl;dr Intel for Quad-core, AMD for everything else.
basically, the advice I give everyone is that if your going single or dual core, go with AMD all the way, no matter what kind of AMD cpu you get (sempron, athlon, opteron) you will be more than satasfied as long as you also have enough ram and a semi-decent videocard. my first gaming computer was a compaq with a sempron 2800+, an ATI x800xl AGP card, and 1 gig of ram. from there I built my own computer, an AMD opteron 128 venus, 1 gig of ram, and an ATI x1950gt. from there (and currently) I went to an Intel Q6600 Quad-core cpu, still have the ATI x1950gt, and 2gigs of OCZ ddr2 ram.
tl;dr Intel for Quad-core, AMD for everything else.
1 year 9 months ago
Even the Intel dual cores are better than AMD's dual cores. They score significantly higher on benchmarks compared to AMD's dual cores.
Photoshop:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=940&model2=872&chart=437
3dMark06:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=946&model2=882&chart=419
Although if you are looking for something for a low-end computer use go for AMD they are better at the price/performance ration in low-end.
Also quad cores do not significantly increase performance for games, because basically games do not support quad cores and make optimal use of it. (parallel Processing isn't being used optimal by games, it will just make use of 1-2 cores at most).
My advice: Find out what you want to use the computer for. Check reviews, benchmarks and even check forums to see what the user experience has been with the certain system/cpu/whatever. I do it like that myself, because some people prefer a Brand without looking at tests and such. This is a limiting yourself and giving a none objective analysis of what to chose.
Photoshop:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=940&model2=872&chart=437
3dMark06:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=946&model2=882&chart=419
Although if you are looking for something for a low-end computer use go for AMD they are better at the price/performance ration in low-end.
Also quad cores do not significantly increase performance for games, because basically games do not support quad cores and make optimal use of it. (parallel Processing isn't being used optimal by games, it will just make use of 1-2 cores at most).
My advice: Find out what you want to use the computer for. Check reviews, benchmarks and even check forums to see what the user experience has been with the certain system/cpu/whatever. I do it like that myself, because some people prefer a Brand without looking at tests and such. This is a limiting yourself and giving a none objective analysis of what to chose.
Intel CPUs currently hold the performance crown for PCs. However, you can't go wrong with an AMD chip either. When I choose one I base it motherboard chipsets, motherboard features and what vendor for the video card I chose to go with this time around as the best performing chipsets for a certain CPU may not support the video cards I chose to go with.
I'm quite happy with my current year old PC which houses an Athlon X2 6000+ with Crossfired Radeon HD3870s.
So it doesn't really matter which CPU you go with. You get a solid CPU with both vendors.
-S1
I'm quite happy with my current year old PC which houses an Athlon X2 6000+ with Crossfired Radeon HD3870s.
So it doesn't really matter which CPU you go with. You get a solid CPU with both vendors.
-S1
1 year 9 months ago
This weird because my friend and I was talking about this four years ago. I told my friend that at that time that AMD processor was cheaper and better than Intel, but in about 3 to 5 years, Intel will fight back and be better than AMD. Four years ago when I first built my computer I bought and AMD athlon processor because price wise for performance was better than Intel, but now reading reviews and other people's recommendation it seem that Intel is better for the price, I guess my prediction four years ago was right. Not to make fun of AMD because my old computer still works like a charm four years later, the performance degraded slightly that I only notice it some time. So this summer I think I will most likely by a Intel process to built my new PC.
1 year 9 months ago
I'm going to change the processor (+motherboard and RAM) in one month and am going to buy some Intel Core 2 Duo. AMD are good when you're looking for cheap processors. When you want sth more powerful, go for Intel :)
Although there is one thing bothering me... I heard Intel Core Duo processors are very good for overclocking and they're much cheaper from C2D. Does any of you know anything about that? Core Duo is older and has less L2 cache, but I heard that when it's overclocked it can overtake more expensive C2D.
Although there is one thing bothering me... I heard Intel Core Duo processors are very good for overclocking and they're much cheaper from C2D. Does any of you know anything about that? Core Duo is older and has less L2 cache, but I heard that when it's overclocked it can overtake more expensive C2D.
1 year 9 months ago
Wait for the Wolfdale series to come out, they are more efficient (which means LESS heat). They are better for overclocking.
Intel currently dominates the CPU market. The reason it appears that AMD has a better "budget CPU" line is because they had to lower the prices on their best processors to compete with Intel. AMD is behind Intel in the technological race, so if you want a quality processor with a lot of power, your only choice is Intel. I was an AMD-man before Intel's 45nm architecture came out, but Intel is flat-out better right now.
I run two PCs right now: An older 64-bit 3200+ from AMD and my newer build has an E6850 from Intel. I built both computers and they run as well as should be expected. I would have gone with AMD for my recent build but they couldn't provide the processing power that I needed.
I run two PCs right now: An older 64-bit 3200+ from AMD and my newer build has an E6850 from Intel. I built both computers and they run as well as should be expected. I would have gone with AMD for my recent build but they couldn't provide the processing power that I needed.