I'm building a new computer and I can't decide whether I should go with the high native clock speed of the AMD 6400+ or if I should go with the faster FSB from the Phenom Series.

What do you guys think is more important in gaming, video encoding, and code development (compile times)?

Any particular reason for using an AMD processor? At this point, they just can't compete with the Intel Core 2 Duos on the performance front.

I use AMD because most of the Intel proccesors I have owned have died within a year of purchase. Wheras my current machine has a 1.3 ghz AMD Duron (OCed to 2.4), the processor was built in 2002, purchased in 2003, and is still running strong. I've had bad experiences with OEM intel processors in the past but AMD still has yet to fail me.

The performance of the recent Intel processors is an only concern for those with unlimited money supply. Those savvy will find out that AMD just pays off in the long run. If you, say, would spend a constant sum of money yearly for a computer, running on AMD would give you better value. Plus the quad-core thing is a gimmick, most applications can barely use one or two cores. Games can indeed use four, but their bottleneck is the graphics card, so you'd better save on the CPU and buy some Radeon 4870. Sorry for off-topic, now for the FSB.
It is easy to overclock. The most important component for a successful overclock is the mainboard. Read up on the forums what model is the best for the CPU intended. It increases performance of mostly everything at once, so a balanced system is crucial for obvious economical reasons. The drawback is in the fact that data communicated between the components will become corrupted more often forcing their resend and finally crashing the system when a transparent recovery is impossible. This may, in fact, lower the performance if you overclock too much. Remember to run some benchmark to make sure your new setting actually helps a thing.

I have no idea where you're getting the AMD pays off in the long run argument. Intel processors are competitive, if not outright superior, in performance at nearly every price point, and in power consumption as well. With Barcelona being pretty much a let down, the only way AMD has been able to compete with Intel since the C2D days has been through pricing. There's just no getting around that right now Intel's processors are the better choice - I've owned several AMD systems during the previous few years, and many Intel systems prior to that, and to outright dismiss one or the other is just foolhardy.

And multi-core being gimmicky because there aren't many applications which support it is only true if you run only one or two programs at once. Anyone who does a decent amount of multi-tasking will definitely see the benefit, even if it takes a bit of work in setting processor affinities. And video encoding is one thing where multi-core definitely shines.

AMD, sadly, can't even compete with Intel. Yes, Intel is more expensive but they're superior to AMD in every other aspect. Either wait till AMD comes back or just go Intel processor. I remember a few years back when AMD was above Intel... It should have fucking stayed like that!

Thanks to zdenek for providing some useful information. As for everybody else, if I was intending to sell the computer in a year or two I would probably go with Intel, but since i intend to keep the machine for several years I am going to stick with the brand that has given me fewer headaches in the past. As for my processor of choice, i am going to purchase a Phenom for the higher FSB (I can overclock the processor easily enough, it's the ram i have problems with...).

I definitely won't have that big of problems with graphics though...the 4870x2 will make sure of that.

If you want to build your PC base on performance in gaming, video, encoding I just want to say this USE INTEL CORE 2 DUO or CORE 2 QUAD
Intel core 2 duo for instant use the 8500 if you think you could same some power plan or using core 2 quad 9450 that's powerful enough and also cheaper than 9770 does and if you think FSB make some part in building some best performance PC Intel is better than AMD for this days

So much for the no shouting rule. sure it's not all caps, but using huge/b bbcode is just as bad. your point becomes moot when you decide to yell it at someone. from now on just say it as everyone else is.

I'm not a pro at this kind of stuff but wasn't there a saying somewhere which said that clock speeds became irrelevant several years ago?

My 1.6GHz laptop certainly runs A LOT FASTER than my 1.6GHz Pentium 4... I read somewhere that newer chips does more work in the same amount of clock cycles compared to older chips. Now manufacturers focus more on efficiency rather than clock speeds... I'd go for the newer Phenom series if I were you (personal uneducated guess).

--------------------------------- Off topic section, Importance Level: 1/10 (skip if you don't have time to waste)

Side note about AMD chips being worry-free: I can just as easily argue in the opposite direction. My very first AMD died before I even installed it (it came out of the new retail box with a chipped edge). My Intel chips all ran solidly for years. First is a Pentium 2 which I used from 1997 to 2002 (5 years) without any problems (still works fine when I gave it to my cousin to upgrade to a new one. Next in line: Pentium 4 1.6GHz ran without a problem since 2002 (6 years, still running solidly when I sold it to move elsewhere). Now I'm using Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 and I intend to use it for 8 to 10 years.

You probably just got lucky with your AMD chips purchases and unlucky with Intel ones... (Or you tortured... errr I meant OCed... it too much and it died! :P)

AMD = Cheap and therefore saves you money which can be used to upgrade every 2 years or so (or a bigger leap into the high end if you upgrade every 4 years or more)

Intel = Expensive but high performance allows you to use the CPU for more than 4 to 6 years and not fall too far behind (or allows you to stay in the front of the pack if you upgrade every 2 years, assuming you have infinite amount of money).

---------------------------------

You can't dismiss an entire company because you had one or two bad experiences in the past when the support is so far in favor of them. I've used Intel processors for years and have yet to have any of them die. That's not to say there's anything wrong with AMD's, but by far, the general consensus seems to be that the newer Intel's beat the AMD's. The fact of the matter is, if you are looking for something to take you trough the long-haul, it's better to spend a little bit more up front in favor of quality and performance, then to skimp out and get something that won't hold up quite as well (in terms of performance at least) over the long term.

Both clock speed and FSB are quite important. How much of a drop between clock speeds are we talking about? If it's a minor drop in clock speed the Phenom will be faster, if it's a large drop then the X2 will be faster.

Zdenek

The performance of the recent Intel processors is an only concern for those with unlimited money supply. Those savvy will find out that AMD just pays off in the long run. If you, say, would spend a constant sum of money yearly for a computer, running on AMD would give you better value. Plus the quad-core thing is a gimmick, most applications can barely use one or two cores. Games can indeed use four, but their bottleneck is the graphics card, so you'd better save on the CPU and buy some Radeon 4870.

The AMD CPUs cost less, as they should because they are weaker processors than their Intel counterparts. Long term energy savings? The AMD Phenoms consume more energy while performing worse than the Intel Core 2 Quads, same thing with the dual core CPUs. The only reason to use an AMD CPU is if you dislike Intel.

Hardly any game uses quad cores, which is why the Intel Core 2 duo E8400 still beats some of Intel's quad core CPU in game benchmarks and soundly beats all of AMD's offerings.

ArmyCats is right: clock speeds are irrelvant if you want to compare multiple CPU architectures.
Comparing an Athlon with a Phenom is quite useless imo, because the price difference is so low, you're always better off with a Phenom.

Anyways, I'm not gonna repeat everything written before me, Intel is the best choice atm, although I can kinda understand you don't want to buy that because of bad experience. I also steer clear of some brands because of bad experience or distrust, even though reviews are good.

All I want to say with this post is that clockspeeds and fsb aren't things you should look at when comparing apples with oranges. Fsb is rather unimportant anyway when comparing processors, because that's basically always the same in one architecture. Clock speed does differ, because there are different multipliers (fsb * multiplier = clock)