AMD or Intel CPU ???

Forums › Gaming › AMD or Intel CPU ???

1 | 2 | 3

132 posts

Master Geek

#240087 29-Jul-2009 11:36

A friend of mine said that i should get something like a E8500 core 2 duo. Because they are cheap and when you overclock them they are just as good as a Quad core.
i dont know if that is quite true because of the amount of pipelines and what not.
And my friend also said that i was crap in the sack and that is a common misnomer!

My Opinion not anybody elses.

Aaroona

3204 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 169

#240089 29-Jul-2009 11:40

jamesvini:
And my friend also said that i was crap in the sack and that is a common misnomer!

LOL

Adamal

544 posts

Ultimate Geek

#240099 29-Jul-2009 12:33

E8500 is a good CPU. Any of the E8X00 series are good.

friedCrumpet

271 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

#240108 29-Jul-2009 13:01

System: Benchmarks recently have shown that Intel is still best performance for money that being said the new i7 processors are only better than a Core 2 at multi-core applications so unless the software makes use of multiple cores (which there is still not very much support) then Core 2 is going to give you better performance

Care to provide some links to your benchmarks? Benchmarks I have seen (which admitedly are coming up to 2 months old now) show AMD and Intel chips at the same price point performing similarly, in some cases AMD is faster, and in other cases Intel is. It all depends on how much you want to spend as I have mentioned before.

As for multi-core applications if you ever do any video encoding you'll appreciate having a quad core over a dual core. All new games these days support multiple cores (not surprising since many are ports from consoles which have 3+ cores). Two games I play regularly (L4D and TF2) support multi-core rendering, and they're not exactly cutting edge new.

Adamal

544 posts

Ultimate Geek

#240121 29-Jul-2009 13:18

TF2 only recently got it though, and L4D was only released earlier this year. Its been added into the Source Engine, but hasn't always been there.

friedCrumpet

271 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

#240127 29-Jul-2009 13:25

Adamal: TF2 only recently got it though, and L4D was only released earlier this year. Its been added into the Source Engine, but hasn't always been there.

L4D was released in November last year. Point is moot anyway, I was trying to show there is more multi core support available than people think these days.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Adamal

544 posts

Ultimate Geek

#240188 29-Jul-2009 16:18

Actually no, you're right. It was released then, I just didn't get a legit version until earlier this year.

Itr0nic

94 posts

Master Geek

#240199 29-Jul-2009 16:35

Iv been thinking about swapping from a amd to a intel for awhile now and i think ill go with intel maybe more expensive but its worth it in the long run , Iv had nothing but trouble from my Amd system yet my intel server iv had for that last 8 years is still running with no faults

Twitter @Kiwi_Tj | Raptr purekiwi

Aaroona

3204 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 169

#240200 29-Jul-2009 16:37

Itr0nic: Iv been thinking about swapping from a amd to a intel for awhile now and i think ill go with intel maybe more expensive but its worth it in the long run , Iv had nothing but trouble from my Amd system yet my intel server iv had for that last 8 years is still running with no faults

My rule is:

If you have the money - Go Intel.

If you don't - AMD.

but thats MY rule.

In the end, it comes down to what you need it for.

jamesvini

132 posts

Master Geek

#240212 29-Jul-2009 16:58

I read some where that the highest overclocks done in the world are done on AMD (the highest was 7.4ghz )

Maybe thats just AMD paying the guys to do it?

My Opinion not anybody elses.

LesF

176 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 25

#240224 29-Jul-2009 17:33

Have been upgrading pc's for the relatives recently, and keeping with their needs I went with relatively cheap everything-onboard mobo's and a AMD Athlon X2 dual-core cpu with plenty of RAM. These installations went incredibly easily and the performance was so good that I next upgraded my own home pooter (along with a HD4850) and get excellent gaming performance out of it.

Then I managed to get a small budget at work to allow me to build a new workstation, again with an AMD-X2, which is now running XP x64 quite nicely. Others in the office were issued with a variety of intel based boxes that appear to be slower, without doing detailed diagnostics, but I feel I am suitably biased towards the AMD now that I can say yuck to the intels regardless :)

One note: some of the AMD cpus came with a small and inadequate heatsink, requiring me to add on an aftermarket cooler/fan unit. Newer cpu packs appear to have larger heatsinks included now. That was the only hiccup I encountered anyway.

--
Les

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

friedCrumpet

271 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

#240233 29-Jul-2009 17:59

Itr0nic: Iv been thinking about swapping from a amd to a intel for awhile now and i think ill go with intel maybe more expensive but its worth it in the long run , Iv had nothing but trouble from my Amd system yet my intel server iv had for that last 8 years is still running with no faults

You know what, I have the same story for an Intel machine I built, whereas my AMD systems have been rock solid. In all likelyhood it has nothing to do with the CPU, and instead is a problem with your motherboard, memory or power supply - all of which can happen with an Intel or an AMD build.

deepred

621 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 528

ID Verified

Trusted

#240604 30-Jul-2009 14:44

There hasn't been much of a contest since the Core 2 series came out. As it stands, the 45nm Duo & Quad models seem to have the best possible price/performance ratio. Most games don't yet take advantage of quad-core processing - with possible exceptions like Crysis or GTA4 - so a beefy Duo CPU is generally best. Quad-cores are still best if you're using programs like Adobe Premiere or 3D Studio MAX.

"I regret to say that we of the F.B.I. are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate commerce." — J. Edgar Hoover

"Create a society that values material things above all else. Strip it of industry. Raise taxes for the poor and reduce them for the rich and for corporations. Prop up failed financial institutions with public money. Ask for more tax, while vastly reducing public services. Put adverts everywhere, regardless of people's ability to afford the things they advertise. Allow the cost of food and housing to eclipse people's ability to pay for them. Light blue touch paper." — Andrew Maxwell

System

521 posts

Ultimate Geek

#240634 30-Jul-2009 16:25

friedCrumpet:
System: Benchmarks recently have shown that Intel is still best performance for money that being said the new i7 processors are only better than a Core 2 at multi-core applications so unless the software makes use of multiple cores (which there is still not very much support) then Core 2 is going to give you better performance

Care to provide some links to your benchmarks? Benchmarks I have seen (which admitedly are coming up to 2 months old now) show AMD and Intel chips at the same price point performing similarly, in some cases AMD is faster, and in other cases Intel is. It all depends on how much you want to spend as I have mentioned before.

As for multi-core applications if you ever do any video encoding you'll appreciate having a quad core over a dual core. All new games these days support multiple cores (not surprising since many are ports from consoles which have 3+ cores). Two games I play regularly (L4D and TF2) support multi-core rendering, and they're not exactly cutting edge new.

The benchmarks that i have seen are in the Atomic PC magazine so i can't exactly provide links

PC: 3.3ghz Core i5-2500, 8gb DDR3, ATI Radeon 5850, 27" QHD IPS Monitor

Mobile Phone: iPhone 5 32gb Graphite.

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#240738 30-Jul-2009 20:18

Intel cpu's are still faster than AMD clock for clock, ie: a 3Ghz Intel is faster than a 3Ghz AMD cpu however AMD is cheaper and offers more Ghz per $ so if you look at what you can get for xyz $ it works out practically identical.

You also need to consider the motherboard price when taking into account the price/performance of Intel vs AMD also remember Nvidia also make motherboard chipsets (VIA and ATI too).

You have the choice of:

CPU/Motherboard

Intel/Intel
Intel/Nvidia
AMD/AMD
AMD/Nvidia
etc

I always preach identify your maximum budget first, then get the best price/performance that fits within that budget!

It will vary depending on your price point.

1 | 2 | 3