yes, it's been discussed a number of times, but since computers change with the wind, i figured i'd make another thread

anywho, little brother's looking at upgrading his motherboard and processor...i currently have an E2180 that i'm more than happy with, but while checking online, AMD is consistently cheaper than Intel for (slightly) faster processors

now, this has always been the case, AMD is always cheaper than Intel...the first computer i ever built by myself from scratch was a 1ghz AMD tbird and that thing is still chugging away, but that's the extent of my AMD experience...is there any compelling reason to go with Intel over AMD when he's only looking at ~$100 processors? dual-core is a must, 64-bit is not (unless y'all can give me a compelling reason why 64-bit is worth investing in)

primary uses for his computer are basic gaming (the most intense of which would probably be oblivion, but that's on the video card...he also plays WoW, but i've never played it and don't know what resources it uses), web stuff, word processing, and some basic video/audio stuff

if y'all think AMD is acceptable, what processor/mobo combos would you suggest? seen any good deals recently?

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 9:13 AM. Reason : .]

11/8/2007 9:12:01 AM

All AMD dual core CPU's are 64bit afaik.

You're only going to see small differences in speed between the high end CPU's anyhow so I'd suggest going with AMD for the price per frame per second bargain!

I think the 6400's are out now and about 200 bucks, or a 600 for about 150.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128052

looks like a good inexpensive motherboard. i'm not a huge fan of onboard video but a lot of boards seem to come with it these days and it's always useful if your shit fries i suppose.

11/8/2007 9:18:50 AM

There is absolutely no reason at all to go with AMD over Intel right now. At any price point, any number of cores, anything. Intel > AMD across the board. Even for a $100 processor. Phenom may or may not change this, but as of right now, go with Intel.

11/8/2007 9:19:03 AM

^pretty much what he said, and this is coming from someone who only ever got amds back in the day, when intel chips were hot, power hungry, and inefficient.

intel finally got their shit together for this one, the beauty of competition

11/8/2007 9:48:05 AM

^^ but there IS a reason...this is a QUICK comparison, and i may be missing something (both retail):

$120 - AMD 5200+ (2.6ghz, 1000mhz FSB, 1.3-1.35v)
$128 - Intel E4500 (2.2ghz, 800mhz FSB, 0.96-1.33v)

links:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103759
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115031

so do you think the AMD will perform WORSE than the Intel? because even if the 400mhz processor speed difference and the 200mhz FSB speed difference mean nothing, it's STILL cheaper...maybe the voltage is a big deal? because it'll be running F@H when he's not using it, so i would assume the voltages will be pretty much maxed 24/7

11/8/2007 9:55:24 AM

^it does, different technology, smaller manufacturing process 65nm is faster than 90nm

intel > amd

11/8/2007 10:09:30 AM

^^http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=914&model2=878&chart=435

Not the same exact processor, but the closest one on that list.

Look, I haven't bought an Intel processor since the Pentium II days. Back then, the only reason to go AMD was if you could only afford the most absolute dirt cheap PC out there. Then they started kicking Intel's ass with one product cycle after another. Since the release of the Conroe's though, AMD has had no answer. All they can do is keep cutting prices because they are no longer completive from a performance standpoint. Clock for clock, Intel is almost 40% faster, and they can clock their processors much higher than AMD with much lower power usage. We are almost back to the days of the K6-2, where the only reason to go AMD was the for the most absolute dirt cheap processor out there. Hopefully Phenom will turn things around a bit because competition is good. But as of today, there is no good reason to build a new PC with an AMD processor.

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 10:21 AM. Reason : :]

11/8/2007 10:10:28 AM

Quote :

"because it'll be running F@H when he's not using it"

w00t

u might want to setup two console clients since u can't run the SMP reliably as a service yet. only other thing you could do is install the SMP and put a shortcut it in the startup folder (but then it'll probably just get closed).


go with intel though, more bang/$. we're only talking $8 more for better performance.

11/8/2007 10:39:08 AM

okay, intel it is (i noticed the 90nm vs 65nm, but didn't realize the difference)...thanks for the help

11/8/2007 10:48:39 AM

2.2Ghz at 65nm will always be faster than 2.2Ghz at 90nm b/c it has less travel path. less travel path + smaller die = less power usage and better performance than a cpu at the same speed with a larger manufacturing process (in real rough layman's terms)

next in line is 45nm coming in December w/ Intel's new quad core cpu's (Penryn/Yorkfield)

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 12:36 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2007 12:35:41 PM

Fwiw, I needed a simple file server box recently, so I went AMD out of consideration for cost.

11/8/2007 2:51:03 PM

Right now intel's technology is better than amd's but amd still makes fast processors...

basically for a desktop it doesn't REALLY matter for a laptop intel wins hands down
they have better battery life and are faster.

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 3:10 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2007 3:10:12 PM

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html

AMD smoked Intel on this comparison. And just about every other comparison I have read.

11/8/2007 3:20:06 PM

Quote :

"Dual-core desktop CPU bout: AMD vs. Intel By Rich Brown Senior associate editor November 23, 2005"

I really really hope that was a joke post, for your own sake.

11/8/2007 3:23:33 PM

OPPS, didnt see the date. damn thats old. could still be valid if he is buying older model processors.

11/8/2007 3:25:46 PM

i sure hope he's not considering a Pentium D

11/8/2007 3:52:32 PM

^^That's before the core 2 duos came out. AMD did have the upper hand vs the pentium-D series, but once the core 2 duos came out they kinda took over.

^heh yeah, i guess they still sell them. Although i did like my old Pentium-D 940, got that thing past 4.0ghz.

I mean just look at this chart. What's toward the top?

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=871&model2=875&chart=419

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 3:56 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2007 3:54:04 PM

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=19

from a year ago, and it hasn't changed since

Quote :

"Intel's Core 2 Extreme X6800 didn't lose a single benchmark in our comparison; not a single one. In many cases, the $183 Core 2 Duo E6300 actually outperformed Intel's previous champ: the Pentium Extreme Edition 965. In one day, Intel has made its entire Pentium D lineup of processors obsolete. Intel's Core 2 processors offer the sort of next-generation micro-architecture performance leap that we honestly haven't seen from Intel since the introduction of the P6. Compared to AMD's Athlon 64 X2 the situation gets a lot more competitive, but AMD still doesn't stand a chance. The Core 2 Extreme X6800, Core 2 Duo E6700 and E6600 were pretty consistently in the top 3 or 4 spots in each benchmark, with the E6600 offering better performance than AMD's FX-62 flagship in the vast majority of benchmarks. Another way of looking at it is that Intel's Core 2 Duo E6600 is effectively a $316 FX-62, which doesn't sound bad at all."

11/8/2007 3:56:15 PM

amd might get back in the game when their combo gpu/cpu setups come out but until then intel is burning them on speed and power consumption.

11/8/2007 4:32:34 PM

Quote :

"64-bit is not (unless y'all can give me a compelling reason why 64-bit is worth investing in)"

4gb of ram not possible with 32bit.

11/8/2007 4:34:51 PM

intels usually have a larger L2 cache, which makes it actually seems faster. i think the core2duo has a 8mb L2 cache - for analogy that like have 4 gb of ram. in other words, and L2 cache of 8 mb is about 4x the norm.

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 4:38 PM. Reason : ssdf]

11/8/2007 4:37:20 PM

Quote :

"combo gpu/cpu"

i'm very much looking forward to this day

Quote :

"4gb of ram not possible with 32bit."

yeah...but i can't think of what i need 4gb of ram FOR...i'm running 2gb with no page file (xp pro, though, not vista) and i've yet to reach a point at which my memory monitor says i'm using all of my ram (i've gotten to about 80%, but that's it)

11/8/2007 4:41:28 PM

I'm actually going to jump into 64bit with the next build. I'm starting to work more and more with 50+mb PSDs in photoshop, and expect to be using 300+mb 16bit files next year on a daily basis. With 2gb of ram I'm easily using up most of that with the history cache, and there are times where the computer just kinda gives me the big "fuck you" when dealing with filters and such. Probably go with the E6850 if I build soon, otherwise wait and see what the new stuff is like in spring.

But I'll be recommending the new quad core stuff to a video editing coworker for his upgrade. Those programs seem to make better use of the extra cores over photoshop.

11/8/2007 4:54:45 PM

how does the AMD Turion TL-66 compare to Intel's mobile processors? Like, what offering from Intel would be most comparable?

(TL-66 is 2.3 GHz, 1MB cache, "up to" 1600 Mhz FSB)


I was gonna go Intel, but the AMD offering is WAY cheaper.

1/9/2008 3:50:24 PM

the AMD is 65nm, is it not? the only difference is the cache, i think (which can be a big deal)...the tl-66 is 512kb/core and comparable intels are 1mb/core (again, i think)

[Edited on January 9, 2008 at 4:00 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2008 3:58:32 PM

In my experience AMD's mobile line is lacking. Not as fast, worse battery life, slower in general.

1/9/2008 4:17:17 PM

I haven't been impressed either from the few laptops I've had lately... although that one with the AMD chip was also running only 1gb ram with Vista, which we all know is asking for slowness

1/9/2008 4:20:14 PM

I got a dual core AMD 64x2 in my current laptop. I wanted to make the jump to 64-bit sooner rather than later because all of the production systems I have to work on are already 64-bit.

My OS is still 32-bit XP but its been a great help to be able to run 64-bit operating systems inside a VMWare session.

From what I could tell the Intel Dual Cores are still mostly 32-bit guts with some extended memory handling so they can address more than 4gb. My eyes started to glaze over and I had flashbacks to my systems classes when I started reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

-- Dave

1/9/2008 4:24:21 PM

The only reason why Intel is ruling is because when they switched from Pentium D family to the Core 2 Duo, the performance increase was very high. Average somewhere of 20-40%, even more in other tests. When manufacturers release a new line of processors, it's only been about a 10% performance increase from the last generation. This is like stating that Intel jumped an extra generation or two.

1/9/2008 5:02:13 PM

desktop

Intel > AMD

Laptop Intel >>>>>>AMD

1/9/2008 5:25:02 PM

why is it that AMD seems to always have smaller a L2 cache, and can you compare the two numbers directly?

1/9/2008 5:25:05 PM

Cache memory takes up a lot of real estate on the die, so it's very expensive per mb. And AMD is cheap so....

1/9/2008 11:06:38 PM

doesn't AMD have much faster bus speed, though?

although isn't the clock speed they advertise "effective", whatever that means, instead of actual?

1/10/2008 1:53:05 AM

e4300 ftw!

1/10/2008 8:33:32 AM

for computer chess matches the L2 cache is very important(obviously not the only important factor) for the optimal performance - long story behind the theory of this and why computer programs need, or desire a larger L2 cache, and i don't feel like explaining it, and thats why most computer chess enthusiasts go with intel these days.

[Edited on January 10, 2008 at 8:43 AM. Reason : sdfgh]

1/10/2008 8:43:18 AM

whats funny is that intel has better chips, but amd has better support structure (hypertransport)...

1/10/2008 8:45:14 AM

FWIW, here's an article that compares two equivalent notebooks, one running the AMD TL-66 (2.3ghz/1mb/800mhz) and the other running the Intel T7300 (2.0ghz/4mb/800mhz):

http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3117&p=1

Quote :

"While battery life and power requirements look to be reasonably competitive with Intel's offerings, in terms of raw performance AMD gets beat pretty easily. This occurs even when comparing AMD's latest $400 Turion X2 TL-66 to a system using Intel's $250 Core 2 Duo T7300. If you are concerned with mobile CPU performance, AMD is essentially unable to compete at all with Intel's current Core 2 Duo laptops. While you can typically find AMD-based solutions for less money than Intel-based notebooks, features often end up being cut in order to reach a lower price point, and similarly equipped notebooks usually end up favoring AMD by a mere $50. With potentially 25% more performance on tap, we would recommend most spend the extra money to get a Core 2 Duo notebook. ... The truth is that even though the HP 6515b is clearly slower than the HP dv6500t in our benchmarks, in typical use it would be very difficult for most people to tell the difference. A moderately fast dual-core processor with 2GB of RAM packs more than enough performance for most home and business users. Far more important than the raw performance numbers will be the design and features of the notebook. Laptop bargains come and go, so if you happen to find a good sale on any Core 2 Duo or Turion X2 notebook, outside of gaming performance such a notebook will be more than sufficient."

they're assuming a difference in $50, with the AMD being cheaper...and if that's the case, go for the Intel...but if you can save more, they seem to say that unless you're doing high-performance computing, you won't notice the difference and it might be worth saving the money?

1/10/2008 10:29:46 AM

Having good performance will extend the lifetime usability of the laptop. So having the extra power in there would possibly extend the use of your laptop by 6-12 months and would totally be worth the extra cash.


Now if you feel dirty buying Intel's I'd wholly support going AMD.

1/10/2008 10:33:13 AM