AMD vs Intel (2008)

[StriderVM]

Holy crap.... I saw the prices at the local shops..... An Athlon64 X2 5200 is only selling at $80! Ugh..... My Athlon64 5600 I bought for $180 now only costs.... $125.....

So currently, AMD now only belong to the featherweight division, which Intel has a good footing in the middleweight and heavyweight division...... And non overclockers and budget gamers....

.... It's just the buyers that win, in this case, midrange gaming to high range gaming will actually be 1/2 the price of the X-Box360 and PS3. That's good.

__________________
Current PC specs :
AsRock 945GCM-S
Pentium Dual Core E5200 @ 2912Mhz (233x12.5)
Palit Radeon 4850 Sonic 512MB gDDR3
2x2048MB Kingston DDR2 800Mhz RAM

[teh Ura]

i like Intel because i never tried AMD
btw i start from Intel 2, intel3, Intel p4, intel core 2duo
and my mother still using Intel 3 lol

[gamefreak94]

I considered buying AMD for my new PC but then thought otherwise after hearing this from one of my friends: he brought an AMD Opteron X4 processor (or something high-end like that, I don't know much about AMD processor series), it was fast, but if it ran for any longer than 6 hours at stretch, the processor would over-heat. The ambient room temperature for most of the year here in Pakistan is 31-35 degrees celcius (or 90 degrees farenheit) which seems to exceed AMD processor's operational limits. All the sellers at them market tell a similar story. As a result, the re-sale price of AMD computers is nearly half as much as that of an Intel containing PC (here nobody can even think about throwing away even a measly Pentium 3 so discarding is out of the question). In the end, I am happy with my solution, my Intel Core 2 Duo runs for 18-24 hours a day without any disturbances.
AMD seriously needs to make its processors more robust, versatile and adaptable. Check out this video at YouTube - Intel Vs AMD processor the video is probably faked but it gives you the general idea.

[skoreanime]

AMDs are pretty robust, just not as efficient as Intels current main stream line up. If he's having temperature problems, it's probably a fault on his part. I'd tell him to reseat the HSF and apply better quality thermal paste if he already hasn't This is the first time I've heard of an AMD chip having temp problems

[gamefreak94]

Just for comparison, he then (sensibly) brought an Intel Core 2 Duo processor (with the same casing) and has had no over-heating problems ever since. His experience aside, the whole market here can't be lying about this problem!

[gamefreak94]

In terms of shear performance, I don't think any processor out there beats the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9850

[GuitarFreak27]

AMD needs a miracle to beat intel now. Especially with nehalem coming out soon and being 20%+ better than any of the 45nm chips out now.

__________________

Desktop: e6750@3.8GHz, ASUS P5K Deluxe, BFG 8800GTX OC w/HR-03 Plus, 4GB mushkin Redlines @ 1116MHz 5-5-5-12, Corsair 620HX, Auzentech X-Fi Prelude, 1.3TB storage, Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme, Antec 900, 22" Gateway monitor, Logitech Z5500 speakers
Laptop: Alienware M15x, T9300 @ 2.5GHz, 8800M GTX, 4GB OCZ DDR2-800, 200GB 7200RPM HDD, 15.4" widescreen

[gamefreak94]

I've heard that Intel will soon do away with silicon chips altogether, they have a higher heat output and their transistor size is limited (don't get me wrong its still hellishly small, in the micro-meters) as compared to a new substance called graphene but maybe this isn't what they are experimenting with, it could be another material.

[khelben1979]

My vote went to AMD.

I am, however, a little concerned about game compatability with the Phenoms when it comes to older Windows games: CustomPC has explained earlier(a few months ago) that some older games crashes with the Phenoms. 8-( I will not go for Vista and I'm hoping that it has gotten better for AMD and that the processors are more stable today. Anyone who knows?

The reason to why I chose AMD is because I will be going for a power efficient CPU in the future and because I like AMD. If it was today I would get the Phenom 9350e I think. Performance is not the most important part but I imagine that it must be faster than my current Pentium 4 @ 2.8ghz(northwood).

[gamefreak94]

Well obviously a Phenom will be better then a P4, a P4 is comparable to the Sempron and early Athlon X2 series. Anyway, I recommend that you invest a little bit more and buy a motherboard that supports Intel processors. Get the ASUS P5K-VM, it costs less than $100 and supports all of Intel's latest 45nm chips. You cold get a Q6600 for it but if you want something cheaper then go for the Core 2 Duo E6xxx or E7xxx series (the E8xxx costs marginally less then a Q660 so no point of getting that), they're the "cat's meow" when it comes to gaming!

[Glaedrin]

Originally Posted by gamefreak94

I've heard that Intel will soon do away with silicon chips altogether, they have a higher heat output and their transistor size is limited (don't get me wrong its still hellishly small, in the micro-meters) as compared to a new substance called graphene but maybe this isn't what they are experimenting with, it could be another material.

Your getting it a little wrong here, it's not the silicon that they are replacing (silicon is the base material, not the transistor material)

The current limit in the technology for existing transistor material is 32nm which involves Ultraviolet processing that was invented by IBM (the nm means Nano Meters, much smaller than Micro Meters)

The smallest that Intel can make them is 45nm, the next material has been decided to be carbon nanotubes which should go below 10nm (at which we may start facing issues with Quantum Mechanics)

__________________
One civilized reader is worth a thousand boneheads - Smart Set magazine, 1914

CPU: AMD 4600+ 2.41Ghz
RAM: 2Gb of Corsair DDR2 4-4-4-12 800Mhz
Graphics Card: ATI X1900XT
OS: Windows XP SP2 FTW

[Squall-Leonhart]

also, the P4 is not comparable to a sempron, semprons are cut down bartons.

Clock for clock, the Thoroughbred and Barton AthlonXP's outdid the P4's, but once Intel started producing 2.5ghz+ processors, the K7 cores couldn't keep up anymore. which is why AMD dropped development of the K7 3400+ and pushed funds into K8 development.

rumour has it that there are some 3400+ samples out there however... it'd be pretty valuable to pick one up.

__________________

VBA-M | Xtemu | NGOHQ | Post Impact Productions | TNHW | XBCD 0.2.6 | Satanic666's Emulator Compiles
Don't be a NOOB, READ THE NGEmu/EmuForums Rules of Conduct
Need Help with ePSXe? This is your first stop!.
If you don't post all the required information, you don't get help.
Everytime someone posts a romsite, God kills a beautiful woman.

---

Last edited by Squall-Leonhart; July 25th, 2008 at 16:38.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

[QuantumDelta]

Atmo unless you're building something extremely budgety there really is no or few options in AMDs favour.
I've been with AMD for a long time and I know they are a brilliant company, I've had some bad experiences with Intel but that was back in the P2/P3 days so I stuck with AMD.
My next rig however, unless there's a breakthrough in the AMD camp will definitely be Intel.
I really dislike Intel's corporate working practises though.

[gamefreak94]

I really dislike Intel's corporate working practises though.

Gotta admit with that! They always have an inkling of other CPU manufacturers, way back before the Pentium series was introduced, Intel sued another manufacturer at the time named Cyrix (which later merged itself with semi-conductor) for copying their newest chip design though the trial ended in Cyrix's favour.
Back to the 21st century however, I think that the Core 2 Duo series even out performs the Phenom X3 series in some cases

Clock for clock, the Thoroughbred and Barton AthlonXP's outdid the P4's, but once Intel started producing 2.5ghz+ processors, the K7 cores couldn't keep up anymore. which is why AMD dropped development of the K7 3400+ and pushed funds into K8 development.

On the overall I think, the P4 Prescott (and some Northwood) chips can easily out perform any single cored Athlon out there. btw why didn't Intel create such a hype on the release of their Pentium EE and Pentium D series?

---

Last edited by gamefreak94; July 28th, 2008 at 09:35.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

[StriderVM]

Haha, I've also played with Cyrix's processors, the 486 (Which I think is the fastest 486's out there on per clock performance. Upgrade from my 486 33Mhz) their 6x86 processors (Friend) , their M2 processors (Computer shop I managed back in 1996), heck even the Via C7 processor (Sister's laptop) I've used them. (Cyrix was bought by Via and turned their latest processors into the C7 processors.) Good times....

Although performance wise, yes, they suck, except their 486's..... Still no match for a Pentium though.... And those 486's running on 133Mhz which AMD labeled 5x86.

Anyway back to the P4 VS Athlon era. The Athlon64 X2's still has the fastest processors....... If I remember correctly, their fastest Pentium D based processor is running at 3.6Ghz (Pentium Extreme Edition I think) it's a dual core with Hyperthreading, so they kinda end up with 4 cores total.

But still the 2.8Ghz FX-62 AMD Athlon processor still a bit faster....... About 20% at max. So AMD's still faster at that time, it was totally reversed when Core2Duo came in though......

Also, remember that it was AMD that first made a Dual Core processor, then Intel followed, making the Pentium D series........

However regarding single core. It was a very close fight I think. People could choose based on preferences...... I think it was the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition at 3.8Ghz and the AMD FX-57, which is a single Athlon at 2.8Ghz......

__________________
Current PC specs :
AsRock 945GCM-S
Pentium Dual Core E5200 @ 2912Mhz (233x12.5)
Palit Radeon 4850 Sonic 512MB gDDR3
2x2048MB Kingston DDR2 800Mhz RAM

[gamefreak94]

Via Technologies is a pretty under-rated CPU manufacturer, you barely get to hear about them! Anyway one day, I went through their website and discovered why they were so unpopular. Correct me if I am wrong here, but I found that their fastest processors were only a measly 1.8 GHz single core and they are still producing 800 MHz CPUs! I mean who the hell would want those (even if they cost 10% of the price of an Intel). Besides I think that they need specialized slots in motherboards and not many motherboards would support these crap CPUs (or they might have made them compatible with LGA-774 and AM2+ sockets

__________________

How to configure uTorrent for maximum upload and download speed?

[guymelef]

Amd's phenom still haven't grown into their FSB. now at like 3600 need to get to 5200. Don't count them out yet. The AMD x2 are the best in the dual core class. When the dual core compitetion was raging amd could always provide between 90 - 110 % efficiency against the intel duals for sometimes half the price.

I will take .1 - .3 GHZ less for 100$ less. That's simple. The Atholon XPs smoked the Base P4's by an even greater margin of performance and price.

I should make it clear that cash is king and price has much to do with choice.
If money didn't matter to me I would get some badass TYAN dual Q6600 server board just to play solitaire with.

AMD had a very large vision with the AM2+ series. I hope to see their vision realized.

Pros
-Backwards compatible with most AM2 boards (with a FSB, and ram limit) Does intel have the balls to try that?
-A promised 5200 FSB (the 3200 still beats intel in architecture and RAM perfomance)
-Better security encryption

Cons

-Still out performed by INTEL flagships. but that's nothing new.

---

Last edited by guymelef; July 28th, 2008 at 17:56..

[gamefreak94]

The AMD x2 are the best in the dual core class.

I beg to differ. Lets take a closer look at the facts:

AMD - Intel
65nm architecture - 45nm architecture
2 MB L2 cache - 6 MB L2 cache
3 GHz dual-core - 3.166 GHz dual-core

In this sense, even the Phenom X3 series is only marginally better then the high-end Core 2 Duos. And when it comes to extreme performance, nothing out there beats the Core 2 Extreme QX9870. Now it might blow a nuclear bomb in you pocket! but with the release of the new Nehalem chips in a couple of months, the prices of Conroe chips are bound to fall, as ar the prices of chipsets that support them.

__________________

How to configure uTorrent for maximum upload and download speed?

[guymelef]

I agree with you gamefreak.

But I thought this is a forum about personal consumer choice.

For the money the AMD x2 5600 or even 6400 will always dollars to doughnuts, price to perfomance beat the intel dual cores unless you can get one on clearance.

WOW!!!!!!
On a side note the "Intel Core2 Extreme QX9775 3.2GHz LGA 771 150W Quad-Core Processor Model BX80574QX9775 - Retail" on newegg is "Your Price:$1,549.99"

I have to change my mind and say that AMD still is the reigning champ on all fronts.

This " AMD Phenom 9950 BLACK EDITION 2.6GHz 4 x 512KB L2 Cache 2MB L3 Cache Socket AM2+ 140W Quad-Core Processor - Retail" on newegg for "Your Price:$235.00" is by far the best quad core for anyone who doesn't want to take out a loan to build a computer.

If this is only about perfomance then yes INTEL is first.

But I am more concerned with what I can buy without having to sell my body.

With any future comments I would like people to say honestly what they have bought this year or plan to in the coming year.

Personally I am waiting for the AM2+ Front side bus to hit 5200 before I upgrade.

My presesnt am2+ setup loads windows in about 4 seconds coldboot. UT3 (as much of a piece of crap that game is) loads in about 3 seconds.

I record 5 (guitar1, guitar2, bass, vocal1, vocal2) channels of live audio at once with adobe audition while rewiring the drum tracks from reason 3 with out peaking either my memory or cpu under windows xp 64bit.

I firmly believe that any upgrade at this point to ANY CPU whether it's INTEL's quads that have price tag the size of Libya's deficit or to a higher amd am2+ quad core would result in a production difference of less than +10%.

This is because of hardware out pacing software. Nothing is using any of the new chips to their fullest capacity.

I'll think about upgrading when I can guarantee a +15% increase for ~200$

This is all a subjective guideline that I require myself to answer before I replace anything in my life.

---

Last edited by guymelef; July 28th, 2008 at 18:16.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

[StriderVM]

guymelef : The problem is they usually don't buy those Intel processors. They just buy a Q6600 and overclock it to QX9775 speeds....

__________________
Current PC specs :
AsRock 945GCM-S
Pentium Dual Core E5200 @ 2912Mhz (233x12.5)
Palit Radeon 4850 Sonic 512MB gDDR3
2x2048MB Kingston DDR2 800Mhz RAM