Intel vs amd

mickey megabyte said:

Konceptz804 said:

Intel is going to give the best performance period, but also costs the most. AMD is cheaper and not as fast, but the differences may or may not be noticeable in what you do. That being said, your budget should determine what you want. Most gamers go with AMD because the cost is lower, and when utilizing an ATI card the system is better tied together (AMD chipset, AMD CPU, AMD/ATI GPU).

i beg to differ.

a fast amd is faster than a slow intel.

But why would you compare an older intel to a newer amd? the newest intels are faster then the newest amds, you might not notice the difference in real life, but bottom line intel is faster. I test this daily....

If you didn't know the difference, you weren't ready to buy. At the $200 price range, Intel will make faster cheaps. AMD, right now, specializes in the low budget, decent performance area, around $100 or so. Once you get up to your price range and beyond, Intel outperforms AMD.

The reason I always go Intel is for one reason...chipsets. Say what you want about the processors, but when it comes down to chipsets, the Intel side wins hands down. Intel's own chipsets are rock solid, easy to set up, and run very well.

computergeekguy said:

I was wondering what is the difference between intel and amd?

The intel i7 i beleve is just a fancy name for a six core cpu. some prices i saw for it were as high as $1000 And the mobo's that took them were expensive to.

So i went with amd phenom II six core. it cost me $200

But people still say they would have gotten the intel anyway.

So is intel special for some reason?

Thanks for responses ill probly get alot on this subject

I certainly won't pay that for a CP - it would be nice to see those come down from the stratosphere. I will say this: As a former AMD CPU advocate (brink of fanboi-dom) - I recently decided to upgrade. I priced out the AM3 motherboard/CPU/DDR3 RAM combo and the Core i7/X58/DDR3 RAM based combos - there was only about $100 difference with what I was looking at (i7 950 vs. the AM3 quad core I was looking at (don't remember the exact model, but it was a Black Edition) - I decided to go ahead and go with the Intel setup.

I was absolutely BLOWN AWAY by the performance increase! I never realized how much the AMD processor was holding me back!

I am looking at at least 50 - 75 percent increases across the board and I inadvertently had a VM server running (with 4 cores and 8 MB of RAM) and I was playing a game (C&C 4) - it was only getting around 45 fps (FRAPS) - I didn'tknow why, but found the VM running and killed it - fps jumped to around 60 - 65 - keep in mind, this is with EVERY setting cranked up to the highest level!

I am an Intel convert - no doubt!

if only it was this clear cut, just had my cpu/psu/gpu die on me so i'm now looking to replace the whole computer, at the moment i'm back to my old backup intel quad core but it's by no means a slouch i was surprised just how little improvment i seen going from the i7 950 to an old quad core.

i've been looking at the amd 1100t black edition.
multi threading it's only getting beat by the i7 980x which isn't favoring intel in my view the extra cost is just insane and while the score is stupidly high for that cpu i'd have to be doing something that would actually warrent that spend.
single core apps it isn't as good as some of the 4core i7's but then neither is the £700 6core intel offering so why pay 4 times the price. the 1100t suffers just like all multicore cpu's on single core apps where the moderate dual cores still do well from 5 years ago.

apps that use single cores prefere higher clock speeds so intel usually does better but not so much now, the 1100t can go from 3.3ghz to 3.7ghz under load as needed and can be overclocked to 4.1ghz.

there are some great comparison reviews out there but the one thing they do is make it harder to decide, granted the setup i'll be using will be better but then according to there scores this old heap of crap beat all the i5's when i ran the same benchmarks and some of the i7's so i'm not so keen to ignore amd this time around.

if you do go the route of amd invest the small extra cost and get the black edition which allow overclocking of the northbridge, this can net some serious performance increases.

if you go intel consider your choices and pick the best you can but be prepared to spend more to net the same performance of the 1100t.

intel do great cpu's and i'm no amd fan boy i've never owned one, but the results of the 1100t did turn my head so much so i'm really considering switching.

the thing is i know for my needs i can't get a better cpu for that price from intel there is no way i'll fork out the £700 for the 980x or 990x it just isn't happening regardless of the performance of that chip.

so to sum up, go for either the intel i7 950 or above or the 1100t both offerings are amazing untill you hit multi threaded apps where the 1100t will win and you can gaze from afar at the 980x results and ponder the price of one of those, the gains on intel are so small they really aren't worth mentioning, were talking 1 sec at best for a video decode/encode or half a second to render a pic in photoshop..miniscule differences.

i still currently prefer intel but then i don't yet own an amd to compare, my view is purely objective.

A am3 mobo or intel p55 or p67 mobo loaded with everything cost say 140 to 200 bucks and depends on brand etc and not even the most high end mobos. The low end am3 or black 6 core or i5 750 or 2600 cost about 170 to 200 bucks catch a sale either cost less than the others. Work your prices out with how much memory or brands or other parts the costs are the exact same and the intels will smoke the amd.

It is only a few programs that use over 4 cores and even less folks that use those programs. Most use is 4 cores or less and most games use no more than 2 cores- the amd's can not compete. The p55 and p67 will even smoke some i7's in some benches.

If you are using programs that use over 4 cores- well you have that need and maybe the money. For my needs and gaming Intel and nvidia rules. It is what it is..

You can research for your self- check prices and reviews and bench tests.

See ya.

That is very true gazz. Mobos and or cpu's with in 3 years of each other you really see no great gains in a lot of normal use. Folks think they are going to get some big jump but its not really or not at most things and normally the gains are lil.

Going from say my abit kn8 or abit fatality an9 32x to my p55 is a big jump- or in gaming any way. But my fatality is still a pretty strong mobo and cpu. I still prefer xp sp2 over w7. But w7 and this system being more powerful more cores and memory is a better gamer. Other stuff converting videos what ever seems about the same. I guess my p55 is faster but not like rocket faster or anything much or really noticed.

Most newer systems if with in a few years of each other are more like miro seconds faster at most things. But at a few things ya maybe you really notice a big difference but not many things or for most people.

Some times it is just upgrade time and if you can afford it or before a old system out of warranty dies- so.