Have Intel Killed AMD Off...............

Final8y · 8 Jan 2011 at 01:16

Emlyn_Dewar said:
^^
You're still not thinking of the price difference for a decent motherboard with both CPUs.
I'd take the AMD, but would save some more cash and go for the 955.

The Intel will perform better, but I'd have to shell out more for a motherboard. Being honest, I wouldn't notice the performance difference for anything I do between Intel/AMD CPUs. Both will achieve good overclocks and both of them would sail through any task they are given.

The money i have saved for people going AMD means that i have been able to give them a better GPU than if i had built them an Intel rig & none of them over clock anything.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 8 Jan 2011 at 01:18

Some of the biggest selling PC games in the last few years have run well even on relatively underpowered CPUs.

Examples include Starcraft II,The SIMs,L4D and World of Warcraft. Even Crysis runs fine on a dual core. These have sold millions of copies.

Very few games really need the latest CPUs and this is why people are still keeping their Q6600 CPUs after many years.

Emlyn_Dewar · 8 Jan 2011 at 01:18

Sorry, last post wasn't aimed at you Final8y.
I've also opted for AMD in the last few builds for friends, for exactly the same reason as yourself, money saved = better graphics card.

Chuggerboom · 8 Jan 2011 at 01:20

Final8y said:
The money i have saved for people going AMD means that i have been able to give them a better GPU than if i had built them an Intel rig & none of them over clock anything.

To be fair to you i agree on some of your points. I have an old Q6600 and it is good enough for my needs. I'm thinking of getting a 460 graphics card in a couple of months.

I will probably upgrade to Ivy Bridge next year if i have the spare cash?

Gashman · 8 Jan 2011 at 01:22

Chuggerboom said:
The old i5 Intel chip beats it at most things even at a lower clock. Now just look at what the new i7 Sandy Bridge chip does to it.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=102

what the...? the i7-2600 is like double the cost of the Phenom II, its double the cost for a reason, thats the 'premium' you pay for the extra performance. not to mention most LGA1155 motherboards are £100 - £150, the difference between an i7-2600 machine and a Phenom II machine is like £180 - £200 or something. i don't see how you think AMD are going to explode because they don't have the fastest product, they are still competative in the all important price vs. performance.

before killing of AMD lets wait and see what sort of price and performance Bulldozer bring to the table, if it basically phases out the current Phenom II range and takes over at a similar or slightly higher price, they will still be highly competative. Sandy Bridge isn't miles faster than the older i7 range, so as long as Bulldozer is at least as fast as the older models, made on a better process so it will clock higher and consume less power, don't see intel running away with anything. also the fact Bulldozer is fundamentally different to Sandy Bridge raises other questions, like whats their fabrication cost, whats the yield, etc. and we still have no dead certain benchmarks to compare the two, only rumours and speculation, could turn out to be more powerful than you think...! could end up with 8 core Bulldozers taking on 4 core i7 processors, would assume the AMD would win heavily in multi-threaded applications, would also guess it would be cheaper than the intel. so lets quit the doom and gloom, end of the world business and wait to see what AMD bring to the table, before re-analysing the situation.

also worth noting, still got my trusty Q6600, still going strong and not missing a beat, still playing starcraft II online with my mate (who has i7...) and not slowing anything down. don't think i really need to upgrade my Q6600 anyime soon to be honest, nothing really seems to trouble it too much and its ancient..! also may i add that if it is true that AMD are bring back the FX moniker, that at least suggests that they feel Bulldozer can compete at the high end of the market, so it can't be that much of a slouch, either that or they are going for multiply and conquer, loads more cores at a lower price premium...quite curious i must admit..!

Si105 · 8 Jan 2011 at 01:22

Chuggerboom said:
The old i5 Intel chip beats it at most things even at a lower clock. Now just look at what the new i7 Sandy Bridge chip does to it.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=102

Yeah but tbh... for the extra money that performance isn't worth it.

I won't be responding from you from now on, clearly you're just a fanboy.

GoogalyMoogaly · 8 Jan 2011 at 01:22

Gashman said:
cause an intel processor is great without any motherboard, etc. to go with it...can't forget these factors...! doesn't really make much of a difference which you go with to be honest, will you ever notice the difference unless you go looking at FRAP or such...?

Also factor in that the AMD chips are 125W and the Intel are 95W. So the Intel should be a bit cheaper to run and may mean your PSU runs more efficiently.

Also, and this isn't really a price thing, but as far as I'm aware AMD boards don't support SLI do they, just Crossfire. Some of the Intel boards will support both giving you a few mo0re options if you want to use 2 graphics cards. Although if you're going bang-for-buck you'd probably go with the 6870 graphics cards anyway.

Final8y · 8 Jan 2011 at 01:26

Chuggerboom said:
To be fair to you i agree on some of your points. I have an old Q6600 and it is good enough for my needs. I'm thinking of getting a 460 graphics card in a couple of months.

I will probably upgrade to Ivy Bridge next year if i have the spare cash?

If i go Intel then it has to be a fully unlocked multi & if the price is silly in difference to a comparable AMD fully unlocked multi then its no go.

d_brennen · 8 Jan 2011 at 01:27

Si105 said:
Yeah but tbh... for the extra money that performance isn't worth it.

I won't be responding from you from now on, clearly you're just a fanboy.

Just figured it out?

Go buy what you like OP, I doubt many people care.

Keep an eye on AMD's share price over the next 3 months

NYSE:AMD if you are worried about AMD shutting up shop

GoogalyMoogaly said:
Also factor in that the AMD chips are 125W and the Intel are 95W. So the Intel should be a bit cheaper to run and may mean your PSU runs more efficiently.

Also, and this isn't really a price thing, but as far as I'm aware AMD boards don't support SLI do they, just Crossfire. Some of the Intel boards will support both giving you a few mo0re options if you want to use 2 graphics cards. Although if you're going bang-for-buck you'd probably go with the 6870 graphics cards anyway.

So all AMD chips are 125w and all Intel chips are 95w??? Fascinating. Please provide source. And could you calculate how many pence per year I'd save going for a 95w CPU over a 125w??

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 8 Jan 2011 at 01:28

GoogalyMoogaly said:
Also factor in that the AMD chips are 125W and the Intel are 95W. So the Intel should be a bit cheaper to run and may mean your PSU runs more efficiently.

Also, and this isn't really a price thing, but as far as I'm aware AMD boards don't support SLI do they, just Crossfire. Some of the Intel boards will support both giving you a few mo0re options if you want to use 2 graphics cards. Although if you're going bang-for-buck you'd probably go with the 6870 graphics cards anyway.

The Nvidia cards also consume more power at load than their AMD equivalents. Also,at idle the power consumption differences are not that much AFAIK for the current AMD and Intel CPUs.

However,processors like Phenom II X4 945 and X6 1055T also exist in 95W versions too.

Gashman · 8 Jan 2011 at 01:31

d_brennen said:
Just figured it out?

Go buy what you like OP, I doubt many people care.

Keep an eye on AMD's share price over the next 3 months NYSE:AMD if you are worried about AMD shutting up shop

got a point there dude, AMD shares are up, and intel shares are down, my god are intel being killed...!? :eek:

Chuggerboom · 8 Jan 2011 at 01:36

d_brennen said:
Just figured it out?

Go buy what you like OP, I doubt many people care.

Keep an eye on AMD's share price over the next 3 months NYSE:AMD if you are worried about AMD shutting up shop

So all AMD chips are 125w and all Intel chips are 95w??? Fascinating. Please provide source. And could you calculate how many pence per year I'd save going for a 95w CPU over a 125w??

No need to get nasty. Hey, if AMD bring out something that can beat the Sandy Bridge chips for a lower price i will go with them. It is up to AMD to do it?

95thrifles · 8 Jan 2011 at 01:43

How long til a mod locks? not long now me thinks

paul1985 · 8 Jan 2011 at 01:50

Bang for your buck is very simple if you take hard drives. No one would pay twice as much for only 10, 30, 50 or even 95% more capacity if all other performance factors were equal. It wouldn't make sense to do so. It ought to be a similar consideration for other hardware.

Correct me if I am wrong but what appears to be the case is that AMD do not have the absolute fastest processors but for those that do have performance comparable to intel processors, they tend to be cheaper. Unless I am missing an important point AMD should have a comfortable market share on that basis.

Chuggerboom · 8 Jan 2011 at 01:52

Gashman said:
got a point there dude, AMD shares are up, and intel shares are down, my god are intel being killed...!?

The top 10 biggest brands:

While the rest of the world saw dips in profits because of the recession, Intel actually committed billions of dollars to their computer processor manufacturing facilities. The company plans to move beyond the processor world and expand its services and products to reach the smartphones, smart TVs and app store world.

http://www.businessreviewusa.com/business-features/leadership/top-10-biggest-brands

NVid'did'it · 8 Jan 2011 at 01:53

^^ OmG!! OP has faith in AMD, looks like you just contradicted your original post.
By the way, read my earlier posts, i've gave you a clearcut answer to your original question. I talk about consumers choice criteria.

MikeHunt79 · 8 Jan 2011 at 01:56

Chuggerboom said:
I personally think AMD have been killed off. Thoughts guys?

No, not as far as I can tell. They seem to be selling quite a few GFX cards these days...

NVid'did'it · 8 Jan 2011 at 01:57

If you think intels fast processors are going to kill off AMD, I think its time you picked up an "Idiots guide to Marketing + Strategy" textbook. I mean, going by your logic why did marketeers invent strategy?

danewesley · 8 Jan 2011 at 01:58

im keeping my 955 oc'd to 3.8 and my 5970 until they die, kicks the **** out of most games so couldnt give a flying **** tbh.

paul1985 · 8 Jan 2011 at 01:59

I just wonder if I had a budget of 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200, 250 etc and needed to buy different computers for gaming, another for encoding etc surely both AMD and Intel will have their niche areas.

If my budget is 100 and the best processor in that range is amd and then someone says, well the intel at 125 is better. So what...