• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD AM2 V Intel

I think i will go for the Gigabyte board and stick my 7600 GT in it. Would be better all round anyway?

This is the ram i was thinking of getting:

2GB (2x1GB) Corsair TwinX XMS2, DDR2 PC2-6400 (800), 240 Pins, Non-ECC Unbuffered, CAS 4-4-4-12
 
So, to sum it up, these 3 would go together and are the best buy:

Intel Core 2 Quad Pro Q6600 "Energy Efficient SLACR 95W Edition" 2.40GHz (1066FSB) - OEM

Gigabyte GA-G33M-DS2R Micro ATX (Socket 775) PCI-Express DDR2 Motherboard

2GB (2x1GB) Corsair TwinX XMS2, DDR2 PC2-6400 (800), 240 Pins, Non-ECC Unbuffered, CAS 4-4-4-12

I already have a Thermalright S1-128SE Heatsink.
 
longshanks said:
I think i will go for the Gigabyte board and stick my 7600 GT in it. Would be better all round anyway?

This is the ram i was thinking of getting:

2GB (2x1GB) Corsair TwinX XMS2, DDR2 PC2-6400 (800), 240 Pins, Non-ECC Unbuffered, CAS 4-4-4-12
Click to expand...

That ram is fine the Geil is cheaper and just as good,
 
Thanks easyrider. You are a font of information. Cheers mate.

It would be a big step for me to go from AMD to Intel and when you see 3.2 on an AMD and then a 2.4 on the Intel you think, gee, the Intel is slower!! I know that is wrong though. The Intel would eat the 3.2 AMD?

I bet someone will come on here now and say the AMD is a better buy!!

One last thing, does that Intel run cool?
 
Last edited:
although its sad right now intel is the only sensible choice unless you have an AM2 board and even then prices right now are pretty cheap and the P35 boards will let you upgrade to the new 45nm Yorkfields when they come out... is really win win right now with intel chips
 
You don't say what you're wanting to do with this system (you never answered mattymaxx's earlier question) but I'm betting you're not a games player given the onboard graphics requirements.

I'm going to go against the trend here and suggest an AMD system as £ for £ the unclocked AMDs are better, in my opinion. You need to clock the Intels to see the best from them.

The other thing is that the AMD systems I've used just seem more responsive - snappier, if you like. I still believe their RAM control is significantly better than Intel's.

I recently built a budget system for a colleague based on an X2 4400 and Abit AN-M2HD motherboard (£96 the pair) and it runs like a bunny with it's tail on fire, even using the onboard graphics.

The equivalent Intel system would almost certainly have to use the Asrock ConRoe1333-DVI/H which uses the ancient i945 chipset and the less than wonderful Intel Integrated Graphics. You'd also be looking at a 2140 or a 2160 and unless you clock them, they're just not as fast as the equivalently priced AMD CPU. If you clock them, they trounce the AMD CPU, but at stock, they're pretty poor.

I will accept that when you get up to the level of the X2 6400 OEM (£100) or retail (£110) the gap is narrowing at stock, but that same money will only get you an E6550 Intel CPU which will only really shine if you overclock it.

AMD's pricing of their top-end CPUs does make the choice harder than Easyrider would suggest if you're not overclocking. If you are overclocking (and why wouldn't you) then go Intel every time.
 
Last edited:
What he said. Looks like you're building a simple media machine. AMD offer the cheapest solution at the moment that will fulfil all of your criteria, and have the bonus that you will be able to maintain the socket for longer than the intel ones - hence you will have a longer upgrade path.

Without overclocking (as you stated you won't be) the AMDs and the Intels are neck a neck on price/performance - ie. the AMD will be 10% cheaper and 10% slower. If you are only interested in a media machine then I'd go with the AMD solution - better mobos at your price point.

All speculation until you tell us what you're trying to achieve though ;)
 
The AMD route is very tempting as the prices are much better. Surely an:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6400+ Black Edition 3.20GHz (Socket AM2) - Retail

Would be just as quick as the Intel mentioned? Especially as i don't overclock plus if i get the right mobo, wouldn't i be able to upgrade to the newer AMD's that will be coming out?
 
longshanks said:
I like to play PC games but not all the time. It will be used for general pc things.
Click to expand...

Like I said at this price point the Q6600 offers all you need.

There is a place for the lower end AMD chips but with there being only 40 quid between a Q6600 and a a AMD 6400 then the choice is clear.

Why have the dual core when you can have the Quad?

The Q6600 also is cheaper than the Quad core AMD offering.

If you don't already have the AM2 mobo in place then why spend more money on a slower chip.
 
longshanks said:
The AMD route is very tempting as the prices are much better. Surely an:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6400+ Black Edition 3.20GHz (Socket AM2) - Retail

Would be just as quick as the Intel mentioned? Especially as i don't overclock plus if i get the right mobo, wouldn't i be able to upgrade to the newer AMD's that will be coming out?
Click to expand...

No,

It only has two cores for starters and is overpriced for what it is.

Its £115!

Thats a lot of money for a dual core chip 2mb cache.
 
easyrider said:
If you don't already have the AM2 mobo in place then why spend more money on a slower chip.
Click to expand...

It's hard to get AMD fans to move away from AMD, Even when what they are buying from intel, is going to be better. I've had this out with a bunch of people, who for some reason, would rather spend more, on a chip that performs worse and has less cores, just because in the Past AMD were better :p

This isn't a stab or anything longshanks! I've been in your place, I didnt want to move away from AMD, because they've been so good in the past.

But now they just don't hold up, Cost wise or performance wise against what Intel offer.

Make the jump! Get Intel! It's definitely worth it :)
 
The Athlon 64 X2 6400+ costs roughly as much as a Core 2 Duo E6750 and neither are far from the Q6600's price. On the whole, they are roughly on par with each other with the E6750 pushing a tad ahead in some games and encoding apps.

If you aren't overclocking there isn't a particularly noticeable difference between the two. On the other hand, this coupled with the Gigabyte G33M mentioned on the previous page would give you a direct upgrade to either current Core 2 Quads or upcoming 45nm Quads which have already shown to be a tad quicker than the existing Core 2 Quads. Most AM2 boards will give you AMD Phenom compatibility but right now they simply aren't as quick as Intel's competition. This may change next year with potentially heavy price cuts, but it's not something any of us can guarantee.

Although it has to be said that reasonable Socket AM2 boards can be had for less.
 
Mul said:
Most AM2 boards will give you AMD Phenom compatibility but right now they simply aren't as quick as Intel's competition. This may change next year with potentially heavy price cuts, but it's not something any of us can guarantee.

Although it has to be said that reasonable Socket AM2 boards can be had for less.
Click to expand...

This simply isn't true from the reviews I've seen if you take overclocking out of the equation. The Intels are vastly superior IF YOU OVERCLOCK THEM. If (as is the case for the OP) you are going to leave them at stock, then all bets are off.

If you can get the products at the RRPs then AMD and Intel give you the same performance £ for £ (10% faster = 10% more expensive)

TBH I wouldn't be looking at the Q6600 at all - get an e2180 if anything if all you care about is general computer stuff as you certainly don't need a quad core to browse the net and write a word doc on your mAtx media machine! Huge waste of money.

The problem is that you mentioned the 'G' word - any gaming dramatically increases the cost as you won't be able to rely on the onboard graphics for that.

Bottom line - AMD will offer the cheapest solution to your problem - the more you spend, the more performance you will achieve - how much you need is something only you can answer ;)
 
Thing is though, the cheapest 9500 I've found is £125-130. The cheapest Q6600 is roughly £20 more, has a 200MHz clock speed advantage and a 5-15% "work done per clock" advantage. The Cheapest 9600 I've found is about £150. Near enough the same price as a Q6600, yet again the Q6600 has a clock speed advantage and again a 5-15% "work done per clock" advantage.

A lot of review sites base all this price: performance ratio on retail prices and if we were seeing Phenom USD Retail Price translated to pounds, it'd be a little different given price differences and hardware prices over there.
 
The E6750 is the same price as the 6400+ and outperforms it even at stock... Unless you're buying extremely bargain basement chips (i.e. sub-£50), Intel is the way to go.
 
I don't know where you get the 5-15% per clock faster for the Core 2 over the Phenom - they're about the same clock for clock with the Phenom pulling ahead in synthetic benchmarks
 
Gee, such a minefield for me guys!!

I have a few options then:

1. Buy the new Q6600, Gigabyte board and corsair ram

2. Buy a E6750, Gigabyte board and corsair ram (Upgrade CPU when new ones come out?)

3. Buy an AMD AM2 6400, Asus Mobo, Corsair ram

Which route? Is the 2nd one still better than the 3rd option?

I am in a fog when it comes to Intel facts guys as i have used AMD for years!! Thanks for all help and please keep your advise coming. Need more info before i spend!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom