• 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 vs Intel - Simple Question ...

Tiger33

Tiger33

Tiger33

Associate
Joined
26 Mar 2008
Posts
115
What is it that makes these new Intels better than the AMDs?

is it just because of the overclocking??

or is there more to it ?


i would really like to know as im building a new system soon (all of my systems have been AMD - the latest being a AMD2 6400+ )


i dont plan to overclock so whats the advantage of going Intel?
 
Even when not overclocked, the Intels are still faster, although not as much as if you overclock.

The Phenoms are hitting around 2.6-2.8GHz tops. The Core 2s are getting close to or over 4GHz (Yorkfield/Wolfdale).
 
Clock for clock the Intel range outperforms the older AMD models quite considerably. The new AMD Phenoms close that game considerably although the intels are still slightly faster, but AMD have struggled to get the clockspeeds up on them.

Once you factor price in the difference is much smaller, as AMD have repeatedly slashed the prices to remain competitive in the market.

However Phenom doesnt appear to be as energy efficient as it should be, its thirst for power being one of the likely reasons AMD are struggling to get it going faster.

Intel duals and quads are available in considerably higher 'default' clock speeds, and generally use less power. They have the performance crown for both dual core, and quad core, and to be honest, the price differences arnt as big as they used to be.
 
The answer to this question is actually quite long winded. At the end of the day it depends on your budget.

As far as Quads are concerned, I don't see why one would go Phenom over Core 2 Quad for a totally new build. These new B3 chips are a lot more competitive (price wise) against the Core 2 Quad but the Q6600 has also had a price drop. Clock for clock, Phenom is still slower than Core 2 Quad, the 2.2GHz part is only £5 less than the Q6600 and the 2.5GHz part is £18 more. So really, I don't see any advantages in going AMD over Intel here.

Moving to the Core 2 Duo vs Athlon 64 X2 situation, things are a bit more competitive due to AMD's lower prices for higher clock speed chips making up for some of the performance gap. The main advantage of Intel in this situation is the option to upgrade to a superior Quad core when and if funds allow. Even if you didn't want to upgrade to a Quad, there are options to buy 45nm Dual Cores that are 3.0GHz straight out of the box and faster than any AMD dual. I know you say that you won't be overclocking but it's also a very strong point about Intel's chips and it's something you'll probably look into if you do actually go Intel.
 
Tiger33 said:
because i've never really tried i guess

just always thought that if i overclocked i would need a different cooler - maybe water cooling etc and all these other tools

also risking the chip
Click to expand...

nah u can use defult cooler u just wont get as far and anyway if u want to push your cpu only cost u £15 for a arctic cooling freezer 7 pro which is very good cooler for your cpu. and cheap :P if u want go futher then i think tuniq tower 120 is £30 :D

for ac freezer 7 pro my mate next door to me got up to 3.75GHz on q6600 load temps only 65c
 
Last edited:
Nice to see some well thought out and argued posts on this subject rather than the usual 'u must be some kind of n00b to even think about AMD' that are usually posted on these boards.

I personally prefer AMD purely for reasons that may be alien to others.

1. I've allways used them and been very happy

2. They don't keep changing socket types as often as Intel so upgrading an older rig is easier/cheaper.

3. If no-one buys AMD then Intel will have a monopoly and every thread will be about the increasing costs of new systems.
 
Number one is fair enough. Though I'd hazard a guess that you'd probably be happy with an Intel too. Subjective of course.

Number two, at least socket wise Intel's been on LGA775 for nearly 4 years now. The issue's with CPU compatibility and Chipsets which at the end of the day is the result that you mentioned. Extra expense. First was the jump from 915/925X to 945/955's for Dual Core support. Then about a year and a bit later to P965 and 975X for Core 2 Duo support. P965 has had a fairly long run though.

Number three, I don't think so. AMD earns a load from OEM builds and in comparison the retail market is tiny. Some lost sales here and there from enthusiasts aren't going to result in a monopoly by any means.

Personally, I don't tend to bare upgradability in mind all that much as either system will inevitably suffer the same fate in the longrun. I tend to just go for whatever's the best money will buy and which platform has the best upgradability in the short term.
 
Mul said:
Number one is fair enough. Though I'd hazard a guess that you'd probably be happy with an Intel too. Subjective of course.

Number two, at least socket wise Intel's been on LGA775 for nearly 4 years now. The issue's with CPU compatibility and Chipsets which at the end of the day is the result that you mentioned. Extra expense. First was the jump from 915/925X to 945/955's for Dual Core support. Then about a year and a bit later to P965 and 975X for Core 2 Duo support. P965 has had a fairly long run though.

Number three, I don't think so. AMD earns a load from OEM builds and in comparison the retail market is tiny. Some lost sales here and there from enthusiasts aren't going to result in a monopoly by any means.

Personally, I don't tend to bare upgradability in mind all that much as either system will inevitably suffer the same fate in the longrun. I tend to just go for whatever's the best money will buy and which platform has the best upgradability in the short term.
Click to expand...

well said, if i was to make a build a pc now it would be c2d but how ever i'm a big fan of hypertransport.
 
Tiger33 said:
What is it that makes these new Intels better than the AMDs?

is it just because of the overclocking??

or is there more to it ?
Click to expand...

There is more to it, I don't know the technical details, but basically the Core 2 Duo architecture is better than the Athlon 64/X2 one. Clock for clock it isn't a great deal though, as you might think reading some posts on the subject. For the price the X2 range is very good, especially if you're into games and not encoding.
 
Tute said:
Even when not overclocked, the Intels are still faster, although not as much as if you overclock.

The Phenoms are hitting around 2.6-2.8GHz tops. The Core 2s are getting close to or over 4GHz (Yorkfield/Wolfdale).
Click to expand...

Have a look over at xtremesystems.org - things seem to be getting interesting with the new B3 stepping...
 
Grumpy said:
Nice to see some well thought out and argued posts on this subject rather than the usual 'u must be some kind of n00b to even think about AMD' that are usually posted on these boards.

I personally prefer AMD purely for reasons that may be alien to others.

1. I've allways used them and been very happy

2. They don't keep changing socket types as often as Intel so upgrading an older rig is easier/cheaper.

3. If no-one buys AMD then Intel will have a monopoly and every thread will be about the increasing costs of new systems.
Click to expand...

pretty much my points mate

always used AMD never a problem

its just that when i see people comparing amd and intel the one thing that does stand out is overclocking?

so i just wondered .. what about those of us who dont want to overclock and just want to plug and play


i encode a lot myself and i find the amd 6400 does a good job - i have no complains with it and it cheaper than the intel.


i did check the information on quad cores and does look as though the phenom really is a poor chip but given that i could get one of these into my current am2 mobo (i.e i dont need to change other components) it works out a great deal - although from benchmarks it doesnt actually seem that much quicker than a amd 6400 unless someone can correct me ?


also isnt the amd quad cores the only true quad core chips? (not sure if that really means anything but its someting i heard)


so given i dont want to overclock and just want a nice quick system that gets the job done


also given that the amd quad cores cost about £120 or so

is it worth getting amd still? or are people still following the intel bandwagon?
 
First off, the Phenom is not a 'poor chip' by any stretch of the imagination. It isn't quite as fast as the equivalent Intel chip and that's pretty much it.

With encoding, yes Intel chips are currently faster, but the difference isn't significant at stock speeds.

Intel have a perceived reputation as being "much better" than AMD at the moment. In practice, the only significant difference crops up in overclocking and the performance differences that appear then. However, you have to remember that this is supposedly an overclockers' website (even though we do get people on here asking "how do I overclock my XYZ chip?") and that - for the past eighteen months - Intel has worn the overclocking crown.

There are some benefits to running a native quad core processor - those are typically reduced latency to RAM access, reduced power consumption, etc. - but the Phenom chip is pretty warm, anyway.

The first benefit mentioned is effectively circumvented by Intel's superior branch prediction algorithms.

However, I like to think of it as the difference between a Ford GT and a Lamborghini Gallardo: both are awesome, but the Lambo's engine does it without forced induction.

To answer your question directly (or rather, continue from the second paragraph), you won't have a problem with performance if you buy a Phenom, especially at stock.

If Tony aka BigToe's results with Phenom over on xtremesystems.org are consistent, then I will be all the more willing to buy Phenom when my upgrade comes. Were I not overclocking, I'd simply buy the cheapest quad core I could find. Customers like us cannot buy poor processors at this point in time. Enjoy it.
 
well ive only ever had 2 intel systems and they was ok but i prefer amd system.

1. ive never had a problem with amd motherboards.
2. the 790fx chipset is great for me because now i can do all the overclocking myself within windows.


as for Phenoms theres nothing bad about them. i have a B2 in my system and it runs great. i clocked it to 2.70ghz on air but as people said above not everybody wanna overclock.

i bet some of u guys haven't even owned a Phenom so u can't really comment about if they are crap or not..
 
Last edited:
In all fairness, all of us have made balanced arguments about the perks of each platform so no one's called the Phenom rubbish.

At the end of the day, unless all review sites are conspiring together (including my own testing of AMD X2's vs Core 2 Duo but obviously irrelevent when discussing Phenom) to make AMD Phenom seem worse than it really is, there's no reason for people who havn't owned one to believe that it's a better solution than the Core 2 Quad. When you consider the price of the Q6600 today and the fact that good LGA775 boards are around at reasonable prices now, it just makes a bit more sense to go Intel.

I'll agree that the new pricing strategy has made Phenom a lot more competitive and it's far from an awful choice as such. Simple fact is, Intel's just that little bit better.

That being said, I didn't realise that you were simply upgrading your CPU. I thought you were building a new system all together. If you're doing a simple CPU upgrade I'd just drop one of the new Phenom 9x50's in with a BIOS update. So long as you make full use of all 4 cores, there isn't much point in the hassle of a motherboard swap as well.
 
Very well said Mul.

I personally think AMD are the worse choice for now... and will happily stay with intel until AMD release something that beats them. Then I will jump ship :)

End of the day, we work hard for our money, and even if there is 1 percent difference in performance, I will spend the money on the thing that gives me the 1 percent difference, (assuming they are about the same price obviously).

AMD aren't crap, people seem to think they are for some reason terrible at the moment. This isn't true, they just aren't as fast, or clock as good. So for people like you and I (in other words enthusiasts) we are just going to go with intel - well, for the time being at least :)
 
Dark_Angel said:
AMD aren't crap, people seem to think they are for some reason terrible at the moment. This isn't true, they just aren't as fast, or clock as good. So for people like you and I (in other words enthusiasts) we are just going to go with intel - well, for the time being at least :)
Click to expand...

My old X2 3800 @ 2.8Ghz scores the exact same (2134 points for both CPU's) as the E6600 at stock on 3dmark06. So that means a 400Mhz in difference to compare the speeds.

Obviously overclocked the Intel starts to pull away more but you can get the AMD AM2 duals to about 3.2-3.5Ghz. Intel is about 3.2Ghz-4Ghz (65nm) so Intel take another few steps ahead. I've had this e2180 @ 3.5Ghz and even at that speed it didn't seem like a world of difference compared to my X2 @ 2.8Ghz. My monitor is capable of 2048x1536 so it was only 3dmark 06 that liked the speed of my CPU. Anything else it doesn't really make much of a difference towards. The odd title here and there feel a bit smoother but not by loads. AMD will hit back but I couldn't tell you how long that will be. Intel trailed this very small company for years but had the financial backing to stay alive as well as pump millions into R&D. I just hope AMD find a way to come back at Intel as it would really stir things up. Here's to hoping ;).
 
yeah thanks guys - not really wanting to change the motherboard really


im glad we are able ot have this discussion without fanboys getting involved.

its great to have a fair comparision between the two chips

but as i said before i am right in thinking that the phenom is the only true quad core chip? (not that it makes a difference but im curious if this is true)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom