AMD vs Intel ??

danielmp007 · 25 Mar 2009 at 14:35

I know AMD have come on leaps and bounds lately but how do they compare to intel now?

I really like the phenom x3 tri-core 720 but how does that compare to most of the dual cores and is it better than some intel quad cores?

How does the phenom x4 quad-core compare to all the intel quads?

But then you have the i7 extreme which is massivly over priced but im guessin is the best processor out atm, but do AMD have anything out to compare to that.

Is there many people out there using AMD?? Iv built 1 AMD rig and have 1 on the way and my opinion on them is getting better all the time.

dP

burtie · 25 Mar 2009 at 14:41

I've had Intel and AMD Processors and they all seem the same to me.

Roland0 · 25 Mar 2009 at 14:43

Its a bang for buck thing. and AMD are slightly cheaper, and Intel slightly faster.

95thrifles · 25 Mar 2009 at 14:53

Have a look at this, basically i7 is THE best atm for all scenarios

matthewhotdude · 25 Mar 2009 at 15:55

I don't know why, but ive always just gone for intel. Never had a AMD

danielmp007 · 25 Mar 2009 at 15:56

95thrifles said:
Have a look at this, basically i7 is THE best atm for all scenarios

Is there one of these for graphics cards? nvidia vs ati?

Guardsmon · 25 Mar 2009 at 15:57

Tomshardware used to do GFX round ups, but they got a bit lacks over last few years so I haven't checked lately, might be worth looking if you're interested

perkele · 25 Mar 2009 at 16:01

danielmp007 said:
Is there many people out there using AMD?? I

My first build was an XP2500XP on an NF7 board, and for the money it was the DB's. This/next week I will build a 940BE system and I've chosen AMD because they seem to offer a good price/value combination for what I need now, and will overclock well if/when I need it to. It will do everything I need it to do (games, bit of encoding, etc.), but of course it will be slightly slower than an I7 in the benchies. The question is, am I bothered? Nope, because if I want to bench it, I can happily bench it against similar systems and still get the OC buzz

Mr Kingston · 25 Mar 2009 at 16:08

ive always gone intel since there core 2 duo range, they are just the best and will always be, like wtf is a tri core chip ?

formatuk · 25 Mar 2009 at 16:11

Mr Kingston said:
ive always gone intel since there core 2 duo range, they are just the best and will always be, like wtf is a tri core chip ?

A really good budget chip as AMD have seperate cores, not 2x2core chips

danielmp007 · 25 Mar 2009 at 16:12

Mr Kingston said:
ive always gone intel since there core 2 duo range, they are just the best and will always be, like wtf is a tri core chip ?

A tri core chip... is better than a core 2 duo chip.

dP

Guardsmon · 25 Mar 2009 at 16:19

Mr Kingston said:
ive always gone intel since there core 2 duo range, they are just the best and will always be, like wtf is a tri core chip ?

It's also a brilliant way of getting a Quad on the cheap if you buy the right motherboard with the updates you can activate the 4th core... And why are you bashing it just because it's an odd number... everyone though intel would take memory on their boards from 4 slots to 8, but instead they went to 6. you saying they wrong?

Rapido! · 25 Mar 2009 at 16:25

danielmp007 said:
A tri core chip... is better than a core 2 duo chip.

dP

No.

danielmp007 · 25 Mar 2009 at 16:29

Rapido! said:
No.

Yes.

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16570

Better benchmarks too

xb8browney · 25 Mar 2009 at 16:46

I've got to computers..the one in my spec and my HTPC the HTPC has a 2.6Ghz AMD X2 with 4Gb ram and it isn't as quick as my intel not by along way.

Guardsmon · 25 Mar 2009 at 16:49

um - yeh you've got the one in your spec at 3Ghz and probably not a 8800GT to off load the graphics to in your HTPC

But it's not fair to say x3 is always better than core2duo's or X2 - it's not. But they are very good chips.

perkele · 25 Mar 2009 at 17:12

Mr Kingston said:
ive always gone intel since there core 2 duo range, they are just the best and will always be, *snip*

And to add to my earlier post, it's random opinions like this that help me decide which chip to go for, and at the same time make me less inclined to believe some peoples' views on this forum :eek:

xb8browney · 25 Mar 2009 at 17:15

Guardsmon said:
um - yeh you've got the one in your spec at 3Ghz and probably not a 8800GT to off load the graphics to in your HTPC

I have a 1.8Ghz C2D, 2GB laptop that also feels faster. I'm not talking about graphics I'm talking about multitasking.

Guardsmon · 25 Mar 2009 at 17:26

yeh I was just pointing out a flaw in your statement

and in reguards to the graphic card I was mearly saying about onboard graphics putting more load on your CPU.
I then went on to say that they we're always faster so I'm pretty agreeing with you. It's all about the architecture - those architects make a beautiful world where some things are just better than others even if they are the same size, cost or the lifts move at the same speed

dangerstat · 25 Mar 2009 at 17:35

Ignoring cost the i7's are faster than anything AMD have out at the moment. Performance per £ the triple core Phenom II 720BE is clearly the best option (as it clocks very well).

The phenom II roughly matches the newer C2Q models from Intel, but come in a little cheaper. The i7 is technically better all round but the costs of the motherboard and RAM for this setup makes it unattractive.

For people upgrading right not the Phenom II makes sense, in a few months time (when I think i7 boards will drop significantly in cost) the i7 will make more sense.

AMD are definitely back in it, but from a pure tech view intel are still a fair whack ahead.

And yes people do have AMD's I have a Phenom I triple core, and it's not a bad chip costing me £56 for a triple core processor @ 2.1Ghz isn't bad, considering the Q6600 only has one more core and is more than double the cost!