real world difference intel vs amd

[turbotoes]

Ok, I'm going to upgrade from my current 939 4000+ san diego to either a am2 4800+ or the intel e6420, clearly I will be buying mainboard + mem + cpu,
which ever way I go the MB will ASUS and the MEM will be G-skill, the cost of the intel rig is about 100€ more (£67ish,) Is it worth the extra dosh? I'm running Vista and an 8800gtx, and mostly gaming, stalker and guildwars at the moment, usual office work and internet stuff.

Having spent the time to write this post, I feel I'm going to get a lot "go intel" answers, but seriously would I notice the difference in performance between the two? budget is a bit limited at the moment, but I have a buyer for my current parts so feel it's worth it.

thanks

turbotoes

 

[easyrider]

This has been done to death.




If you are overclocking then the 6420 will destroy the AMD rig in everything.

If not then stick with s939 as AM2 offers nothing much really over 939 other than DDR2

 

[FreeStream]

This has been done to death.

Yep


But i've had these systems side by side: (BF2 FPS @ 1600x1200, 6xAA, 16xAF) (2005 score)

1. 2.5ghz X2, DFi SLI-DR, 2GB G.Skill, X1900XT @ XTX. (50-100) (11.5k)
2. 2.4ghz E6600, Asus P5B-D, 2Gb PC6400, X1900XTX. (90-100) (12.5k)

In windows there was minimal differences, but in games and encoding tasks, Conroe really kicked the X2s backside.

So yes, go Intel. Because now its overclocked there is no X2 chip you can buy which can even draw with it on air (Anyone seen a 3.6/7ghz AMD on air?)

CR.

 

[turbotoes]

concorde rules, thanks for your answer.
I'm sorry if this has been "Done to death" but the search function seems to have vanished and I don't spend huge amounts of time on this forum anymore so after going thru about 12 pages I thought I'd ask.

turbotoes, (wishing the world was a more tolerent place)

 

[Corasik]

Ok, I'm going to upgrade from my current 939 4000+ san diego to either a am2 4800+ or the intel e6420.

turbotoes

At stock speeds, I believe you would have to go up to an AMD 5600+ to really 'beat' the C2D E6420 and even then some games still favour the C2D. Intel did a good job.

So even if you have no intention of Overclocking a C2D is a good chip. In terms of value for money, its roughly on a par with AMD, as AMD have been forced to reduce their prices to remain competitive. So both products are good.

If you decide now, or later to overclock, then the intel will come into it's own. Generally C2D's have proven to be very good overclockers chips.

 

[turbotoes]

At stock speeds, I believe you would have to go up to an AMD 5600+ to really 'beat' the C2D E6420 and even then some games still favour the C2D. Intel did a good job.

So even if you have no intention of Overclocking a C2D is a good chip. In terms of value for money, its roughly on a par with AMD, as AMD have been forced to reduce their prices to remain competitive. So both products are good.

If you decide now, or later to overclock, then the intel will come into it's own. Generally C2D's have proven to be very good overclockers chips.

thanks, I will overclock it a bit ( I never can resist it) so I guess after a lot of years with AMD I'll finally be going back to intel.
thanks again for positive input

turbotoes

 

[Scoobie Dave]

At stock speeds, I believe you would have to go up to an AMD 5600+ to really 'beat' the C2D E6420 and even then some games still favour the C2D. Intel did a good job.

So even if you have no intention of Overclocking a C2D is a good chip. In terms of value for money, its roughly on a par with AMD, as AMD have been forced to reduce their prices to remain competitive. So both products are good.

If you decide now, or later to overclock, then the intel will come into it's own. Generally C2D's have proven to be very good overclockers chips.

Mines sitting quite happy @3.6GHz

Nuff said.