AMD Phenom X4 VS Intel Core 2 Quad

[andras artois]

I'm going to be getting a new computer soon and was wondering which processor to get. They're both more or less the same price and they're both Quad core. The AMD is 2.6GHZ and the Intel is 2.33GHZ. Which one is going to offer the better performance?

Links: AMD (http://www.ebuyer.com/product/150466) and Intel (http://www.ebuyer.com/product/148933)

Thanks.

[tom66]

If you listen to many people, it is said that AMDs offer better performance in gaming and audio/video editing, versus Intel which usually does better in office tasks and running normal applications... It depends what you want.

[jordanp123]

Amd.

[CP1256]

Isn't AMD slightly behind Intel on some processors? I'm sorry if I'm wrong but I've read it somewhere.

I'm also interested as I'll be getting a new PC soon.

[jordanp123]

The Core i7 is the cream of the crop right now, if thats what your talking about.

[andras artois]

Isn't AMD slightly behind Intel on some processors? I'm sorry if I'm wrong but I've read it somewhere.

I'm also interested as I'll be getting a new PC soon.


The Core i7 is the cream of the crop right now, if thats what your talking about.

I read the same thing about AMD being slightly behind thats why I asked. I think it was just on the dual cores but I could be wrong....

Thanks the answers. So the AMD will definitely out perform that Intel processor?

How does a PC with that AMD processor, 4GB 800MHZ Ram, 1TB HD, DVD Rewriter,motherboard thats AM2+ compatible, 512MB DDR3 600MHZ Nvidia graphics card, Creative T40 speakers and LG 22" Screen sound for around £730?

[perfectska04]

I would suggest at least a Phenom II or the Intel processor.

I love AMD, but the original phenoms are about 15-20% slower than a Core 2 at the same clock speed. Besides, due to their manufacturing process, they are much hotter, use more energy and will not overclock much at all.

[jordanp123]

Sounds like a good deal, although as it has already been mentioned, a phenom II would be the better option, but the original Phenom, unless your doing some pretty heavy stuff will never flich, but that Intel won't etheir.

[CP1256]

I read the same thing about AMD being slightly behind thats why I asked. I think it was just on the dual cores but I could be wrong....

Thanks the answers. So the AMD will definitely out perform that Intel processor?

How does a PC with that AMD processor, 4GB 800MHZ Ram, 1TB HD, DVD Rewriter,motherboard thats AM2+ compatible, 512MB DDR3 600MHZ Nvidia graphics card, Creative T40 speakers and LG 22" Screen sound for around £730?

Take a look at this (http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenomii940/). It shows that AMD is faster then the new i7 in some tests, but pretty much is as fast as Intel quad.

Unfortunately I can't answer your question about the price, since I'll be buying a few parts only.

[andras artois]

I don't intend to overclock it. The AMD I'm looking isn't the Phenom II. It's going to be used for a tiny bit of video editting and some CAD. Mainly be used with messing around with video stuff, nothing to do with games and general normal things.

Which will offer the better overall performance?

Thanks for the replies so far!

[TheSlipstream]

Wow, this is the only forum topic I've ever seen where people recommend the Phenom I. The thing is junk, basically. Even vs. the Q8200, which is a poor Quad core processer as it is. I'd say get a better C2Q, or a Phenom II.

[Skripka]

If you listen to many people, it is said that AMDs offer better performance in gaming

If you have a dedicated graphics card--your choice of currently sold CPUs is almost completely irrelevant in terms of FPS.

[Chemical Imbalance]

Wow, this is the only forum topic I've ever seen where people recommend the Phenom I. The thing is junk, basically. Even vs. the Q8200, which is a poor Quad core processer as it is. I'd say get a better C2Q, or a Phenom II.

I have to say I agree with you. The original Phenom really has disappointed me. I have a Phenom 9500 quad core and my core 2 duo in my laptop blows it out of the water!

[Mehall]

If you have a dedicated graphics card--your choice of currently sold CPUs is almost completely irrelevant in terms of FPS.

Except when playing a Source Engined game, which is highly dependent on CPU, not GPU

[andras artois]

Okay, I'm going to be getting a decent graphics card anyway. Would it be better to just go with the Intel seeing as the Phenom II is out of my price range? I won't be playing games.

[Icehuck]

Take a look at this (http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenomii940/). It shows that AMD is faster then the new i7 in some tests, but pretty much is as fast as Intel quad.

Unfortunately I can't answer your question about the price, since I'll be buying a few parts only.

It only shows that the AMD can keep up with the I7 only when overclocked.

[Mehall]

Yes, but your Phenom can be OC'd, the i7's can't really.

[lavinog]

I generally go the AMD route because of the price.
You may never really see the performance difference between AMD and Intel unless you are doing a benchmark.
I recently went with a Athlon X2e for under $50 and have been very happy with it. It runs very cool...the whole system draws only 40W under normal operation and maxes out at ~80W when I am doing something cpu intensive like rendering a blender file.
When my computer needs an upgrade, I can get a newer cpu for $50 when that time comes.
I say put your money in another component like the HD which is the bottleneck many times.

[Mehall]

Okay, I'm going to be getting a decent graphics card anyway. Would it be better to just go with the Intel seeing as the Phenom II is out of my price range? I won't be playing games.

Go for the AMD, and ensure your MoBo supports Phenom II's, so that you can upgrade the proc when you get money/want better performance.

The Phenom I's aren;t as bad as people make out.

[stchman]

I'm going to be getting a new computer soon and was wondering which processor to get. They're both more or less the same price and they're both Quad core. The AMD is 2.6GHZ and the Intel is 2.33GHZ. Which one is going to offer the better performance?

Links: AMD (http://www.ebuyer.com/product/150466) and Intel (http://www.ebuyer.com/product/148933)

Thanks.

The Core 2 Quad is a more powerful processor than the Phenom X4. Look up the reviews.

Not to say that AMD makes bad processors. BTW get a Phenom II over a Phenom.

[Icehuck]

Yes, but your Phenom can be OC'd, the i7's can't really.

I don't know where you got that information but the I7's overclock just fine.

[andras artois]

I won't have the money to get a Phenom II. They're £30-40 out of my price range for a processor.

Intel Core 2 Quad 2.33MHZ VS AMD Phenom I 2.6MHZ. Which is going to offer the better performance. I will not be overclocking.

Thanks.

[Chemical Imbalance]

I won't have the money to get a Phenom II. They're £30-40 out of my price range for a processor.

Intel Core 2 Quad 2.33MHZ VS AMD Phenom I 2.6MHZ. Which is going to offer the better performance. I will not be overclocking.

Thanks.

Get the Intel then. For your purposes it will be an excellent choice.

[Lightstar]

Yes, but your Phenom can be OC'd, the i7's can't really.

Actually the i7 920 can be overclocked from 2.66 to ~3.5ghz while keeping the default heatsink/fan. It was brought up to 4ghz with watercooling. Right now the i7 is the most overclockable chip there's been.

-----------------------------

Back to the OP..

I just built my new PC last week, I also went through the "amd or intel" phase.

As some people said, AMD = better gaming, Intel = better multitasking
That used to be the case, though right now Intel seems a bit ahead in both.

One important thing to consider is that AMD chips run ALOT hotter than intel, if you choose AMD make sure to invest in a very good heatsink/fan.

With intel you should be fine with the heatsink that comes with the chip.

I went with Intel.

[wolfgar]

My son has a AMD Phenom X4 9650 Quad Core Processor 2.30GHz, with a XFX Radeon HD 4870 Video Card - 1024MB GDDR5, it is a bit faster than my Intel E4600 Dual Core 2.4

However, the heat comming from the computer is unbeliveable. He has four fans, two going in, one going out, one slot fan going on the video card, which has a fan.

He plays a lot of games, and it does work well for gamming. He loves it, but I perfer the cooler, less powerful Intel dual core processor, it meets all my needs.

My Opinion is AMD is cheaper, but runs on the hot side.

My son says AMD it's cheaper and runs games better and faster for the price.

I hope this information helps,

Good Luck,

Wolfgar

[tbroderick]

I won't have the money to get a Phenom II. They're £30-40 out of my price range for a processor.


Phenom II X4 810 £144.59
(http://www.ebuyer.com/product/159072)Phenom X4 9950 £140.98
(http://www.ebuyer.com/product/150466)Phenom II X3 720 £119.32 (http://www.ebuyer.com/product/159071)

I'd get the Phenom II X3 720 myself. Save a bit of money. Don't see the point in getting Phenom X4 9950 when for £3.61 more you can get a better CPU.

[CP1256]

It only shows that the AMD can keep up with the I7 only when overclocked.

Yes, but I'm don't care if it's slower then the i7 because the new i7 is too expensive. But it's nice to see AMD isn't falling behind the 'older' quad cores from Intel.

Also, AMD will probably have backwards compatibility, so you can put newer processors in an older motherboard.

Personally, I would go for the AMD.

[andras artois]

What with the AMD's running hotter I think thats swayed my decision to the Intel. I want it to be quiettttt. Also the AM3 motherboards are more expensive than the AM2+ and Intel ones.


Thanks for the help.

[oobuntoo]

What with the AMD's running hotter I think thats swayed my decision to the Intel. I want it to be quiettttt. Also the AM3 motherboards are more expensive than the AM2+ and Intel ones.


Thanks for the help.

Let me chime in:)

This is simply not true. If you read reviews on the internet you will know that Core 2 Quad consumes more power than even Core i7 which consumes more power than even the fastest CPU from AMD, Phenom II X4 955 when system is loaded. Phenom II X4 955, on the other hand, comsumes a little bit more power than both intel CPUs when system is idle. So AMD CPU does not run any more hotter than those from Intel, considering that AMD CPU is clocked way higher than those from Intel.

http://www.techspot.com/review/162-amd-phenom2-x4-955/page14.html

As for performance, Phenom II X4 955 is a tad below Core i7 920 and above the best Core 2 Quad, Q9650.

At newegg, Phenom II X4 955 costs $245, Core i7 920 costs $280, and Core 2 Quad Q9650 costs $325.

There are hidden costs when building Core i7 system. I know this because I just built one for myself. A decent and cheapest Core i7 motherboards will set you back about $225. They only go up from there. You will have to get DDR3 memory; no other choice. You will likely have to get new power suply; at least 500W power rating to be on the safe side, at least 600W if you plan on using decent graphic cards in SLI mode.

Motherboards for Core 2 Quad is about the same as AM3 motherboards; right around $150 on average for midrange ones. Just browse through newegg if you don't believe me.

As someone who had built systems for living as well as for hobby, I say go with AMD. Core 2 Quad is old news.

[andras artois]

Thanks, looking at AM3 motherboards they're £30-40 more than what I was going to spend on an Intel or AM2+ motherboard. Also all the AM3 compatible motherboards only accept DDR3 ram which is twice as expensive as DDR2.

It is definetly between either the Phenom I(not II) x4 2.6GHZ or the Core 2 Quad 2.33MHZ.

They are both near enough the same price and all the other bits and pieces (motherboards and ram) cost about the same as well.

The Phenom II's components are just to expensive.

[Mehall]

IIRC, you can put a Phenom II in an AMD2+ Mobo? (which also means DDR2)

that saves money, and it means you don't have to buy a new proc when you want to upgrade: just mobo and Ram :D

[Skripka]

IIRC, you can put a Phenom II in an AMD2+ Mobo? (which also means DDR2)

that saves money, and it means you don't have to buy a new proc when you want to upgrade: just mobo and Ram :D

The AM3 socket CPUs have both DDRII and DDR3 memory controllers, so AM3 socket CPUs can and do run fine in AM2+ socket mainbaords...that is what I'm doing on my box right now-a 3.65gHz quad core CPU (OC'd of course) and motherboard together cost $200, courtesy of NewEgg.

[Mehall]

Huzzah, I was right!!

Buy everything you were gonna, but switch the Phenom I era CPU for a Phenom II

[stchman]

I won't have the money to get a Phenom II. They're £30-40 out of my price range for a processor.

Intel Core 2 Quad 2.33MHZ VS AMD Phenom I 2.6MHZ. Which is going to offer the better performance. I will not be overclocking.

Thanks.

I have an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600. It is stock 2.4GHz and runs at 3.0GHz with ZERO modifications. All I did was raise the FSB in the BIOS.

[tom66]

i7's can be overclocked. I know someone who has one at 4.2 GHz with water cooling (but he runs it at 3.8 GHz normally).

[andras artois]

So a Phenom II will work fine with a AM2+ motherboard? If thats the case I'll just get the Phenom II.

Thanks.

[CP1256]

So a Phenom II will work fine with a AM2+ motherboard? If thats the case I'll just get the Phenom II.

Thanks.

Yes, AMD released the Phenom II for AM2+ and AM3.

[Dok]

Let me chime in:)

This is simply not true. If you read reviews on the internet you will know that Core 2 Quad consumes more power than even Core i7 which consumes more power than even the fastest CPU from AMD, Phenom II X4 955 when system is loaded. Phenom II X4 955, on the other hand, comsumes a little bit more power than both intel CPUs when system is idle. So AMD CPU does not run any more hotter than those from Intel, considering that AMD CPU is clocked way higher than those from Intel.

http://www.techspot.com/review/162-amd-phenom2-x4-955/page14.html

As for performance, Phenom II X4 955 is a tad below Core i7 920 and above the best Core 2 Quad, Q9650.

At newegg, Phenom II X4 955 costs $245, Core i7 920 costs $280, and Core 2 Quad Q9650 costs $325.

There are hidden costs when building Core i7 system. I know this because I just built one for myself. A decent and cheapest Core i7 motherboards will set you back about $225. They only go up from there. You will have to get DDR3 memory; no other choice. You will likely have to get new power suply; at least 500W power rating to be on the safe side, at least 600W if you plan on using decent graphic cards in SLI mode.

Motherboards for Core 2 Quad is about the same as AM3 motherboards; right around $150 on average for midrange ones. Just browse through newegg if you don't believe me.

As someone who had built systems for living as well as for hobby, I say go with AMD. Core 2 Quad is old news.

Agree completely!
Dok

[andras artois]

Right, thats sorted then. I'll be getting the Phenom II. I'm guessing it works with DDR2 Ram?

Thanks for all the replies!

[wispygalaxy]

Go for AMD. I have an Intel processor, and it's not that great for gaming. Things can get choppy during gameplay.

[Icehuck]

Go for AMD. I have an Intel processor, and it's not that great for gaming. Things can get choppy during gameplay.

I'm willing to be that it's your graphics card and not your processor.

[wolfen69]

i have the AMD 9950, and have to say i love it. it overclocks very well on stock cooling. i think you get more bang for the buck with AMD.

[MaxIBoy]

AMD products give you more bang for your buck. Getting an Intel chip will give you about 10% more performance for about 20% higher price.

Intel's gaming CPU is the Core i7. The Core 2 Quad processors aren't really intended for gaming so much.

[wispygalaxy]

I'm willing to be that it's your graphics card and not your processor.

Both my graphics card and processor are by Intel. The CPU goes up to nearly 100% when playing a game.

[Mehall]

Both my graphics card and processor are by Intel. The CPU goes up to nearly 100% when playing a game.

That's just Intel graphics, tbh.

Nothing to do with the CPU.

Reason why it goes to 100% CPU is because it's using CPU as much as it can to cope for the weaker GPU

[Icehuck]

Both my graphics card and processor are by Intel. The CPU goes up to nearly 100% when playing a game.

The CPU is at 100% because Intel video cards are not designed for graphic intensive applications. If you want gaming performance you need to get a better graphics card(nvidia or ati). This problem has nothing to do with your processor and everything to do with your GPU's lack of ability.

[racerraul]

This may be stating the obvious, but I will anyways since it hasn't been mentioned.

If you are going for a quad core, I am guessing you will be running a 64bit OS. If you are going to be using 32bit OS, go for a dual core and get the most Mhz you can afford.

Having said that, there aren't that many multi threaded apps. At least on the Windows side, that take advantage of using the cores simultaneously. If this isn't the case with Ubuntu, I am not aware of it, and I'll admit I haven't been around ubuntu long.

My point is that even if you are going to be running a 64bit OS, I would much rather have a faster dual core than a slower quad core. So if the quads have not reached the speeds of the fastests duals, I'd go for the faster dual core.

Because of costs, I opted for an AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ because I couldn't find a faster Dual Core at the time. I did consider the Intel E8500 because it had a clear advantage in cache (6mb total vs 2mb total on the AMD) but the costs of building that system where a bit higher and I decided to stay with the AMD.

Since support for 64bit is taking longer than I anticipated, I figured I may have to upgrade yet again with totally new hardware before 64bit and multi threading Apps are the market norm.

[wispygalaxy]

That's just Intel graphics, tbh.

Nothing to do with the CPU.

Reason why it goes to 100% CPU is because it's using CPU as much as it can to cope for the weaker GPU

Cool, thanks for letting me know. :) I thought it was mainly the CPU's fault lol.

[wispygalaxy]

The CPU is at 100% because Intel video cards are not designed for graphic intensive applications. If you want gaming performance you need to get a better graphics card(nvidia or ati). This problem has nothing to do with your processor and everything to do with your GPU's lack of ability.

I actually did some research on my graphics card a while back to see what the problem was, and that issue was mentioned. When I bought this laptop I didn't plan on playing games on it. I didn't even look closely at the specs; I just liked the way the keyboard looked..... :D

[Noah_Kapiolani]

My 2 cents:

It seems the general consensus is that if you have big bucks, then Intel and the i7 is the shiznet right now. Its the fastest thing on the block.

If you don't mind higher heat and power consumption then AMD may be the ticket as the best bang for the buck, however, most people here agree that a Phenom II is much preferable to the original Phenom do to some design flaw i became aware of when i was in the market one month ago.

The price at the time for Phenom II was very high so i went with the Intel 8400 Core Duo 3.0 Ghz. I was going to go for the sweet Quad, but then i kept reading about the fact that very few applications are multi-threaded and therefore would not be able to take advantage of 4 cores.

My humble suggestion depends on how much money you want to spend. I bought an Asus P45 board so that i can easily upgrade to the Quad at a later date. My board is NOT compatible with the i7, but i think i will be happy with 3.0 Ghz Core-Duo for now until the Quad scales to 4.0 Ghz and is at a reasonable price point (<200 bucks) and then i will probably go for it.

To be honest, I have a hard time using more than 60% of both cores no matter how hard i try with 9.04 64 bit Ubuntu and various apps like bit torrent

However, i DO notice that the hard drives seem to be the thing slowing things down yet now we read about major problems with Solid State Drives. Good luck.

[lavinog]

Even though there are many individual apps that are not multi-threaded. You can still take advantage of multi cores.
For one, all of the services running in the background wont interfere with your app. (like scrollkeeper)
Also you can run multiple instances of the same app. eg: I have to transcode videos for my media player. I have a script that transcodes 2 videos at the same time by running mencoder in the background.
You can also play two games at the same time (If you are that talented)

[achron]

With NewEgg, I recently built a new PC...
AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition
Gigabyte GA-MA790X-UD4P
2GBx2 G.skill mem kit (4GB total)
HIS Radeon 4850 video card
500GB WD HDD
Samsung DVD burner
500w PSU from BFG
(reused the old ATX case)

all for about $660

runs games quick and fast, runs a MySQL, Ruby, Rails, mongrel web stack quite well also...