AMD or Intel? Help me!

[iampriteshdesai]

I fryed my last PC and am planning to buy a new one.
Isn't AMD suposed to be bit slow as compared to Intel?
I'm planning to get something from C2D or Quad Core from AMD, if it is equal in terms of price with Intel C2D.
Which one should I buy?

I read this report which pitted Intel Core2Duo vs an AMD quad core and the C2D was faster.

Will I face any problems with AMD, I want to try out Hackintosh some day, but I've heard that they don't play well with AMD.
Also isn't Plymouth supposed to not work with AMD?
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2009/12/lucid-to-use-plymouth-non-intel-users.html


What should I do?
I'm feeling tempted to get an AMD Quad core if it is available for around the same price as C2D

[Frak]

I would go for AMD. If you plan to use Hackintosh, Intel all the way, save yourself headaches.

AMD gives you the best bang for your buck.

[Zzl1xndd]

This is a question I go over in my head everytime I build or buy. However the last time I went with Intel but that was because I got a good deal on a Q6600. I would go with the best value for the money at the time.

[handy]

Apart from the iMac, I always use AMD. When I was in business, I only ever built one Intel machine, due to the customer requesting it.

I made hundreds of machines after the the Athlon was released & AMD was all I ever used. Prior to that I was quite keen on Cyrix. ;)

If we don't keep AMD going, we are going to be stuck with an Intel monopoly. If it wasn't for AMD, we wouldn't have anywhere near as good CPU technology now, & the prices would be far more expensive.

Actually, Intel need AMD to exist, or they will have quite a bit of trouble with governments around the world due to the total monopoly that they would have.

VIA are too small to even count these days.

No matter what, next machine I build for myself will be AMD powered with an ATi GPU. :D

[Linuxforall]

If your budget allows, Intel, when it comes to performance, Intel has AMD whupped, the quad cores and i7 rule the roost. I have used dual Opeteron before and currently have a AMD Phenom-II machine as well as dual quad core Intel PC. The Intel is the champ, the new i7 is just too good. Even the good old over clock friendly QC6600 is an excellent buy for the money.

[ubername]

You may have seen this, but if not it might help in your comparisons:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

[handy]

You may have seen this, but if not it might help in your comparisons:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

Thanks for that link, I've bookmarked it for future reference.

An interesting thing I find, is that so many people think that they need the fastest CPU, GPU, RAM or whatever, when in truth, very few people do need to spend all that extra money to be out on the cutting edge.

Buying computer components that are a generation or two behind that expensive cutting edge, saves a lot of money, & usually still gives a computer (more appropriately a desktop) that will give many years of great service, with perhaps a GPU upgrade some years after the initial purchase.

I'm still using a box with an Athlon 64 3500+, & 2 GB of DDR RAM, with an AGP 7950GT/512MB graphics card. The only reason I would ever need to upgrade this machine, is because I'm stuck with AGP, & can't move on in the GPU world. It has all the CPU & RAM speed it needs to handle anything if it had a high quality graphics card in it.

I bought the motherboard/cpu/ram in 2004, & this thing still kicks RRR's. :)

[kilosan]

intel is faster but amd is cheaper, example from this chart is

at the same price, you can get:
amd phenom II x3 710 cpu passmark: 2,204
intel core2duo e7500 cpu passmark: 1,947
both of these cpu has the same price in my country, but because amd is cheaper i could get a triple core, while in intel only the core2duo.

even though intel core2duo are supposed matched with athlon X2 in terms of branding being the dual core division.

[iampriteshdesai]

If your budget allows, Intel, when it comes to performance, Intel has AMD whupped, the quad cores and i7 rule the roost. I have used dual Opeteron before and currently have a AMD Phenom-II machine as well as dual quad core Intel PC. The Intel is the champ, the new i7 is just too good. Even the good old over clock friendly QC6600 is an excellent buy for the money.

But suppose, if I can pick up an AMD Quad core for the price of C2D, which one should i prefer?

[iampriteshdesai]

intel is faster but amd is cheaper, example from this chart is

at the same price, you can get:
amd phenom II x3 710 cpu passmark: 2,204
intel core2duo e7500 cpu passmark: 1,947
both of these cpu has the same price in my country, but because amd is cheaper i could get a triple core, while in intel only the core2duo.

even though intel core2duo are supposed matched with athlon X2 in terms of branding being the dual core division.

Exactly, i was making the same point...
You live in India?

[Exodist]

I would go for AMD. If you plan to use Hackintosh, Intel all the way, save yourself headaches.

AMD gives you the best bang for your buck.


This is a question I go over in my head everytime I build or buy. However the last time I went with Intel but that was because I got a good deal on a Q6600. I would go with the best value for the money at the time.


Apart from the iMac, I always use AMD. When I was in business, I only ever built one Intel machine, due to the customer requesting it.

I made hundreds of machines after the the Athlon was released & AMD was all I ever used. Prior to that I was quite keen on Cyrix. ;)

If we don't keep AMD going, we are going to be stuck with an Intel monopoly. If it wasn't for AMD, we wouldn't have anywhere near as good CPU technology now, & the prices would be far more expensive.

Actually, Intel need AMD to exist, or they will have quite a bit of trouble with governments around the world due to the total monopoly that they would have.

VIA are too small to even count these days.

No matter what, next machine I build for myself will be AMD powered with an ATi GPU. :D

I agree with all 3 post hands down..

[handy]

If I was building now, I'd get an amd phenom II 965, (A$270- Oz) it will keep me going for many years, until the engineers make the slot my graphics card goes into redundant & I eventually have to upgrade my motherboard so I can upgrade my GPU.

Which is the position I'm in right now, but I'm going to wait until both USB3.0 & 6GB/s SATA becomes mainstream & cheaper. Which won't be very long, probably a couple of months & most motherboards will be supporting these technologies.

[iampriteshdesai]

If I was building now, I'd get an amd phenom II 965, (A$270- Oz) ......
Which is the position I'm in right now, but I'm going to wait until both USB3.0 & 6GB/s SATA becomes mainstream & cheaper. Which won't be very long, probably a couple of months & most motherboards will be supporting these technologies.

Even I'm waiting for Intel to announce the new i7s based on 32nm technology... it;ll happen after a week :popcorn:

[Dayofswords]

these arent home built but they are still going strong with intel at least

running right now a compaq something with a pentium 4, and 640mb of ram, had 128 just a week ago, true it cant run any hd stuff, games or anything, but it works for my basic needs


also i use a an old dell for a ftp/web/applcation/just-to-see-if-i-could IRC server
specs: 350mhz, 512mb ram, 7gb+150gb hdd's, a genuine "made for windows 98" sticker.

11 years old, running strong

[Xbehave]

A few notes:
1) Intel are evil so if two options are equal go with the AMD one
2) More GHZ != Faster, this was a lie spread by intel (see 1)
3) More Cores are often useless, unless your running benchmarks or a server, after your 3rd core i doubt there will be much for extra cores to do (i.e don't waste your money on an i7 for a desktop)

[Swagman]

A few notes:
1) Intel are evil so if two options are equal go with the AMD one
2) More GHZ != Faster, this was a lie spread by intel (see 1)
3) More Cores are often useless, unless your running benchmarks or a server, after your 3rd core i doubt there will be much for extra cores to do (i.e don't waste your money on an i7 for a desktop)

Unless, Like me You Crunch for Boincs.

[handy]

Even I'm waiting for Intel to announce the new i7s based on 32nm technology... it;ll happen after a week :popcorn:

The technology I'm waiting for is already out in the cheaper end of the market by both Asus & Gigabyte. By my waiting patiently for a couple of months, there will be less bugs, more options & most likely cheaper prices, all of which suits me fine, as I'm in no rush whatsoever at all... :)


these arent home built but they are still going strong with intel at least

running right now a compaq something with a pentium 4, and 640mb of ram, had 128 just a week ago, true it cant run any hd stuff, games or anything, but it works for my basic needs


also i use a an old dell for a ftp/web/applcation/just-to-see-if-i-could IRC server
specs: 350mhz, 512mb ram, 7gb+150gb hdd's, a genuine "made for windows 98" sticker.

11 years old, running strong

I have an old Dell Optiplex GX150 that cost me $5- at the rubbish dump; that has been running headless, 24/7 for a good year now, as my IPCop/Copfilter firewall/router/(plus some other services).

It's a PIII, with 8GB HDD, 256MB RAM, & costs me $55-/year to run. (I tested it's power usage)

[Xbehave]

Unless, Like me You Crunch for Boincs.
I'll let you off on 3, but 1 & 2 still apply, even for oure number crunching Ghz != more number crunching/second

[blueshiftoverwatch]

If I was building now, I'd get an amd phenom II 965,
That's what I put in my newly built computer. At the time my goal was to not spend more than $1000 on a system, including speakers and a monitor. I ended up buying the CPU about two weeks before the rest of the equipment. After it later became apparent that my system was actually going to end up costing more along the lines of $1400 I sort of kicked myself for ordering the Phenom II 965 when for about $80 more I could have gotten either the Core i7 860 or 920. Which are both faster on almost every benchmark.

If you want to compare CPU benchmarks, this (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/) is a good site.

[handy]

Thanks, but I really don't need the fastest. I do choose to support AMD for reasons that matter to me.

I want enough performance, not absolutely the best I can possibly buy. To me the GPU is where the action is. To my mind, once a CPU reaches a certain amount of power you are really just paying & playing the game of diminishing returns.

I choose not to support monopolies whenever I have the conscious choice. So I will go with AMD, even if I can get more grunt by paying a bit more from Intel.

It's my choice, & I'm all for freedom of choice. :)

[Zoot7]

AMD gives you the best bang for your buck.
+1 This is the exact reason I went for a Phenom II X4 955 instead of an i7 for my last build which I got at half the price of a Core i7 920 at the time.


Isn't AMD suposed to be bit slow as compared to Intel?
Depends, factor in the i7's and i5's and yes they are. Forget about them entirely and benchmarks will tell you the upper Phenom IIs are quicker than anything Intel offer.
The i7's and i5's are a bit uneccessary unless you really want the features they offer (which are pretty much redundant anyway).

[kevinatkins]

I've got an AMD-powered desktop (dual-core 64 bit) and an Intel-powered laptop (dual core 64 bit), with similar specs on paper.. And.. in daily use there's practically nothing to choose between them in terms of performance (although I recognise that there's a wealth of other factors which influence things, particularly when comparing desktops / laptops)

I've always tended to use AMD in the past - for sheer value (going way back to the old 486DX4, then K6... ah, life was slower then..) but I don't think we should all be bashing Intel quite so much - sure they've got a large slice of the processor / chipset market, but they're also strong Open-Source contributors..

[Uncle Spellbinder]

...i don't think we should all be bashing intel quite so much - sure they've got a large slice of the processor / chipset market, but they're also strong open-source contributors..

+1

[Martje_001]

sure they've got a large slice of the processor / chipset market, but they're also strong Open-Source contributors..
But so is AMD (http://bit.ly/7ACSg7) :).

[handy]

...sure they've got a large slice of the processor / chipset market, but they're also strong Open-Source contributors..

So are AMD, their input has helped tremendously in creating the changes that are allowing the open-source community to go down the path that is producing the best 2D & is starting to produce real 3D performance that will before too many more months go by be truly brilliant 3D performance, on the AMD/ATi GPUs.

I'm not personally bashing Intel, I'm just supporting the tiny opposition team, that needs our support for its survival, Intel's survival seems to be assured.

If Intel go down the tube, that means the entire world's economy as we know it, has crashed & burned beyond redemption & taken our so called civilisation with it.

[iampriteshdesai]

these arent home built but they are still going strong with intel at least

running right now a compaq something with a pentium 4, and 640mb of ram, had 128 just a week ago, true it cant run any hd stuff, games or anything, but it works for my basic needs


also i use a an old dell for a ftp/web/applcation/just-to-see-if-i-could IRC server
specs: 350mhz, 512mb ram, 7gb+150gb hdd's, a genuine "made for windows 98" sticker.

11 years old, running strong
HOLY COW!!!
I just discovered a neanderthal man!!



jokes aside, even i'm currently forced to use an ancient Celeron <gasp> machine. The thing has measly 1.4Ghz and has 256MB RAM.
It's made by IBM, however it supports my 24 inch monitor nicely. Doesn't splutter. However I don't get any video, VLC goes blank.
The worst thing is that i have to make a poster using Photoshop. This thing has PS 6 :P and I have to make most of it!
Ubuntu Karmic runs slowly on it. XP is doing fine.

The funny thing is that my last dead (RIP) PC spluttered once in a while even with Graphics card on Vista (nVidia Fx 5500). When I ramped it up to the max HD settings
Here is a hilarious video where the players became Jesus Christ on FIFA 09.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4bsEVDgvQQ


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/q4bsEVDgvQQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/q4bsEVDgvQQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[3rdalbum]

If you're looking at Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad versus AMD Phenom 2, then you should go with the Phenom 2 on an AM3 motherboard.

Phenom 2 is about halfway between the performance of Core 2 and Core i5, for about the same money as Core 2 depending on what CPU you choose.

The big advantage with AMD is that the platform is upgradable. Intel will never release another CPU that fits into the same motherboards as the Core 2; whereas AMD's next lot of CPUs will almost certainly go into current AM3 motherboards. Just like AM3 CPUs work in AM2+ motherboards, and AM2+ CPUs go into AM2 motherboards.

[x3roconf]

intel.

[Frak]

Unless, Like me You Crunch for Boincs.
I leave that job to my old PowerPC XServe cluster.

[alakazam]

:) For Hackintosh then I found intel on a p45 mobo with core2duo and a 8800gt card to work flawlessly and makes Windows 7 feel like old crap.

[mickie.kext]

No reson to go for intel. Core 2 Quad is cripled compared to Phenom II (no nested paging, cheaper models do not even have VT-x), and LGA1156 Core i7/i5 are teribly overpriced. If you need apsolutly screaming fast workstation go for Core i7 on LGA1366 or even two 6-Core Opterons with LGA1207. If you need desktop, pick some Phenom II, either X3 or X4. Some sugestion would be Phenoms 720BE, 955BE or 965BE depending how much money you want to spend. All those have unlocked multipliers.

[mamamia88]

if you are running ubuntu it really shouldn't matter much. ubuntu flies on my 3 year old laptop with a 1.8ghz dual core athlon.

[Gizenshya]

No reson to go for intel. Core 2 Quad is cripled compared to Phenom II (no nested paging, cheaper models do not even have VT-x), and LGA1156 Core i7/i5 are teribly overpriced. If you need apsolutly screaming fast workstation go for Core i7 on LGA1366 or even two 6-Core Opterons with LGA1207. If you need desktop, pick some Phenom II, either X3 or X4. Some sugestion would be Phenoms 720BE, 955BE or 965BE depending how much money you want to spend. All those have unlocked multipliers.

This.

Intel has the i7's, but they aren't really practical. They are way too expensive for what they bring to the table.

With the Phenom II's, AMD has acheived the CPU trifecta. 1. Better value per $, 2. Better performance period, 3. and you're supporting a company with strong ethics.

The BE after the numbers in the post above stand for "Black Edition," which means the CPU's are fully unlocked for benchmarking. The Intel's don't offer that in anything except their absurdly-overpriced "extreme" editions.

The only scenario to go Intel system is this: You have several thousand $$$ you just HAVE to get rid of, and you've been enjoying the last two weeks by going around telling children that Santa doesn't exist.

Aside from that, go AMD.

PS: And yeah, I'm bashing Intel. And I'm not ashamed to admit it-- they deserve it. Go to google and search the news for the last few weeks about Intel. Stop before you lose all faith in the corporate world, though. Then go buy AMD.

[MichealH]

I am using Ubuntu on a Intel Celeron (Most of the Celerons are x64 bit compatible) and I think that Intel is better than AMD we have 3 computers in our computer room and Mine is maybe the only 64 bit out of the 3 and the other laptop is using a AMD so is the main computer but they are not x64 compatible...(or at least the other laptop)

Its a bad day for AMD.

[Frak]

This.

Intel has the i7's, but they aren't really practical. They are way too expensive for what they bring to the table.

With the Phenom II's, AMD has acheived the CPU trifecta. 1. Better value per $, 2. Better performance period, 3. and you're supporting a company with strong ethics.

The BE after the numbers in the post above stand for "Black Edition," which means the CPU's are fully unlocked for benchmarking. The Intel's don't offer that in anything except their absurdly-overpriced "extreme" editions.

The only scenario to go Intel system is this: You have several thousand $$$ you just HAVE to get rid of, and you've been enjoying the last two weeks by going around telling children that Santa doesn't exist.

Aside from that, go AMD.

PS: And yeah, I'm bashing Intel. And I'm not ashamed to admit it-- they deserve it. Go to google and search the news for the last few weeks about Intel. Stop before you lose all faith in the corporate world, though. Then go buy AMD.
This.

[mmix]

go for AMD

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1567061/amd-brings-forward-core-chips

[MooPi]

I have two fairly new computer systems both AMD powered. I paid less than 900$ US dollars combined for both. The strongest of the two has the Athlon II X4 620 CPU. It is stock 2.6GHz but I was able to over clock significantly past this to 3.6GHz. It currently is operating at 3.25GHz for stability and accuracy of data. I'm stunned by the speed and power of this machine because I paid so little for this processor. In the US I paid 99$ dollars and it by a long shot the best cpu I've ever used. To give you an idea of how strong this processor is I recently ripped and encoded a DVD to Ogg Theroa format in less time than it takes to view the movie in real time. Fifty minutes from DVD to .ogv, BAMM. Yes I'm a AMD fanboy.