PDA

View Full Version : AMD or Intel? I want a new CPU



m.musashi
September 12th, 2006, 04:50 AM
I built a new computer about 7 months ago and at that time the AMD Athlon 64 3700 was the best CPU I could afford. Now the dual core 4800 that was selling for a grand goes for less than $300. However, the new Intel core 2 duo is currently the best (so they say) and isn't much more. Of course I have a 939 mobo and memory so a 4800 athlon would be a simple upgrade.

On the other hand, if the athlons are on their way out, is this a waste of good money? For another $300 or so I could get a new Intel, new mobo and new memory. Of course I don't have $600 to invest right now but maybe I should wait. In a few months prices may come down a bit and my saving up a bit. In any case, I really want a dual core.

Any thoughts?

GuitarHero
September 12th, 2006, 05:26 AM
I would wait it out. The processor industry is in a whirl of change right now. Core 2 Duo already has a planned replacement with the newly announced Quadro chips coming from intel. AMD has more stuff coming also. Wait as long as you can.

Skia_42
September 12th, 2006, 06:46 AM
There is always something new about to come out in the computer market, just bear that in mind. I agree though that the best time to buy ships is right after the release of a new technology when the prices of the old chips drop.

gnomeuser
September 12th, 2006, 07:33 AM
Intel does seem to be gaining the upperhand in terms of performance per watt. Also Intel announced extensive support for Linux for they products, video, cpu, wifi, etc.

I would get Intel just to support that effort.

slimdog360
September 12th, 2006, 07:33 AM
There was recently a price drop and I think they drop their prices every 6-8 months so you might be waiting a while. Of course note that I qualified that with the words 'I think'. So I could be wrong.
In any case Id wait it out for a few months and see what lays upon the horizon.

croak77
September 12th, 2006, 07:53 AM
Why buy a new CPU? I have an Athlon XP 2500 Barton and I have no plans on upgrading for a couple more years at least. You don't need the latest and greatest to run GNU/Linux. That's one of its strengths.

m.musashi
September 13th, 2006, 12:09 AM
Why buy a new CPU? I have an Athlon XP 2500 Barton and I have no plans on upgrading for a couple more years at least. You don't need the latest and greatest to run GNU/Linux. That's one of its strengths.

That's a very good question. I guess it just seemed like a good time to take advantage of the price drops and add some speed. Then I started to think it would be kind of waste when I could be looking at the successor to the x2 or an intel. I do kind of want a dual core. It's kind of annoying that anytime I'm burning a dvd (which I pretty much have to do in windows) my computer is almost useless. I've played with some dual core and they are too cool.

Thanks for all the feedback. Some good advice and I think I'll keep playing the waiting game until I see something I just can't pass up or the 939 cpus become unavailable and I have to look at intel or am2 or whatever is next.

mips
September 13th, 2006, 06:21 PM
That's a very good question. I guess it just seemed like a good time to take advantage of the price drops and add some speed. Then I started to think it would be kind of waste when I could be looking at the successor to the x2 or an intel. I do kind of want a dual core. It's kind of annoying that anytime I'm burning a dvd (which I pretty much have to do in windows) my computer is almost useless. I've played with some dual core and they are too cool.

Thanks for all the feedback. Some good advice and I think I'll keep playing the waiting game until I see something I just can't pass up or the 939 cpus become unavailable and I have to look at intel or am2 or whatever is next.

If you are going to play the waiting game you are going to wait for ever as there is always going to be a newer & better product just around the corner.

I'm in the same boat as you, got a AMD64 3200+ and would like to go dual. Why get new MB, RAM & CPU just to gain a bit of perfomance over dual core AMD X2. It does NOT make any financial sense. In 6-12 months time AMD is probably gonna pull a rabbit out of the hat and then you wanna switch again.

If I was in your shoes I would just get a AMD64 X2 cpu and be done with it and in the process save yourself a few $$$.

jdong
September 13th, 2006, 09:20 PM
The Intel Core 2's do provide best price:performance and performance:watt ratios for now, but their prices are still a bit high.

From the computing uses you describe, it doesn't sound like you need two powerful cores like what even the lowest core 2 duo provides -- it just sounds like you need that 2nd core for improved multitasking. In that case, I think the AMD X2's would be in your favor. For improved desktop performance, more RAM and better hard disks is always a better investment than a more powerful CPU, so consider diverting some money towards that.

OTOH, if you do any media encoding or compiling, or other processor-intensive work, you might actually want to consider the Core 2 Duo investment.... these processors rock for that kind of work.

chaosgeisterchen
September 13th, 2006, 10:24 PM
I would wait it out. The processor industry is in a whirl of change right now. Core 2 Duo already has a planned replacement with the newly announced Quadro chips coming from intel. AMD has more stuff coming also. Wait as long as you can.

I can truly second that. Wait as long as you can, 2007q2 will be very good for buying a processor, cheap quadro-Intels will be the best choice then I assume.

4 times ~2Gigahertz, overclockable up to ~3.2 GHz without any problem. All for under 200 dollar. I will wait for DDR3 too.

If you buy now, go for the cheapest Core2Duo(E6300) - you can overclock it up to 3.67 GHz (from 1.86 GHz) without any problems and proper air cooling (under 50 dollars) - all that would be some 250 dollars or so I think. To complete the performance bullet, choose PC8200-RAM (1066 MHz) and a HDD with at least 10k rpm. You would not like a bottleneck within your system. A 2x3500 MHZ processor can do simply not what it's able to with a lousy RAM assortment or a lousy HDD.

so much for that.

jdong
September 13th, 2006, 10:26 PM
where are you getting your prices from? That sounds too good to be true for a quad-core!

chaosgeisterchen
September 13th, 2006, 10:29 PM
I am just assuming! the cheapest Core2Duo is now ~170 Euro in Germany, which is slightly under 200 dollar. USA is cheaper indeed.

So I will think that Intel Quadro in the cheapest version will be at that price level some 2 to 3 months after inital release (which is scheduled in December 06).

jdong
September 13th, 2006, 10:43 PM
Well, I sure hope that's the case, but I don't think so... I think the Core 2 Quadro will have its own pricing class as a quad-core processor.

I still think the Core 3 line will have both Duos and Quadros, and I expect the Quadros would always be priced above the Duos.

At least for Core 2, it seems like the Quadro will be rebranded as the Extreme Edition to replace the Conroe Extremes, which would lead me to beleve it's around the $1000USD mark.

drucer
September 13th, 2006, 10:46 PM
Get Intel core2duo! Two reasons:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/

http://www.intellinuxgraphics.org/

So, as you can see, Intel has released OPEN SOURCE Linux drivers for their on board graphics chips! These on board graphics chips are found on some core2duo motherboards. These gfx chips are very fast and they offer some new features never heard before! In fact, Intel now provides the fastest 3D gfx Linux drivers.

Also, it is a huge benefit to have open source drivers - you can bet these drivers will be fully optimised when the community starts making them better and it should be made clear that your system will be even more stable if you don't have to use closed source binary drivers.

I would estimate if you build your next computer now you can get along with it for the next 4-5 years.

jdong
September 13th, 2006, 10:48 PM
Yes, we all love the GMA950's, but let's not mislead people on its performance. While it's *PLENTY* fast for anything I'd do, even moderate gamers would consider the GMA950 to be a slow/underpowered chip.

chaosgeisterchen
September 13th, 2006, 10:53 PM
Uh oh... I thought the quadros will fully replace the then 'outdated' dual cores?

Or am I thinking the wrong way round?

btw: GMA950 is great with AIGLX right now :)

onioneater36
September 13th, 2006, 10:53 PM
You could get an X2 4200+ for about $180 now. That's alot of processor compatible with your socket 939 mobo for not a lot of money. I have an X2 4200+ and absolutely love it. Burning DVD's doesn't even make the PC break a sweat.

drucer
September 13th, 2006, 10:53 PM
Check the facts here:

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/index.htm

jdong
September 13th, 2006, 10:57 PM
Drucer,

that's all very nice marketing from Intel, but the sad truth is look at any independent benchmark (the macbook has caused a lot of them to happen), the GMA950 trails far behind dedicated graphics cards. I'd venture to say it matches the FX5200's performance, and that's about it.


And as far as burning a DVD causing your system to choke, I highly suggest you take a look into your system's configuration. I do that on a Celeron M and the system multitasks fine....

chaosgeisterchen
September 13th, 2006, 11:01 PM
You could get an X2 4200+ for about $180 now. That's alot of processor compatible with your socket 939 mobo for not a lot of money. I have an X2 4200+ and absolutely love it. Burning DVD's doesn't even make the PC break a sweat.

FX62 is no match for E6300. And it's priced the same as a 4200+...

go for the Intel I'd recommend.

drucer
September 13th, 2006, 11:06 PM
Oops, we were talking about the old GMA950. The gfx chip that comes with these new core2duo motherboards is called gma3000.

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/g965/index.htm

It says gma3000 supports the highest levels of the Microsoft Vista Aero experience. If that is true I couldn't imagine it being too bad for your Linux desktop.

Anybody find any benchmark tests of this gma3000 chip?? I tried to find some, but I couldn't.

chaosgeisterchen
September 13th, 2006, 11:11 PM
New Mainboards with Intel integrated grahices?!

whoa! I'll never ever again use ATI/nVida then.

drucer
September 13th, 2006, 11:13 PM
New Mainboards with Intel integrated grahices?!

Yes, with _open source_ Linux drivers!

chaosgeisterchen
September 13th, 2006, 11:17 PM
You're giving me endorphines late at night =)

I'm LOVING the way my notebook is performing with Intel Centrino Core Duo 1.86GHz and GMA950. Whereas my AMD machine is kinda disappointing me concerning performance (okay, a Sempron 64 3300+ is _no_ comparison).

I am thriving myself to wanting to have some fresh hardware soon ;)

drucer
September 13th, 2006, 11:24 PM
I am thriving myself to wanting to have some fresh hardware soon ;)

Hehe, me too :)

chaosgeisterchen
September 13th, 2006, 11:27 PM
I'm referring to my first posting in this thread.. if you have the patience we'd be better off waiting for these ~1,8 gig quadro chips.

drucer
September 13th, 2006, 11:29 PM
I'm referring to my first posting in this thread.. if you have the patience we'd be better off waiting for these ~1,8 gig quadro chips.

Yes, you're probably right. These quadro chips will be released before the end of the year, right?

chaosgeisterchen
September 13th, 2006, 11:30 PM
I posted that already. AFAIK they are scheduled for December 2006.

In 2007q1 their price will certainly drop significantly.

daniel of sarnia
September 13th, 2006, 11:46 PM
I posted that already. AFAIK they are scheduled for December 2006.

In 2007q1 their price will certainly drop significantly.

Then maybe they'll have 8 cores in a mac pro. That's what I'm saving for. who needs food anyways

chaosgeisterchen
September 13th, 2006, 11:49 PM
Show me a single app simultaneously accessing all 8 cores to get full power out of them ;)

jdong
September 14th, 2006, 12:18 AM
Show me a single app simultaneously accessing all 8 cores to get full power out of them ;)

ubuntuforums.org.... and maybe another 8 or 16 cores if we really want it to stop lagging ;)


And the GMA3000 definitely looks worthy! For me, the GMA950 is plenty of desktop / media center graphics power, so the GMA3000 can only bridge the gap. I'm still doubtful that it'd impress any gamers though :(

chaosgeisterchen
September 14th, 2006, 06:18 AM
Do we need to impress gamers?

m.musashi
September 14th, 2006, 06:37 AM
If you are going to play the waiting game you are going to wait for ever as there is always going to be a newer & better product just around the corner.

I'm in the same boat as you, got a AMD64 3200+ and would like to go dual. Why get new MB, RAM & CPU just to gain a bit of perfomance over dual core AMD X2. It does NOT make any financial sense. In 6-12 months time AMD is probably gonna pull a rabbit out of the hat and then you wanna switch again.

If I was in your shoes I would just get a AMD64 X2 cpu and be done with it and in the process save yourself a few $$$.


You could get an X2 4200+ for about $180 now. That's alot of processor compatible with your socket 939 mobo for not a lot of money. I have an X2 4200+ and absolutely love it. Burning DVD's doesn't even make the PC break a sweat.
Thanks guys. That is kind of what I've been leaning towards. Dropping in a new cpu and going is certainly the simplest route. Although I think I'd rather have one of the core 2s. But since I'd need a new mobo and memory it doesn't seem the best move at the moment. Maybe I'll build another one in 6-12 months (and give this one to the kids) and by then the core 2 prices will probably be down and something new might have my interest.


Drucer, And as far as burning a DVD causing your system to choke, I highly suggest you take a look into your system's configuration. I do that on a Celeron M and the system multitasks fine....
Perhaps choke is a bit of an exageration, but recoding a dvd with nero does use a good percentage of the cpu and opening a new app and such gets a bit slow. I did this on a core duo laptop and according to the task manager, the cpu never went above 50% (I assume because one core was doing the work) and that left an entire core to do everything else I wanted. It also was moving at 300+ fps on that one core. My 3700+ usually sits closer to 200 and I can't get much else done. Mind you, this is during the recode process. The actual burning uses only 3-5%.

spockrock
September 14th, 2006, 06:42 AM
Ummm I would also say get the amd x2 because if you went intel then you would have to get new mobo and ram, the X2 upgrade is alot simpler and cheaper.

Besides as people pointed out the intel quad cores are on the horizon, and amd has K8L (thier quad cores) in 2007 which would may use ddr3. I say wait for a bit I have a 3800+@2.4Ghz and I dont have a problem running anything.

maniacmusician
September 14th, 2006, 01:47 PM
Do we need to impress gamers?
why not? we should have high end graphics too. Not all linux users are gamers -- but a lot of us are. It seems illogical not to impress gamers.

jdong
September 14th, 2006, 01:49 PM
Do we need to impress gamers?
Sometimes, yes... sometimes, no. For me, the GMA950 has impressed me enough. But my friends still laugh it off and buy their NVidias/ATI's.

chaosgeisterchen
September 14th, 2006, 03:03 PM
Firstly we need open source graphics drivers I assume.

They make it easer for us get the best out of our boards. What is a brand-new ATI worth if the driver is lousy?

<- likes integrated solutions. Especially if they have a low energy consumption.

BTW: Does anybody know whether the new C2Ds support Speedstepping just like AMD X2 does?

m.musashi
September 14th, 2006, 07:18 PM
I'm not out to impress anyone (although I enjoy having a better computer than friends since they have better TVs than me). I think I will pick up one of the X2s. The only question is which one.

Newegg has:
4800+ for $289
4600+ for $242
4400+ for $239 (and $245 - what's up with that?)
4200+ for $187
3800+ for $152

Cheaper is better but one of these offers a maximum performance to price ratio and I'm not sure which. I'm leaning towards the 4800 since it the top in this line and the price has come way down. A 4400 saves me a bit and still gives me the 2mb cache. But it's only a few dollars less than the 4600 - more GHz but less casche. What's the most important element?

Thanks again for all the good advice.

mips
September 14th, 2006, 08:09 PM
I would say cache is more important than 0.2GHz

Just get the 4800+ and be done with it ;)

chaosgeisterchen
September 14th, 2006, 09:07 PM
Mind cache before mere hertz. Get the 4800+ if you deceide for AMD finally :)

Have fun with it!

m.musashi
September 14th, 2006, 09:58 PM
I would say cache is more important than 0.2GHz

Just get the 4800+ and be done with it ;)

Yeah, that's kind of been my feeling. I guess I'm just a little hesitant to drop $300 knowing that the Core 2 is out there. However, I doubt I'll feel bad about having a 4800. At least I didn't drop $1000 a few months ago :).

jdong
September 14th, 2006, 10:09 PM
idn about you, but I would feel a deep stabbing pain in my chest and blood gushing out if I spent that much money upgrading my sentenced-to-death 939.... If I had a single-core 939 (which I do), I would just find the cheapest X2 for it and stick it in, and save money towards a Core 2 in the imminent future.

jdong
September 14th, 2006, 10:35 PM
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16876503

Speaking of that, start drooling now :)

m.musashi
September 15th, 2006, 01:51 AM
idn about you, but I would feel a deep stabbing pain in my chest and blood gushing out if I spent that much money upgrading my sentenced-to-death 939.... If I had a single-core 939 (which I do), I would just find the cheapest X2 for it and stick it in, and save money towards a Core 2 in the imminent future.
Well, that's kind of why I asked the question in the first place. I'm just not convinced that I want to spend $300 on a cpu when the Core 2 can be had for similar. However, I'd really like to get a dual core. Maybe I should consider a 4200 or 4400 but they aren't that much cheaper and I'd kind of like to keep the larger cache. Anyway, thanks for helping me work through this. Oh to be rich and impulsive.


http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16876503

Speaking of that, start drooling now :)

Can you provide some of the relevant content of that link. It seems I need to be a member before I can view.

SoundMachine
September 15th, 2006, 01:57 AM
If it will fit and work, get a tulatim, if you are up for a new motherboard, core duo is the shiznit right now, AMD will eventually respond but who has the time, besides you'd need a new MB anywayz.

jdong
September 15th, 2006, 02:01 AM
Can you provide some of the relevant content of that link. It seems I need to be a member before I can view.
Oh wow, silly me, totally forgot about that. Brain still half offline after putting up the stickies and announcements this afternoon :)


Allow me to quote it:



http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&fb=1&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=dim92min&s=bsd
make sure E-Value Code is <B>6W300-dim92min</B>, if it's anything else, this system will cost more and you won't have some upgrade/downgrade options.
from default config change to
Intel&reg; Core™2 Duo Processor E6300 (1.86GHz, 1066 FSB) [add $50]
FREE UPGRADE! 1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz- 2DIMMs add $0
FREE Upgrade! Single Drive: 48x CD-RW / DVD-ROM Combo Drive add $0
Video Ready w/o Monitor [subtract $200]

and you end up with $529+ free shipping
all that needs to be upgraded is better video card, larger hd and more mem. all of those are cheaper to get elsewhere.
if you are smooth enough ;) you can convince sales rep to sell you this system w/o mem, hd and video for even less money.


Credits to DSLReports user MxxCon (http://www.dslreports.com/profile/118623)

m.musashi
September 16th, 2006, 04:55 AM
That's a pretty good deal. Of course it would be a 100 bucks cheaper if you didn't have to pay for xp. Still, for a couple hundred more than the cpu I'm eyeing, I could get a whole new computer. Kind of puts things in perspective. Thanks.

Mirrorball
September 16th, 2006, 06:15 AM
Which of these do you think is faster?
- CORE 2 DUO E6400 2,13GHZ/1066MHZ/2MB 775
- AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ / 2x1MB / 2.4Ghz (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/)

chaosgeisterchen
September 16th, 2006, 09:45 AM
The E6300 of course :)

jdong
September 16th, 2006, 02:42 PM
Which of these do you think is faster?
- CORE 2 DUO E6400 2,13GHZ/1066MHZ/2MB 775
- AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ / 2x1MB / 2.4Ghz (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/)

Holy crap of course the E6400.... Heck even the E6300 is faster :)