Vanity - Better Choice - Intel or AMD?

jonno ^ | 11-28-06 | Jonno

[jonno]

It's been a long, long time, but I'm back in the market for a new PC. The last time I built a machine (10 years ago 8^) I used an AMD processor, but there were always "issues".

I've been looking over at the Dell site, and they seem to have some very good deals. What is interesting is that the AMD-based machines are a good deal cheaper - and what about that Celeron?

So today I'm looking to tap into the deep pool of Freeper knowledge.

[steveegg]

Not a bad write-up. A bit of quibble with a point or two however:

- The AMD architecture is more efficient. It can perform more work with each tick of its clock, with less power and less heat than the Intel architecture. Intel largely overcomes this difference with a higher clock speed (GHz), using more electricity and generating more heat.

Intel has solved the efficiency problem with the Core 2s, (well, at least the Duos; the first Quadros are still quite power-intensive). They're running as cool or cooler as the Athlon x2s, with less of a power draw.

- AMD systems have been upgradeable through more new processors without the need for a new motherboard.

This had been true for a long time. However, AMD has been changing socket design as often as Intel lately (they're on their third socket for the Athlon 64 family as they finally adopted DDR2), and if I'm reading the presses right, they will have another one when they come out with their Core 2 "killer".

Intel is also closing quite a bit on the price/performance as well. They're not quite there yet though.

[jonno]

As always here at FR - ya ask for a drink of water and you're given a fire hose 8^)

Now I've got something to go on...

Thanks all!

[Echo Talon]

Oh goodie, I was begining to wonder if you just started a flame war and left the building... you terrorist! ;)

[DesScorp]

"Right now Intel, hands down. Core2Duo or Core2Quad(QX6700)"

Not the desktop. All these people running out buying the Core Duo line for the desktop thinking they're getting top performance are misinformed...the Core series was designed mainly for laptops, and are designed to get the maximum performance per watt. AMD's Athlon X2 dual core CPU's are better for desktop performance by far. Intel has hitched it's future to mobile computing. While clock speed isn't the pure indicator of performance it once was for Intel CPUs, it still matters in X86, and your Core CPU's are between 1.6 and 2.1 ghz. They're not meant for all out processing muscle, they're all about efficiency.

[DesScorp]

"Even Apple has gone Intel!"

Apple went Intel because Steve Jobs is a label whore, and AMD is percieved to be the "bargain" CPU, which doesn't mesh with Apple's upscale image.

[ekwd]

For 99+% of non-gaming computer users, today's mid range chips have more than enough processing power. I wanted a bigger, brighter screen, a faster hard drive, and more RAM on a laptop and getting an one with an AMD processor was less painful to my budget. Of course, applying Murphy's Law to computing, if I had only waited, I might have gotten more processing power for my money. From what I have seen, the power supply is as important as any other component. The 350W power supply on my desktop is sufficient only for one of the graphics cards that share system RAM and I am reluctant to add a second hard drive without putting my system in danger of overheating.

[Nancee]

"As always here at FR - ya ask for a drink of water and you're given a fire hose..."

:-)

Nancee

[Echo Talon]

yea... 350watts is scraping the barrel.. might want to check newegg... ;) OR one of the other sites... just check resellerratings.com before yo go all crazy... I recomend newegg because i know they are good.

[Echo Talon]

Not the desktop. All these people running out buying the Core Duo line for the desktop thinking they're getting top performance are misinformed...the Core series was designed mainly for laptops, and are designed to get the maximum performance per watt. AMD's Athlon X2 dual core CPU's are better for desktop performance by far. Intel has hitched it's future to mobile computing. While clock speed isn't the pure indicator of performance it once was for Intel CPUs, it still matters in X86, and your Core CPU's are between 1.6 and 2.1 ghz. They're not meant for all out processing muscle, they're all about efficiency.

Please read this, ALL of it and look at the benchmark charts

sheesh...

[Andonius_99]

Glad to help!

[Echo Talon]

Compared to AMD's Athlon 64 X2 the situation gets a lot more competitive, but AMD still doesn't stand a chance. The Core 2 Extreme X6800, Core 2 Duo E6700 and E6600 were pretty consistently in the top 3 or 4 spots in each benchmark, with the E6600 offering better performance than AMD's FX-62 flagship in the vast majority of benchmarks. Another way of looking at it is that Intel's Core 2 Duo E6600 is effectively a $316 FX-62, which doesn't sound bad at all.

The FX 62 is currently $695!!! the Core2Duo E6600 is $312 both prices from newegg.com

[TChris]

read some reviews of the core2duo's... the heat issue is gone... the C2D's are NOT expensive for the speed The $316 Intel E6600 is Faster than AMD's $600+ FX 62

Yes, but those numbers are in the context of multi-threaded benchmark apps and games, mostly. In the average-consumer world of single-threaded apps--Internet browsing and email--Intel's performance advantage vanishes, AFAICT. A $100 single-core Athlon 64 3500+ beats a $100 Pentium D 820 all day long in single-threaded applications, and keeps up pretty well with the multi-threaded.

You're right about the heat issue, for now. Intel's 65nm process has bought it a big lead there for a while. As for the actual architecture efficiency, I'd still guess they're much closer.

As always, the final answer depends on how the machine will be used. And other components will nearly always make a bigger difference than the CPU.

[TChris]

Intel has solved the efficiency problem with the Core 2s...

Well... maybe. The bulk of their solution is the 65nm process. Anyone can make a CPU cooler by shrinking it. :-)

This had been true for a long time. However, AMD has been changing socket design as often as Intel lately...

Yeah, I'm hoping they settle down again soon. I still think that's a more important thing for AMD than Intel. I may be wrong. (It does happen ;-) )

No question that Intel has passed AMD and given them another dose of incentive. But the Athlon architecture has much of the Digital Alpha magic sprinkled through it, so I'm still a believer that it has more tricks up its sleeve yet. 2007 may be a challenge for us AMD fans. :-/

[jonno]

No - sorry, I rushed off to a meeting right after posting, and was finally able to get "back to real business".
8^)

Thanks again!

[steveegg]

From what I have seen, the power supply is as important as any other component.

Ring-a-ding-ding. Even though the processor is getting more efficient, the rest of the system, especially the graphics cards, are getting more power-hungry.

[Andonius_99]

good to know, thanks! Maybe when I build my next machine, I'll try an Intel.

[Echo Talon]

Yes, but those numbers are in the context of multi-threaded benchmark apps and games, mostly.

Dude please read the article and look at the sysmark scores...

[Echo Talon]

no problem, Anandtech and Hardocp are a great resource for benchmarks and info.

[TChris]

Dude please read the article and look at the sysmark scores...

Isn't BapCo (SysMark) still located in Intel's building? ;-)

These tests show the E6600 to be a reasonable match to the X2 5000+, where you only mentioned the FX-62, and they're both about $320. At the high end, the E6700 goes for about $530, and the FX-62 for about $675. So the price disparity is mostly at the highest end.

So, yes, the FX line appears to be overpriced for what you get. But that's just the very top. When you get into the regular X2 line and below, the price/performance ratio matches up much better. And single-threaded performance of the Athlons is stomping the Pentiums, while showing quite respectably against the pricier Core2's.

For the price of the cheapest Core2 (E6300) at about $185, you can get an X2 4200+. It isn't embarrassed by the Core2 in home-user applications. And everything below the E6300's price is still owned by AMD.

I stand by my original claim, that for all but the high end, AMD is still the best bang-for-the-buck.

[ThePythonicCow]

Depending on what you're doing. Perhaps Intel, or AMD, or perhaps it doesn't matter.

For processing power, the more expensive Intel's have gone a bit ahead of the AMD's again. For memory bandwidth, the AMD's with their HyperChannel are still in the lead. For gaming, not many games use the Dual core, so that's not a big deal. For simultaneous use of various desktop applications (or running aggressive malware detection in the background) the dual core's are nice. For heat (staying cool) the Intel's are competitive again, having been much hotter running than the AMD's for a couple of years.

For compatibility, it totally doesn't matter. I've got about 10 computers in my extended family that I keep up and running. I'd guess they are half AMD and half Intel, and I honestly can't remember which is which without looking at some System Configuration screen to tell me.

I tend to be partial to AMD because I tend to prefer the underdog, especially when the overdog runs with a heavy hand, as Intel does. But that's not a technical basis for deciding.

The benchmarks showing Intel totally dominating AMD are presented by Intel friendly commentators, picking what highlights Intel well. One can make just about as good a case for AMD, especially if one compares systems with equal cost CPUs or equal power requirements.

Frankly, it doesn't matter that much for must uses.