AMD vs. Intel (I Want Benchmarks!!!!)

Z

zacdl

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
2,012
Alrighty- I have always been an avid supporter of AMD.

But it does seem to be Intel as at least caught up, and a few here seem to think it is even passing Intel and performing better.

I'm looking at the X2 5000+ and E6300 or so ranges as far as processors go...

Which kicks more tail right now?

And which will perform better in the future? A certain person on here, who is to be unnamed, suggested that Intel is more future proof...
 
Nothing related to computers is future proof.

I don't have any benchies but I will say this if Overclocking go for the E6300 if not get the 5000+
 
I've an [email protected] ...very easy to acheive with a decent board.
Like mentioned, if you aren't overclocking...then go AMD, otherwise Intel is the way to go --for now.

I would recommend buying a good board...don't skimp out on it.
 
I don't buy a processor with overclocking in mind... Overclocking is just an "extra" you get with the processor, but I don't make my choices based on how fast it is overclocked, as well as the whole "results may vary" thing with overclocking....

The article linked to pretty much comes up with the same conclusion- if you aren't going high-end, AMD offers more competitive pricing, whereas Intel is more expensive for roughly the same speed. It does say that AMDs offer scant nothing on overclocking, wheras Intel has the potential.
I think it would be safe to say you are paying extra for an Intel just for the overclocking functionality of it.

Unless you can sway me differently- I don't plan on overclocking. The CPUs were designed to run a certain way, and that is how they should be run ;)

I am not a gamer, either. I may play the eventual game when I build a system fully capable of it, but it isn't the purpose of this box.

That said, does anyone else have any input?
 
Well what is the purpose of this box that you're planning to build?
 
zacdl said:
The CPUs were designed to run a certain way, and that is how they should be run ;)

I
Click to expand...

That's just illogical. It's like saying you'll never go faster than 45 mph in your car because that might be the speed limit on certain roads.
 
Technoob said:
That's just illogical. It's like saying you'll never go faster than 45 mph in your car because that might be the speed limit on certain roads.
Click to expand...
No, it's like saying your vehicle was designed to run at 80MPH, then stressing the engine out with modifications to make it go faster ;)



Danny Bui said:
Well what is the purpose of this box that you're planning to build?
Click to expand...

Pretty much day-to-day tasks.
I'm just sick of waiting on the computer ;)
More RAM and a faster hard drive would probably get my notebook up to speed- but by the time I drop that much money on my notebook- I'm already at half the price of a new computer (which is why I'm just building a whole new one).

DVD ripping on occasion as well as gaming- nothing daily and heavy though.
 
zacdl said:
No, it's like saying your vehicle was designed to run at 80MPH, then stressing the engine out with modifications to make it go faster ;)
Click to expand...

Naw, it's as if Ford released 7 cars. All of them had the ability to go 100 mph, but to tier the market, they put engine governors on them. The low end one artificially tops out at 45 mph. If you have a screwdriver, you can remove the governor very easily, and it lets you go the natural speed of the car.
 
OK, point taken, I guess.

What kind of speed increase is there OC vs stock on this range of processors I am looking at (both Intel and AMD)?
 
zacdl said:
OK, point taken, I guess.

What kind of speed increase is there OC vs stock on this range of processors I am looking at (both Intel and AMD)?
Click to expand...

Both are awesome overclockers. Just to ease your mind, I've never attempted to fool around with overclocking before getting my 6320, and I have it EASILY up to 2.5 from 1.86 stock speed, and could go higher. The performance gains on encoding and such are very noticeable, and it took about 10 min of tweaking and then stability checking it for a few hours.
 
Technoob said:
Naw, it's as if Ford released 7 cars. All of them had the ability to go 100 mph, but to tier the market, they put engine governors on them. The low end one artificially tops out at 45 mph. If you have a screwdriver, you can remove the governor very easily, and it lets you go the natural speed of the car.
Click to expand...

haha, nice analogy. Yes, these C2D chips were all built to run high speed.

Intel lowered the voltage on these chips to "beat" AMD in power consumption, while still outperforming them. So, if you want a "safe" OC, keep the voltage at stock, and bump the FSB slightly. They'll all do 333Mhz FSB on stock voltage, or might need SLIGHT voltage increase (as in, 0.01v, lol). That 0.01v will get you a lot further on a C2D than it would on an AMD chip.
 
Downsides to overclocking?

How does Vista play with it?
64 bit?

Drivers?
 
zacdl said:
Downsides to overclocking?

How does Vista play with it?
64 bit?

Drivers?
Click to expand...

Your mileage may vary. The simplest OC is setting the FSB to 333Mhz. All Core2Duos should be able to handle that speed with stock voltage and cooling. Thats an automatic 25% OC.

Vista, in general, sucks, imo. Vista plays fine with CPUs, lol.

Drivers are scarce for older parts, and arent very good for even new parts (creative sound cards, nvidia dx10 cards, etc).
 
IMHO the intel chip is by far a better chioce. AMD keeps chging chip sockets so if u need to upgrade u need a board also. the 775 socket will accommadate core2 and quad chips just by a mobo that will be combatible with quad. that way in a year if u need a faster machine just upgrade to a higher duo core or go quad. AMD is not the way to go for future upgrades.
by the way i am upgrading as we speak to a intel e6700, evga mobo and corsair ddr2 ram.
 
For you I think a P35-based board is the way to go, as it will OC well and support the newer 45nm chips, whenever they come out, and you likely do not care about SLI. They run about $130-150, I think. An E6420 is a good choice, or many people go with the E6600 for processor. Both will hit 3.0-3.2Ghz easily if you replace the stock HSF. $50 or so gets you a Scythe Ninja Plus HSF that will do very well.

For the record: I'm no Intel fanboy. I had an Athlon, Athlon XP, and single-core Athlon 64 before building the machine in my sig. All signs point to AMD slipping, at least for the moment. New chips in the next few months, sure, but until then I'd say go with Intel.
 
CHECKUP said:
IMHO the intel chip is by far a better chioce. AMD keeps chging chip sockets so if u need to upgrade u need a board also. the 775 socket will accommadate core2 and quad chips just by a mobo that will be combatible with quad. that way in a year if u need a faster machine just upgrade to a higher duo core or go quad. AMD is not the way to go for future upgrades.
by the way i am upgrading as we speak to a intel e6700, evga mobo and corsair ddr2 ram.
Click to expand...

I guess you haven't done a bit of reading on AMD have you? AMD has confirmed that its AM2+ and AM3 Socket CPUs will work on socket AM2. Thus, that means that AMD's new Phenom CPUs will work on socket AM2 motherboards. So AMD is still a viable solution for future upgrades.

Anyway, zacdl, if you can provide us a budget and what you need for that budget, then we can recommend either an AMD or Intel build.
 
Well, IMO the fact AMD is supporting AM2 on AM3 processors just shot down the only advantage Intel had ;)
 
zacdl said:
What is your opinions on the E3600?
Click to expand...

silent-circuit said:
Do you mean E6300?
Click to expand...

zacdl said:
I don't know how I could clarify that any... I mean the Intel E6300.
Click to expand...
LOL.

The original batches of E6300's were Conroe core CPUs with half of their cache disabled -- which meant they were monster overclockers. The newer versions seem to be Allendale based, and can still reach high OCs, just not as high as Conroes. My opinion of the E6300 is that for about the same amount of money ($2 more), you could get the E6320 which has 4MB cache instead of 2MB. With that said, the extra $20 for an E6420 would be a better choice, since it can hit 3.2Ghz with DDR2-800 and stock or near stock voltage. The lower multiplier of the E6320 would make it a bit harder to reach that speed on stock voltage.
 
I see why you were confused now :) sorry.

One of the [H] members here offered it for a little cheaper with a combo MB, so I was asking wether it would be a decent processor or not.

Otherwise, either way I'll end up having to go through Newegg- so the debate would still be open on what to get.
 
Went back over some of these links and found this graphic pretty interesting.

The E4400 and the E6320 are pretty equal on performance- the E6320 just is more expensive. As well as for the 3800+ and 4000+.

I guess right now it's a matter of price vs. performance- and I just don't know where to turn ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top