Is the DARKSIDE that much better?

[P074RB34R]

Im sorry, I've been an AMD Fanboy since the Cyrix 166+. but when I jumped up to the Intel 200 it was like I just got a whole new machine... That intel 200 and 450 were the last Intels I have ever owned... all others have been AMD Ala 600 - 800 - 1.4 - 1.8 - 2500+ - 3500+ - and now an FX-60.
Im thinking I might wanna join the DARKSIDE again. at least get my feet wet with it. All the E6600 and Q6600 on the For Sale pages go within a day of them being on the boards... Newegg has the E6600 for 230.99 and the Q6600 for 249.99 both retail. or 234.99 for OEM Q6600...
I just need a board that can handle 2 Raptors in a raid, and x4 300Gigs in a Raid. just got a EVGA 9600GT SSC, PC P&C SLI Supply in an Antec 900. I'm not that big into overclocking, but have all the parts for watercooling. Apogee GT, Swiftech Pump, 1/2 Tygon and an Icebox Rad. 5 1/4 Res. with a Swiftech MCW30 cooler on the way.
If Im going to do it. I want Quad core... what Model is best Price - Performance?
Motherboard? Am tired of ASUS... fast as a chettah for a year or two and then dead. needing dual Raid. and would like SLI. what do you think of EVGA?
Memory... I want 4 gigs, but Who's? OCZ, Crucial, Corsair, Patriot, back in the day the best was Crucial...
I work for a living, but the sky is not the limit! Im guessing on spending around 500$ or 600$ for a MB - CPU - Mem that works great! if I get it for a decent price, Ill probably get another 9600 SSC.

 

[toddw]

No, it isn't.

For me, I just got the itch to do a complete rebuild after 2 years. Mine was a choice of want not need.

If like me you just want the joy of new toys, then do it. If money is an issue, put the 8800 Ultra in the box with the FX-60 and call it a day. Seriously, that is not a bad setup you got there and other than you-know-what it can play anything out there.

IMO the best bang for the buck in gaming is dual 9600GT's. Throw them in your FX60 box, game at 1600x1200, and call it a day. Or just use your 8800 Ultra and call it a day, either way.

Also, IMO, the 45nm intel chips are starting to get in better supply... if you're going to do it, get one of those.

 

[Dan_D]

Yes. It is THAT much better. Better motherboards, better overclocking, better performance clock for clock, comparable heat and typically slightly less power draw. (Comparing Phenom to Core 2 Quad anyway.)

FSB overclocking with Phenom is almost worthless and the Black Edition's don't have that high a ceiling. You are also almost limited to Crossfire compatible motherboards alone if you are looking for Phenom. There are very few SLI capable Phenom compatible boards out there and the ones that are out there are built on extremely old chipsets.

If you do go with an Intel system the Core 2 Quad Q6600 is a deal that's hard to beat. $200 and with some overclocking it beats anything AMD has. I'd also recommend sticking with Intel chipset based boards.

 

[tenub]

I just switched to the dark side as well.

Still waiting on my E8400, DFI P35-T2RS, and RAM.

 

[UtopiA]

I had an FX-62 at 2.8 GHz for a year and a half.
Switched to Q6600 G0 in December. I don't notice any difference. I'm a heavy gamer, I don't encode, and I do a lot of basic windows apps (Image editing, some light video encoding, HD watching, etc). Using the settings shown in my sig.

The only game where I saw a noticable improvement was Crysis, of only a few fps.

Old system 3dmark06 score: 10,100
Current system 3dmark06 score: 14,300

 

[Dan_D]

I had an FX-62 at 2.8 GHz for a year and a half.
Switched to Q6600 G0 in December. I don't notice any difference. I'm a heavy gamer, I don't encode, and I do a lot of basic windows apps (Image editing, some light video encoding, HD watching, etc). Using the settings shown in my sig.

The only game where I saw a noticable improvement was Crysis, of only a few fps.

Old system 3dmark06 score: 10,100
Current system 3dmark06 score: 14,300

3D Mark doesn't mean jack squat. It is hardly an indicator of real world performance metrics. Anyway in games you'll be more GPU limited than CPU limited.

 

[toddw]

Well, if you care about every instance that Dan brought up... ok it is better. If you don't give a crap about how much cooler or energy savings and everything else, and only care about your gaming, then yeah, it still will be better with intel.

But your post asked if it was THAT much better, $500+ better. IMO you *won't* see $500 worth of difference in *gaming* with a Q6600 and a new MB.

Overall is intel better? sure. Money means different things to different people. You may or may not think it's worth it. Having just come from a s939 opteron setup, my opinion is no - but money and performance increase was not my driving factor, I just wanted a new shiny toy to tweak.

 

[Dan_D]

Well, if you care about every instance that Dan brought up... ok it is better. If you don't give a crap about how much cooler or energy savings and everything else, and only care about your gaming, then yeah, it still will be better with intel.

But your post asked if it was THAT much better, $500+ better. IMO you *won't* see $500 worth of difference in *gaming* with a Q6600 and a new MB.

Overall is intel better? sure. Money means different things to different people. You may or may not think it's worth it. Having just come from a s939 opteron setup, my opinion is no - but money and performance increase was not my driving factor, I just wanted a new shiny toy to tweak.

Where does this magical $500 figure come from? The price difference between a Phenom and Core 2 Quad system is NOT $500. You can get Intel processor compatible motherboards that have decent features and are overclockable for around $100. I don't know why everyone seems to forget that. Cost for the RAM is the SAME. The Q6600 G0 is only $199.99 right now and that's very close to Phenom pricing. So that particular point is moot. I'm not debating whether or not the upgrade cost over what the original poster has now is worth while or not. That's up to the original poster and not really us.

Power consumption and heat will be similar between the two on the standard processors. All bets are off anyway when you start overclocking. At present there is no reason to buy a Phenom processor unless you already own a Phenom compatible motherboard. Aside from that I can't think of one reason not to go Intel. They have a better product right now and that's all there is to it.

 

[UtopiA]

DS3L.

 

[toddw]

Where does this magical $500 figure come from? The price difference between a Phenom and Core 2 Quad system is NOT $500. You can get Intel processor compatible motherboards that have decent features and are overclockable for around $100. I don't know why everyone seems to forget that. Cost for the RAM is the SAME. The Q6600 G0 is only $199.99 right now and that's very close to Phenom pricing. So that particular point is moot. I'm not debating whether or not the upgrade cost over what the original poster has now is worth while or not. That's up to the original poster and not really us.

Power consumption and heat will be similar between the two on the standard processors. All bets are off anyway when you start overclocking. At present there is no reason to buy a Phenom processor unless you already own a Phenom compatible motherboard. Aside from that I can't think of one reason not to go Intel. They have a better product right now and that's all there is to it.

The magical $500 figure came from the OP. And even with your low estimates it comes out to $400, and that's investing in P35 not X38 or X48.

Your not debating whether it's worth it or not? I thought that's what the OP wanted to know? If not then I apologize for misreading the topic.

Also if I misread/misinterpreted him asking about Phenoms. I don't think the OP said anything about getting a Phenom instead... I read it as keep what he has or invest in new, but now that I've re-read it I can see where one might think he's considering AMD because of his talk about the dark side. I suppose he needs to clarify.

Sorry just trying to help the OP so he doesn't expect 50+ more on his minimum FPS.

 

[devman]

I have a FX-60 paired up with an 8800GTS 512 and I can definitely say that its CPU limited. I've tried a single GT and SLI'd GTs and they performed about identically. Then I returned them and got a GTS 512 and got similar results. At first I was confused at my FPS performance in games, then I released as I cranked up my settings my FPS wasn't changing (and before you ask vsync was off ), definitely textbook example of CPU capped.

 

[Magnus_Dx]

Your starwars reference is backwards.

Intel, like the good Jedi were alive and well, and ruling before AMD (The dark side) tried to take over, and then Intel prevailed again (luke skywalker/core2duo).

And to answer the question.. You definately can't go wrong with building a new intel rig.

 

[maddude]

The first computer I built was based on a 1.33GHZ T-Bird AMD, and I went from there, In February I went from a Opteron 185 @ 3.0GHZ to a q6600 @ 3.0GHZ. I do more video encoding then anything else, and it's not an apples to apples comparison due to the dual-core vs quad-core, but the Intel is THAT much faster! I had more problems setting up this rig compared to others, my Rocketraid card wasn't getting along with the Intel ICH9R raid, but I got it working.

 

[aethelwulf]

Also, IMO, the 45nm intel chips are starting to get in better supply... if you're going to do it, get one of those.

That also means that the 65nm chips are getting cheaper and cheaper. If you want the best performance go 45nm, but the Q6600 can't be beat for value IMO.

Q6600 $200 (assuming you can get to a microcenter, $250 if not), 4GB of G.Skill RAM <$100, evga 680i $200 (or 780i for $260). Either way, you can do it for under 600, though that doesn't account for another 9600GT. Will it be faster? Yeah. Will you be completely blown away with awesomeness? Probably not. Just up to you whether or not it's worth the upgrade.
.

 

[elektronisch]

Keep your system, upgrade video card.

 

[Megalomaniac]

Your starwars reference is backwards.

Intel, like the good Jedi were alive and well, and ruling before AMD (The dark side) tried to take over, and then Intel prevailed again (luke skywalker/core2duo).

And to answer the question.. You definately can't go wrong with building a new intel rig.

Im not sure how you can call Intel "good" when their CEO(vader) has orders from the board to CRUSH the rebellion... i mean AMD

this is just one, but there are tons.

http://bigtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/07/27/eu-intel-gave-improper-kickbacks-to-crush-amd/

to OP:
i went from AMD to Intel, will go back to AMD if they can put out something good.
(or if i become really poor)
for now, intel has the crown for day to day performance.

 

[Magnus_Dx]

Im not sure how you can call Intel "good" when their CEO(vader) has orders from the board to CRUSH the rebellion... i mean AMD

this is just one, but there are tons.

If you want to call intel bad and AMD good, thats all find an dandy. It doesn't make any difference to me. But doin't misuse star wars.

But factually and historically speaking, if you are going to use a star wars analogy, then that would make intel the jedi and amd the empire. This is fact. It is backed up by both the duration of who has been dominant (first intel then amd then intel, jedi then vadar/emperor then luke) and also volume (many jedi vs 2 sith, large intel vs underdog amd).

You cannot compare simply based on good vs evil. Both jedi and sith have done good and evil things, just the same as Intel and AMD.

 

[P074RB34R]

Sorry, did not mean to use the Starwars analogy in Vain... but Thank you to all. I will just play on my 9600 GT SSC for a while until I can find another one. they are sold out everywhere! Until then, Use the NForce! and in the words of Chewie "Gwwwaaaarrrraaaw."

so if it was Lord of the Rings... Froddo would be from the AMD Shire and he would have to melt the Ring of Silicon in the Intel Inferno after walking throught the Great Redmond Forest?

 

[P074RB34R]

well, I fell to the darkside, and bought a Q6600 on a Evga 680I SLI with a 9800 GTX... and it is quite a nice setup, now I just need to find another 9800 GTX and spillters and I will be happy... thank you all.

 

[drescherjm]

Up until 3 weeks ago I was pretty much in the AMD only camp. At work/home I purchased about 100 AMD processors to 5 Intel CPUs. The main reason for switching was at that point there were no AMD cpus that were as fast as the Intel Q9550 for any price and the prospect on the deneb was not looking great to me. Although it would fix the low frequency of the 65nm K10 and lower the power usage, it still would have a lower IPC than intel core2 in single threaded applications. It would cost more and motherboards would also cost more. It would also consume a little more power at the same frequency. On top of that I learned that on eBay you could get much better deals for Intel cpus. On black Friday, I purchased Q9550 + Asus p5q pro + 6GB of quality DDR2 + an Antec 650W 80+ ps for less than $500US (actually closer to $400) because of a 30% live.com cashback.

Anyways I was very impressed with the motherboard and the entire system. With 3 hard drives, and kworld 115 ATSC tuner the machine idles around 100W which was 50W less than the 1 x Opteron 285 system + 4GB of memory on top of that my compiles are 2 to 3 times faster.

I was soo impressed with this system I got a mobo and q9550 for work to replace a server with a problem with stability (locks up 1 time every 1 to 3 months - but passes all stability tests).

 

[Scali2]

Slightly offtopic, but why would Intel be the darkside, not AMD?
Somehow I would think that Intel is where most people start out, and then they move to the darkside by going AMD... So aren't you stepping back into the light now?

 

[drescherjm]

BTW, If you look to ebay. You can get a Q6600 for around $125 used. A Q9450 for $205 new. And a Q9550 for less than $250 new with a Q9600 for a little over $400 new.

 

[drescherjm]

Slightly offtopic, but why would Intel be the darkside, not AMD?

I believe it is just like Microsoft the company with the hugh monopoly is looked on as the evil company.

 

[drescherjm]

Memory... I want 4 gigs, but Who's? OCZ, Crucial, Corsair, Patriot, back in the day the best was Crucial..

At home and at work I have had good success with Corsair XMS and now XMS2 modules. Now that they are dirt cheap ($50 for 4GB) most desktops at work either have 4 or 8GB of DDR2.

 

[drescherjm]

One other quick point for a person who is used to AMD CPU temps. Do not be shocked to have temps in the high 60s. The Q9550 will be totally fine at 80C. For a person used to AMD chips this is quite a change. I mean if my X2s hit 55C I got very worried and 60C would be the max I could expect the chip to run stable at..

 

[sdlvx]

Slightly offtopic, but why would Intel be the darkside, not AMD?
Somehow I would think that Intel is where most people start out, and then they move to the darkside by going AMD... So aren't you stepping back into the light now?

Because Intel uses their fiscal resource advantage to "keep AMD in their place" and stifle competition.

I am using an Intel now, I jumped ship, but I still think AMD makes great graphics cards, as well as CPUs. They just didn't have anything worth upgrading to for me, and I seriously needed an upgrade. I won't troll the AMD forum, I won't troll the Intel forum. Both companies make awesome products, just Intel is kind of a bully with licensing and stuff.

When AMD gets their stuff back together, I will without a doubt run back, but now is a bad time to go AMD (in the fall it will be better with AM3). I went Intel because I could get a core I7 and be on the next generation socket/ram/mobo, so I could hopefully keep my system around for two years (allowing me crossfire when graphics get weak and a 32nm CPU when/if my core i7 920 gets weak or fails.

AMD was going to stick me with AM2+, which is going to be replaced by AM3 in the spring. I didn't want a computer for the next two years that was so mature, so I hopped on the new platform.

Scali2, your ignorance and rampant fanboyism is appalling, but it doesn't surprise me with you coming from Nashville. I kind of don't expect much more out of you for it, being a pseudo-expert on this stuff.

But to the OP, I bought an Intel CPU, but stuck with AMD for graphics, because I like AMD and want to support them, but they didn't have what I want. I figure I'd support them more by buying two 4870s as opposed to a 200 dollar processor.

The dark side isn't as great as some of the fanboys want you to think, but it does have some perks compared to AMD.

 

[crawlgsx]

That is hilarious!

While Intel continues to make FANTASTIC CPU's and keeping the prices reasonable (Extreme versions aside) you attempt to blame THEM for AMD's HORRIBLE job at keeping up?

Now it is within reason to say that AMD is now having a harder time because Intel is way ahead of the game and continues to keep coming out with even better products,

However that is ONLY AMD's fault.

They haven't made a chip that competes since the Athlon XP days, sorry to say.

You say that "the dark side, AKA Intel (that makes no sense by the way)" only has a few perks... Have you even looked to compare the two? Forget just plain performance top of the line, even at the low end, Intel is still killing AMD price/performance. You step into the mid range and it is even worse, at the top end... well it is just plain silly to even compare.

I was an AMD fan, I had my fair share of AMD chips ranging from K6 to Athlon XP3400, but I am not a "fanboi" of either side, I use that thing called my brain and research to depict which chip I own, not who I like better.

Do they make a BAD chip, not at all, but they just aren't keeping up. They have had financial problems, manufacturing problems, and just plain bad luck.

I would LOVE to see AMD make a come back, come out with a chip that stomps the i7 out and cause some competition again, but sad to say I don't see that day coming any time soon, until then.... Intel has my money.

 

[Scali2]

Scali2, your ignorance and rampant fanboyism is appalling, but it doesn't surprise me with you coming from Nashville. I kind of don't expect much more out of you for it, being a pseudo-expert on this stuff.

Whoah, where did that come from? Especially me coming from Nashville?
I'm not from Nashville, heck I'm not even from the US. I'm Dutch. Don't let that stop you from being prejudiced though.

 

[Dan_D]

It still would have a lower IPC than intel core2 in single threaded applications.

The AMD Phenom is still slower than the Core 2 Quad most of the time in multi-threaded applications too. The whole "native quadcore" line is a load of marketing BS in regard to current Core 2 Quad's vs. Phenom processors.

On top of that I learned that on eBay you could get much better deals for Intel cpus.

You can get a much better deal on CPUs in general this way. I purchased two Opteron 254's when they were going for $825 each for $1100 for the pair.

Slightly offtopic, but why would Intel be the darkside, not AMD?
Somehow I would think that Intel is where most people start out, and then they move to the darkside by going AMD... So aren't you stepping back into the light now?

Agreed, though I think that AMD is often personified as the "underdog: or the "good guy
because they are smaller than Intel and make less money.

I believe it is just like Microsoft the company with the hugh monopoly is looked on as the evil company.

This is the way people seem to look at it. I'm not sure why this is as big doesn't equal evil. I've actually seen smaller companies treat their workers worse. Big companies are often impersonal but they are hardly evil just because they are large.

At home and at work I have had good success with Corsair XMS and now XMS2 modules. Now that they are dirt cheap ($50 for 4GB) most desktops at work either have 4 or 8GB of DDR2.

Corsair is my preferred brand. OCZ is second choice. When I used to do OEM type builds not destined for overclocking greatness I often went with Crucial. Granted this was before the Crucial Ballistix came out.

Because Intel uses their fiscal resource advantage to "keep AMD in their place" and stifle competition.

I am using an Intel now, I jumped ship, but I still think AMD makes great graphics cards, as well as CPUs. They just didn't have anything worth upgrading to for me, and I seriously needed an upgrade. I won't troll the AMD forum, I won't troll the Intel forum. Both companies make awesome products, just Intel is kind of a bully with licensing and stuff.

When AMD gets their stuff back together, I will without a doubt run back, but now is a bad time to go AMD (in the fall it will be better with AM3). I went Intel because I could get a core I7 and be on the next generation socket/ram/mobo, so I could hopefully keep my system around for two years (allowing me crossfire when graphics get weak and a 32nm CPU when/if my core i7 920 gets weak or fails.

AMD was going to stick me with AM2+, which is going to be replaced by AM3 in the spring. I didn't want a computer for the next two years that was so mature, so I hopped on the new platform.

Scali2, your ignorance and rampant fanboyism is appalling, but it doesn't surprise me with you coming from Nashville. I kind of don't expect much more out of you for it, being a pseudo-expert on this stuff.

He's the rampant fanboy? You are the one making excuses for AMD in the form of statements like "Because Intel uses their fiscal resource advantage to "keep AMD in their place" and stifle competition." I don't buy this crap for a second. AMD has stolen the performance crown from Intel before which is a serious accomplishment. They also beat Intel to the punch on a few technological milestones. So I know that when AMD is making good decisions and creating decent products they can succeed at being more competitive. Their problem is a lack of good leadership and they need to work on making sound business decisions and investments. As we saw with the Athlon 64, more money doesn't always equal a better product and a better product doesn't make a company more successful. People need to stop confusing the products with business practices. Intel is not evil. Like Microsoft, they just know how to make money. That is the goal of any business.

There is no altruism or a clash between good and evil going on with Intel vs. AMD. It isn't the Rebellion vs. the Evil Empire. Personification of a company is rather silly.


On the subject of Scali2, it seems to me that he knows more about processors, coding and instruction sets than most of us ever will. I've found that his posts are generally informative and useful. They just aren't popular with people who are "extreme" fans of either camp.

Where does his location or where he came from factor into this? You are starting to make things personal between you and him.

But to the OP, I bought an Intel CPU, but stuck with AMD for graphics, because I like AMD and want to support them, but they didn't have what I want. I figure I'd support them more by buying two 4870s as opposed to a 200 dollar processor.

The dark side isn't as great as some of the fanboys want you to think, but it does have some perks compared to AMD.

Support whomever you want. I support the company that provides the best products for the money I'm willing to spend. I don't care which camp or company gets my money either.

 

[bholstege]

The fundamental problem is they do not have enough money to compete with Intel in R&D. They should sell the CPU business, focus on graphics cards, and rename themselves ATI.

 

[sdlvx]

That is hilarious!

While Intel continues to make FANTASTIC CPU's and keeping the prices reasonable (Extreme versions aside) you attempt to blame THEM for AMD's HORRIBLE job at keeping up?

Now it is within reason to say that AMD is now having a harder time because Intel is way ahead of the game and continues to keep coming out with even better products,

However that is ONLY AMD's fault.

They haven't made a chip that competes since the Athlon XP days, sorry to say.

The problem is, is that Intel has much more R&D cash on hand. Intel has all this cash on hand, and can continue to develop fast and amazing chips. AMD, on the other hand, has financial trouble, and doesn't have nearly the amount of research and development cash that Intel has. How can AMD catch up with fewer resources? They won't unless someone at the company has some sort of great idea again (like the IMC).

When these price wars start, and AMD has no place in the market, they have no way to build up good R&D cash. They get relegated to the sidelines, and they make less of a profit. This in turn causes them to have less money for R&D, which causes their chips to fall further behind, which then causes them to be relegated further to the sidelines. It's a perpetual cycle that isn't going to be broken until AMD can find a money maker, which is going to be hard to do when your competition makes magnitudes more money on hand for R&D.

You say that "the dark side, AKA Intel (that makes no sense by the way)" only has a few perks... Have you even looked to compare the two? Forget just plain performance top of the line, even at the low end, Intel is still killing AMD price/performance. You step into the mid range and it is even worse, at the top end... well it is just plain silly to even compare.

See above, that's why they are refered to as the dark side. AMD doesn't have a chance, and Intel could squash them whenever they wanted, but I'm assuming they'll keep them around like this for a while, because they don't want to deal with anti-trust.

I was an AMD fan, I had my fair share of AMD chips ranging from K6 to Athlon XP3400, but I am not a "fanboi" of either side, I use that thing called my brain and research to depict which chip I own, not who I like better.

I came from an Opty 165 @ 2.8Ghz to a Core i7 @ 3.9Ghz. I never once said that AMD made an equal chip. I said they both made good chips, like you say below. I am not raging like a fanboy, I do own an Intel now. I do miss having something that ran a little cool, and to be honest, the Core i7s are a snooze to overclock. Boring. Lame. That, and it runs hot. I mean, it's got great performance, but it runs hot, Intel has no information about it's max temp (which scares me, I have a feeling tjmax was just randomly picked at 100 Celsius), they have that issue with the 1.65v limit on the DRAM controller (which is just weird, and check XS, they do die if you don't keep it in spec. They'll die in days, we're not talking a few years chipped off the 10 year life expectancy)

Do they make a BAD chip, not at all, but they just aren't keeping up. They have had financial problems, manufacturing problems, and just plain bad luck.

Yeah, because they don't have the money to compete with Intel, which makes Intel come across as the dark side, and AMD as the rebel group. Rebels are usually fighting the big empire with more resources (like cash, research, manufacturing, etc.). It's where the whole "darkside" thing comes from, and I happen to agree that Intel is somewhat of the darkside/giant empire. Some people just really don't like power to be concentrated in the hands of a few (or in this case, the x86 CPU market to sit in the hands of one corporation).

I would LOVE to see AMD make a come back, come out with a chip that stomps the i7 out and cause some competition again, but sad to say I don't see that day coming any time soon, until then.... Intel has my money.

I would too, but if Intel has everyone's money, they aren't going to be coming back because AMD isn't going to have any of it to catch up with Intel. I don't know if you guys realize it, but it takes a lot to design processors, and they are complex machines. It involves more than a room full of people drawing pictures and then stamping out a wafer.

The odds of AMD catching up with fewer resources are very low, and the more people don't consider AMD and jump right to the Intel bandwagon, the worse those odds get for AMD.

Even with my Core i7, I would have seriously considered going Deneb and AM3 if they were both readily available right now. I've seen the overclocking results of 45nm Deneb on the net, and they are getting a little higher clocks than the core i7s. For gaming, it really wouldn't matter all that much. I know for encoding I'd miss out on the HT and that'd kill, but I don't see the giant gap everyone else says. I mean, they exist in benchmarks, but I think Deneb will be somewhat surprising.

EDIT:
The two points I"m trying to make here are that AMD can be underlooked and underappreciated, and that Intel is viewed as an evil empire because some people don't like all the power concentrated in once place.

 

[Kangg]

I upgraded from an FX 55 to Core 2 E6750, then my current Q6600. IT IS that much better. HUGE improvements in performance in everything.

 

[Dan_D]

The problem is, is that Intel has much more R&D cash on hand. Intel has all this cash on hand, and can continue to develop fast and amazing chips. AMD, on the other hand, has financial trouble, and doesn't have nearly the amount of research and development cash that Intel has. How can AMD catch up with fewer resources? They won't unless someone at the company has some sort of great idea again (like the IMC).

That is how a free market works. There is nothing unfair about it. AMD indeed caught up to Intel in regard to performance when they went with the integrated memory controller in the Athlon 64. They did that with fewer resources so it is possible they'll be able to do this again. All it takes is the right development team, management and solid business sense. This is perfectly fair. Any business breaking into a new market, or trying to establish themselves will face very fierce competition from larger more well established companies. This is a sink or swim type of market. It always has been.

When these price wars start, and AMD has no place in the market, they have no way to build up good R&D cash. They get relegated to the sidelines, and they make less of a profit. This in turn causes them to have less money for R&D, which causes their chips to fall further behind, which then causes them to be relegated further to the sidelines. It's a perpetual cycle that isn't going to be broken until AMD can find a money maker, which is going to be hard to do when your competition makes magnitudes more money on hand for R&D.

Again, this is whining about free enterprise and how it works. It is up to AMD to find a way not to fall behind. They did it before, and if they want to thrive they need to do it again. There are ways of securing investors and if AMD isn't doing all they can to get the cash they need then again, it is their fault.

See above, that's why they are refered to as the dark side. AMD doesn't have a chance, and Intel could squash them whenever they wanted, but I'm assuming they'll keep them around like this for a while, because they don't want to deal with anti-trust.

AMD does have a chance. This is a free market. Anything can happen. Companies that used to be on top of their game are long since gone now. Even Intel has to be careful to ensure their longevity.

I came from an Opty 165 @ 2.8Ghz to a Core i7 @ 3.9Ghz. I never once said that AMD made an equal chip. I said they both made good chips, like you say below. I am not raging like a fanboy, I do own an Intel now. I do miss having something that ran a little cool, and to be honest, the Core i7s are a snooze to overclock. Boring. Lame. That, and it runs hot. I mean, it's got great performance, but it runs hot, Intel has no information about it's max temp (which scares me, I have a feeling tjmax was just randomly picked at 100 Celsius), they have that issue with the 1.65v limit on the DRAM controller (which is just weird, and check XS, they do die if you don't keep it in spec. They'll die in days, we're not talking a few years chipped off the 10 year life expectancy)

How is overclocking a Core i7 boring? I've seen Core i7 920's reach 4.2GHz which I'd hardly call lame given the performance such a setup offers.

Yeah, because they don't have the money to compete with Intel, which makes Intel come across as the dark side, and AMD as the rebel group. Rebels are usually fighting the big empire with more resources (like cash, research, manufacturing, etc.). It's where the whole "darkside" thing comes from, and I happen to agree that Intel is somewhat of the darkside/giant empire. Some people just really don't like power to be concentrated in the hands of a few (or in this case, the x86 CPU market to sit in the hands of one corporation).

This is personification of the companies coming from biased sources. If other companies made more solid business decisions and better products Intel would face competition. This industry can switch gears over night.

I would too, but if Intel has everyone's money, they aren't going to be coming back because AMD isn't going to have any of it to catch up with Intel. I don't know if you guys realize it, but it takes a lot to design processors, and they are complex machines. It involves more than a room full of people drawing pictures and then stamping out a wafer.

The odds of AMD catching up with fewer resources are very low, and the more people don't consider AMD and jump right to the Intel bandwagon, the worse those odds get for AMD.

Again, a company that doesn't know how to innovate and capture enough customers to allow their company to thrive will die off. I won't go as far as to say that they deserve that but they certainly don't deserve all this sympathy.

Again AMD isn't the "poor underdog" that everyone makes them out to be. For awhile there they were charging as much if not MORE for their processors than Intel was. All companies are out to make money. Not break even, not to lose money, but to make money. The more they can make the better it is for everyone working there.

but I think Deneb will be somewhat surprising.

Oh it will be a surprise alright............

 

[sdlvx]

I think that the Intel/AMD rivalry stems from political beliefs. I'm more of a person to think that the market shouldn't be completely free, and that when things get too big, they need forced competition and someone to keep them in check.

Seems like non-AMD guys aren't worried about that. I guess I get the whole AMD/Intel thing now. The darkside/evil empire thing isn't even computer based, it's politically based.

Core i7 does clock very well, but it doesn't take a lot of work to get there. With my P4, and my Opteron, there were a lot more factors which weighed in on what'd you get done.

With the 920, it's basically lower the multi to 19, raise the blck to about 211, vcore to 1.35 and vtt to 1.35 and you're set for 4ghz. That, and Core i7 seems to not go down softly. I haven't seen any sort of prime95 or orthos errors, the whole thing just BSODs. With the P4 and the Opty, you'd at least see some errors first. i7 just blows up.

But I do agree, Hector and his "lets ride out the perfect storm that is core2duo" was pretty stupid, it always sounded stupid.

I just don't think we need such a strong anti-AMD aura around the net.

 

[maxius]

Your starwars reference is backwards.

Intel, like the good Jedi were alive and well, and ruling before AMD (The dark side) tried to take over, and then Intel prevailed again (luke skywalker/core2duo).

And to answer the question.. You definately can't go wrong with building a new intel rig.

... intel is the dark side with their lovely pricing practices before amd was competitive and their monopolistic practices that basically shoved amd into a corner when they had the better processer (k8 vs netburst p4) so yeah lets not get all delusinonal now

 

[drescherjm]

You can get a much better deal on CPUs in general this way. I purchased two Opteron 254's when they were going for $825 each for $1100 for the pair.

I bought my 2 850s for $325 total in Jan 2006 (I believe they were 650 each at newegg at that time) and 2 x 285 for less than that early this year however the reason why I said this this was more about the quad core desktop segment. In my 3 or so weeks searching for cpus on eBay, I did not see K10s being discounted much and since deneb was just released I will not expect it to be at a big discount on ebay either. Compare that to the prices of the Q6600, Q9450 and Q9550 each of these can easily be had at a big discount to their newegg price on eBay.

 

[drescherjm]

They haven't made a chip that competes since the Athlon XP days, sorry to say.

Hmm. I remember 2 or so years when K8 beat P4 in just about every application benchmark and it did that using far less power although with core2 the tables are turned and they have been so for at least 2 years.

 

[Dan_D]

They haven't made a chip that competes since the Athlon XP days, sorry to say.

You seem to have missed the AMD Athlon 64 and the Athlon X2. Both processors were generally superior in terms of performance compared to the Pentium 4 and Pentium D.

 

[Outamyhead]

Hmm. I remember 2 or so years when K8 beat P4 in just about every application benchmark and it did that using far less power although with core2 the tables are turned and they have been so for at least 2 years.

Yeah I remember my first build AMD 700MHz Athlon Slot A style, they could walk all over the Intel 733MHz, and yeah they haven't designed anything near the Intel range since the Athlon XP, or possibly the early 64 range.

I went with a i7 920 because of it's performance, and it will last the next few years before it needs replacing again. AMD is cheap but performance wise I just couldn't stick with them, and with my luck of the previous two ATI cards, I cannot go with them either.

I'm a neutral guy when it comes to system builds, AMD seems to have lost it's innovative/performance/gaming streak (ATI cards are a different kettle of fish, yes we all know it's the card to beat right now, but their warranty sucks, and if my cards were anything to go by, how long will they work until they mysteriously choke, I'll give them 3 years max, my 9700 Pro died at that age, the x700 was a year and a half I think...nope no overclocking done to either card), I have no doubt they will come back with something, when I don't know, hopefully they can sort out their shit and get moving forward again.

 

[Dan_D]

Yeah I remember my first build AMD 700MHz Athlon Slot A style, they could walk all over the Intel 733MHz, and yeah they haven't designed anything near the Intel range since the Athlon XP, or possibly the early 64 range.

I do not know where people are getting their history from. The AMD Athlon XP was far less competitive with the Intel Northwood Pentium 4's than the Athlon 64 was. All three versions of the Athlon 64 (S754 S940 (FX-series) & S939) were better performers than the Pentium 4 was in almost every application. The Athlon 64 X2 compared as well against the Pentium D as the Athlon 64 did against the Pentium 4 considering that both chips were the same as their predecessors just with dual cores in the same package. I know the Athlon 64 X2 was a "native" approach but that didn't mean squat in the real world. The Athlon 64 and Athlon X2 provided the most decisive victory regarding performance AMD has ever seen against their competition. Plus the Athlon 64 used less power and generated less heat than the Pentium 4 Prescott CPUs did. It was also first with x86-64 instruction sets. Intel had already developed IA-64 but that wasn't available in the consumer space and it was awhile before EM64T was integrated into the Pentium 4 line and enabled.