Intel or AMD?

[Zer]

You could prob ask them, for a "custom" system, but why not just built it yourself, its not so hard and you get to learn the ins and out of your pc

Anyways, the B3 X4 are only just comming out... Still not as good as Intels quads so why bother, just wait till they shrink to 45nm... AMD claim better IPC and clock rates, lets just cross fingers

[Zekal]

Originally Posted by Zer

You could prob ask them, for a "custom" system, but why not just built it yourself, its not so hard and you get to learn the ins and out of your pc

Anyways, the B3 X4 are only just comming out... Still not as good as Intels quads so why bother, just wait till they shrink to 45nm... AMD claim better IPC and clock rates, lets just cross fingers

Ya thats what I hope, I'm also am building, but I just like to see bundled deals first on sites (I'm just really busy atm and have little time to build). I just hope the rumoured ATi card that raped nvidia's spec is real

edit: I'll prob be just building a new PC this summer, but I'm kina waiting for like you said, AMD's 45 nm chips

[Zekal]

On topic DEAR GOD do not buy any of AMD's "Tri" core processors, they are just quad cores with one turned off

[Zer]

Dont expect 45nm parts form AMD till end of Q2.

[Zekal]

Originally Posted by Zer

Dont expect 45nm parts form AMD till end of Q2.

thats why I'm waiting I just hope they are great, otherwise I'll probably go with intel

edit:
AMD Phenom X4 9850 versus Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300: Performance Shootout and Review
basic rundown, they liked the Q9300 over the 9850 and e8500 but the e 8500 performed better than the q9300 in certain instances(the e8500 did how perform better than the 9850)

[Dissonance]

1st, in terms of the "new and old" phenom. Might as well buy the newer one but the older one was not crap. They just fixed an extremely rare eratta bug.


2nd) I will not deny that Intel + nVidia is a better value AND better performance right now. On the flip side though, in my experience, for whatever reason my AMD systems have behaved better than my Intel systems have. I have no rational for this, but he asked what we preferred.

3rd) In terms of gaming Intel = AMD = Intel. What I mean by this is at the current time neither processor has an inherent architectural advantage over the other. While the Intel has a better usage of its clock cycles, AMD's bypass of a FSB controller external of the processor tends to equal everything out. Intel's chips (especially on the quad side) since they are not "true quad cores" are able to be over-clocked better. For heavy multi-tasking this is a negative, for normal game operation this is actually a positive (higher core speed)


Edit: Note: Programs are not taking advantage of the quad core idea, so AMD's advantage is very slight, if non-existent at this point in time.

Edit 2nd: DO NOT buy the E2160 or E2180, they are very bad processors for gaming

[Zekal]

Originally Posted by Dissonance

1st, in terms of the "new and old" phenom. Might as well buy the newer one but the older one was not crap. They just fixed an extremely rare eratta bug.


2nd) I will not deny that Intel + nVidia is a better value AND better performance right now. On the flip side though, in my experience, for whatever reason my AMD systems have behaved better than my Intel systems have. I have no rational for this, but he asked what we preferred.

3rd) In terms of gaming Intel = AMD = Intel. What I mean by this is at the current time neither processor has an inherent architectural advantage over the other. While the Intel has a better usage of its clock cycles, AMD's bypass of a FSB controller external of the processor tends to equal everything out. Intel's chips (especially on the quad side) since they are not "true quad cores" are able to be over-clocked better. For heavy multi-tasking this is a negative, for normal game operation this is actually a positive (higher core speed)


Edit: Note: Programs are not taking advantage of the quad core idea, so AMD's advantage is very slight, if non-existent at this point in time.

They soon will, game wise that is, AoC will be able to use all 4 cores, and DoW 2 will be quad core compatible, its slow, but a start on the gaming side

edit: I just hope alot more companies jump on the quad core bandwagon, however, I think quad still wont be main stream for a year or two

[Zer]

Originally Posted by Dissonance

1st, in terms of the "new and old" phenom. Might as well buy the newer one but the older one was not crap. They just fixed an extremely rare eratta bug.


2nd) I will not deny that Intel + nVidia is a better value AND better performance right now. On the flip side though, in my experience, for whatever reason my AMD systems have behaved better than my Intel systems have. I have no rational for this, but he asked what we preferred.

3rd) In terms of gaming Intel = AMD = Intel. What I mean by this is at the current time neither processor has an inherent architectural advantage over the other. While the Intel has a better usage of its clock cycles, AMD's bypass of a FSB controller external of the processor tends to equal everything out. Intel's chips (especially on the quad side) since they are not "true quad cores" are able to be over-clocked better. For heavy multi-tasking this is a negative, for normal game operation this is actually a positive (higher core speed)


Edit: Note: Programs are not taking advantage of the quad core idea, so AMD's advantage is very slight, if non-existent at this point in time.

I honestly am not sure if you ever played with Phenoms, they just dont play nicely on anything but AM2+ mobos and even there... They still dont play nice. The new revision are a little better and no longer have the rare errata.

See above about AMD behaving better than Intel. This also has 100% revelancy to the other components that you buy... Mosty Motherboard and RAM, so in alot of cases its the end users fault.

I think that a CPU that uses its clock cycles better, runs fasters and cooler and allow to drive your monster GPU more effeciently has the edge and should be noted. Its all about removing any potential bottlenecks. Also, you seem to undervalue the Intels NB system... Sure its not elegant, but its quite a bit more efficient that you might think. Couple that with super fast DDR2 or even faster DDR3 and you got higher memory bandwith, read, write and copy scores and lower latency altoghether than a typicall AMD system... This, even more so when the FSB is cranked up...

Some program actaully do make full use of more than 2 cores, 3D rendering and encoding being primairy examples. Also, if you do heavy multi-tasking like running 2 games or just a bunch of crap in the background, youll notice its much smoother...

Anyways, AMD was nice and dandy before Conroe came in, now Intel has the limelight and only time will tell you what the next big thing will be.

[Zer]

Originally Posted by Dissonance

Edit 2nd: DO NOT buy the E2160 or E2180, they are very bad processors for gaming

Stock, sure... Overclocked to ~3.0Ghz, not so. They arent as good as the fully fledged Conroes/Wolfdales though, I tell you that for sure!

I also loved the AMD 5000+ BE, that was a really fun CPU to play with, 3.5Ghz on air np, but then again, my friend already had a AM2 mobo... Full platform upgrade right now = Intel...

[Dissonance]

Yeah, I do have the old Phenom (9500 Agena) on an AM2+ MB (ASUS MV2+ to be exact)

It is OC'd to 2.7ghz (toned it down from 2.8ghz due to heat issues). It plays as nicely as I expect to be honest. no one should go into a quad-core and expect to clock at a dual-core's level. As I said, for games Intel's 2+2 Quad-Core approach is better atm and probably for the next two years (just guessing)

As I said, I don't know why it has been the case. I cross-reference everything with other people and do not spare cost on any component. My cheapest MB I have ever bought has been $180 (I hate people who use awesome parts and a mid-range MB). Always been either DFI or ASUS in my machines, I have also used MSI in other people's as well.

In terms of the NB, I see its merit and reasons for it. I tend to like AMD's system since it is one less area that has to be balanced for OCing and for overall performance.

And yes, I bought a quad core and 8gb of RAM so that when I am wasting time in MMOs (waiting for an event) I can kill time on Civ4 or C&C3, not going to lie about that


As a side note: I like the new AMD over-clocking tool. Sure it takes the fun out of OCing a bit, but its nice since on an extremely hot day here in TX its a quick adjustment to lower my core speed.

Right now DDR3 cost is still too high to recommend to anybody but "I have an infinite budget" people. Probably in a year or so it will be at the right price for performance area to justify. At least that was my conclusion in January when I built my AMD rig(and yes, I almost bought a Q6600 instead).