AMD or Intel? Page 2

Started by dragpyre July 23rd, 2011 4:26 PM
  • 2917 views
  • 41 replies

Archer

NSW, Australia
Seen January 26th, 2020
Posted January 5th, 2020
3,956 posts
16.6 Years
As for overclocking, I don't take it into account because most people don't and shouldn't do it.
Well no. Because the idea here is that Intel isn't ALWAYS better. If you're overclocking without forking out for a 2500K/2600K (different price segment), then you can get more from an AMD. Not that most people should OC, but IF you are, AMD's better, in this segment.

Last generation, AMD was competitive with Intel, but I really think Intel excels both price- and performance-wise with Sandy Bridge. If you're going really low-end like I said before, AMD still wins out over the budget Pentium line.
You're absolutely right. The issue here was you made it seem like they got thrashed in all segments. Mid-range they're close and low-range is AMD's.

Still using my mid-2008 computer. Was in the final stages of getting a new computer a few weeks ago, but money's a bit short this year for my final year of uni so I'll be holding off.
That's what I was getting at. There's nothing wrong with your rig, but AMD's current offerings can still crush it (I know they're newer, that's not the point). So they're not useless, if people can use hardware much slower quite happily.

Come on guys. Seriously? Au vs U.S.. Believe it or not, they are NOT the same. No, I'm not talking about currency exchange rates. Things are priced differently based on where you are. If you guys are going to talk about which brand is cheaper and whatnot, pick one location.
No, but AU vs AU is the same, just higher. I wasn't comparing with US. You want US prices? Here's Newegg.
Z68-UD5 - $240
990FX-UD5 - $180

The difference is still there. Regional pricing or not. $60 US that the CPU has to catch up on.

Why are you bringing motherboards into argument? As far as I could tell you two were arguing about CPUs strictly. If you want to bring in boards, then why not... RAM? Drive? Cooling?
Because the motherboards are linked (in a compatibility sense) directly to the CPU you're using, unlike EVERY other component. They're Intel and AMD's chipsets for the specific CPUs, so they're just as relevant.

Ram, HDDs and cooling are totally irrelevant because they will work with both sides. If you could use an AM3+ board with an 1155 CPU, then of course it wouldn't matter.
Male
Seen April 26th, 2015
Posted June 11th, 2012
70 posts
12.2 Years
No, but AU vs AU is the same, just higher. I wasn't comparing with US. You want US prices? Here's Newegg.
Z68-UD5 - $240
990FX-UD5 - $180
The difference is still there. Regional pricing or not. $60 US that the CPU has to catch up on.
And... your point? I was saying the two of you shouldn't argue with two different values that are totally unconnected.

Because the motherboards are linked (in a compatibility sense) directly to the CPU you're using, unlike EVERY other component. They're Intel and AMD's chipsets for the specific CPUs, so they're just as relevant.
Ram, HDDs and cooling are totally irrelevant because they will work with both sides. If you could use an AM3+ board with an 1155 CPU, then of course it wouldn't matter.
I don't think you completely understood what I said. They ARE relevant here. You won't see a comparison done between two CPUs unless the two CPUs were put under similar conditions. For example, stressing one with very little cooling and stressing another with superb cooling -- is that a good comparison? No. Regardless of whether other components work for both sides (that's actually a good thing, not a bad thing), you either take everything or nothing to account, not just the pieces that you want.

Archer

NSW, Australia
Seen January 26th, 2020
Posted January 5th, 2020
3,956 posts
16.6 Years
I don't think you completely understood what I said. They ARE relevant here. You won't see a comparison done between two CPUs unless the two CPUs were put under similar conditions. For example, stressing one with very little cooling and stressing another with superb cooling -- is that a good comparison? No. Regardless of whether other components work for both sides (that's actually a good thing, not a bad thing), you either take everything or nothing to account, not just the pieces that you want.
It's not just the pieces that I want to. We both agree that the rest of the parts (sans mobo/CPU) are platform independent, yes? And a fair comparison uses as many of the same or equivalent components as possible for the sake of a controlled environment, yes? So the only parts that we CAN'T keep the same between each side are the CPU and motherboard. So they become part of the objects we are comparing.
Male
Seen April 26th, 2015
Posted June 11th, 2012
70 posts
12.2 Years
It's not just the pieces that I want to. We both agree that the rest of the parts (sans mobo/CPU) are platform independent, yes? And a fair comparison uses as many of the same or equivalent components as possible for the sake of a controlled environment, yes? So the only parts that we CAN'T keep the same between each side are the CPU and motherboard. So they become part of the objects we are comparing.
Mmm... sort of. Remember, 1 motherboard can be compatible with several different CPUs. Same goes for the reverse.

Archer

NSW, Australia
Seen January 26th, 2020
Posted January 5th, 2020
3,956 posts
16.6 Years
Mmm... sort of. Remember, 1 motherboard can be compatible with several different CPUs. Same goes for the reverse.
Yes, but we're comparing Intel and AMD chips here, not two different CPUs of the same socket and brand. There hasn't been a board that takes both Intel and AMD chips for a very long time (even then it was some throw-together job from Abit, IIRC :D)

Regardless. It's a bit messed up at the moment, because neither company has their enthusiast platforms out. Intel's LGA2011 Sandy Bridge-E and AMD's AM3+ Bulldozer/Zambezi platforms are on their way. But at least Intel had a great release this year. AMD's working with a very old architecture at the moment, which should be replaced in ~a month.

Zet

Age 33
Male
Brisbane, Australia
Seen September 29th, 2021
Posted May 16th, 2020
7,687 posts
15.7 Years
Yes, but we're comparing Intel and AMD chips here, not two different CPUs of the same socket and brand. There hasn't been a board that takes both Intel and AMD chips for a very long time (even then it was some throw-together job from Abit, IIRC :D)

Regardless. It's a bit messed up at the moment, because neither company has their enthusiast platforms out. Intel's LGA2011 Sandy Bridge-E and AMD's AM3+ Bulldozer/Zambezi platforms are on their way. But at least Intel had a great release this year. AMD's working with a very old architecture at the moment, which should be replaced in ~a month.
So they'll finally make a hexacore that can perform better than Intel's current quad cores?

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?

Age 30
Male
London
Seen July 1st, 2022
Posted June 12th, 2019
2,389 posts
16.6 Years
What you are forgetting is that OVERALL Intels preform better then AMD's. Breaking it down, there are some aspects that AMD cpu's are better at.

I can't remember what things were tested, but Intel preformed better one most of the tests. AMD won on a few of the tests (2 were decent margins, one was just a couple of points off) So basicly, overall Intel was better but AMD is superior for specific tasks.

I've forgotten the exact results so i'll see if I can find that test.

Archer

NSW, Australia
Seen January 26th, 2020
Posted January 5th, 2020
3,956 posts
16.6 Years
So they'll finally make a hexacore that can perform better than Intel's current quad cores?
What you are forgetting is that OVERALL Intels preform better then AMD's. Breaking it down, there are some aspects that AMD cpu's are better at.
The Phenoms can perform better than the i5s in heavily threaded stuff, but not the i7s, where the Hyperthreading kicks in.

Zet, the X6 was a temporary measure. The architecture itself is just a tuned-up Phenom II X4 with extra cores. The cores themselves aren't any faster, so you wouldn't expect any benefit unless you're using 5-6 cores. Intel has released 1366, 1156 and 1155 since the release of AMD's Phenom II. I'm not surprised it's slower.

Bulldozer is coming in quad, hex and octo core chips. So they're going to have that multi-thread focus, but the cores themselves are a lot faster, plus the Turbo is REALLY agressive in lower-threaded apps. (Top model will bump to 4.2 GHz, which is going to happen a lot on an 8-core).

That said, we have no idea exactly how it's going to compare until release, so now it's a waiting game. I'll see if I squeeze a little more speed out of my Phenom X4. :D Might get me a Corsair H100.
Male
Seen April 26th, 2015
Posted June 11th, 2012
70 posts
12.2 Years
Yes, but we're comparing Intel and AMD chips here, not two different CPUs of the same socket and brand. There hasn't been a board that takes both Intel and AMD chips for a very long time (even then it was some throw-together job from Abit, IIRC :D)
Wut? That's not what I said. What I mean is one motherboard can support more than 1 CPU from 1 brand -- which means that whatever motherboard being used is could potentially seriously limit the CPU (not to mention that sometimes you CAN'T put identical RAM & HDD/SDD, etc on both sides due to the motherboards being a pain in the ass). Hence why motherboards shouldn't be part of the equation.

The Phenoms can perform better than the i5s in heavily threaded stuff, but not the i7s, where the Hyperthreading kicks in.
Eh... partially correct at best. There is a Core 2 Duo that performs better than a Phenom X6, and certainly some i5s. Granted, it depends on what you're doing.
Seen February 27th, 2012
Posted February 27th, 2012
28 posts
11.7 Years
Im using AMD athlon 64 on this computer, but my new computer uses intel i5. Intel is a more expensive brand, but its a lot faster and more powerful than AMD. However, I believe AMD is coming out/already came out with their new processors called the bulldozer, which can rival its intel counterpart.

GlaceonX

-Glomps- Hii everybody

Male
Manati, Puerto rico
Seen September 13th, 2011
Posted September 13th, 2011
37 posts
12.4 Years
Im using AMD athlon 64 on this computer, but my new computer uses intel i5. Intel is a more expensive brand, but its a lot faster and more powerful than AMD. However, I believe AMD is coming out/already came out with their new processors called the bulldozer, which can rival its intel counterpart.
If you compare an Athlon 64 to an i5 OF COURSE THE i5 WILL FEEL FASTER. . . -.-

Honestly I owned an Athlon 64 3800+ and that thing felt great! Considering the year of that CPU? Plus the fact that it was a single core? Sweet Arceus that thing was sweeet. . .

I currently own a Phenom X3 720, honestly, I tried an Intel i7 2600k and I didn't feel a difference (Atleast not in normal usage, I couldn't test out the gaming part cuz' my graphic card, honestly sucks xP) I'm super happy with my 3 core and hell, it was only $80 with the mobo, who can argue with that logic?

Anyways, everything I've owned has been AMD, P4s sucked ass and that was the last Intel desktop I owned. . . I then had a core 2 duo lappy that didn't feel as good as I wanted it to, either way, it died. . .
Gaming PC:
AMD Phenom II X3 720 (BE) @3.3ghz (Stock Voltage)
MSI 785GT-E63
MSI Radeon HD 4350 512mb DDR2 OC 750mhz and ATI Radeon HD 4200 (Hybrid Crossfire)
2GB Kingstone Hyper X 1066mhz Dual-Channel
Samsung 500gb 7200rpm, Samsung 7200rpm 80gb SATA HDD Western Digital WD120 120gb I believe at 5400rpm
ATX 700w PSU (I picked it up in a fleamarket for 30$ xD)
Asus heatsink, Asus fan 4500rpm
Windows 8 M3 Build 7989 64bit

(Laptops)
Toshiba Sattelite L655D
AMD Phenom II X4 Mobile 1.8ghz
4gb ram
ATI Radeon HD 4250
Windows 7 Arc Gamer

Acer Aspire One
AMD Fusion Dual core 1.0ghz
2gb Ram
ATI Radeon HD 6250
Windows 7 Ultimate

Raven-NAR-32450

The Great and Powerful RAVEN

Age 32
Male
My Secret Lab
Seen April 15th, 2022
Posted October 8th, 2011
122 posts
14.4 Years
I just got an old Studio 1555 with the Core 2 Duo 2.0Ghz T6400. Nothing fancy.
However I wouldn't mind giving an AMD processor a run, the last AMD I used was in an old compaq presario 5000 running Windows ME. (It was a 900-ish Mhz AMD Anthlon........seriously, why do they recycle processor names, whats the point?)

Paired together with Pachy, my best brony buddy. :3

Archer

NSW, Australia
Seen January 26th, 2020
Posted January 5th, 2020
3,956 posts
16.6 Years
(It was a 900-ish Mhz AMD Anthlon........seriously, why do they recycle processor names, whats the point?)
It's brand/name recognition. It's not like kept it the same the whole time. Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon 64 (FX and X2 lines as well), Athlon II. They're being replaced with the A-Series, though. It was once their top line, over the Duron and Sempron (Turion was mobile), but it's been superceded by the Phenom (soon to be FX-Series).

Intel did exactly the same thing. Pentium, Pentium MMX, Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium 4, Pentium D, Pentium M and Pentium Dual-Core, where the newest incarnation is a budget line, replaced by Core 2 Duo/Quad and now i3/i5/i7.
Seen February 27th, 2012
Posted February 27th, 2012
28 posts
11.7 Years
If you compare an Athlon 64 to an i5 OF COURSE THE i5 WILL FEEL FASTER. . . -.-

Honestly I owned an Athlon 64 3800+ and that thing felt great! Considering the year of that CPU? Plus the fact that it was a single core? Sweet Arceus that thing was sweeet. . .

I currently own a Phenom X3 720, honestly, I tried an Intel i7 2600k and I didn't feel a difference (Atleast not in normal usage, I couldn't test out the gaming part cuz' my graphic card, honestly sucks xP) I'm super happy with my 3 core and hell, it was only $80 with the mobo, who can argue with that logic?

Anyways, everything I've owned has been AMD, P4s sucked ass and that was the last Intel desktop I owned. . . I then had a core 2 duo lappy that didn't feel as good as I wanted it to, either way, it died. . .
I meant intel in general is better than AMD. Sorry if I made it sound like I was comparing my two comps, I was just trying to answer the OP's question.