AMD or Intel?

[twocows]

Not exactly. Intel's current top-end CPUs are faster than AMD's at this point in time.

By the way, what are your specs at the moment, twocows? Because anything below an i7 is in AMD territory*. So by your logic, anything slower than the i7 (both generations) counts as below the point of usability, as "AMD is useful if you're not actually using your processor."

Without clouding things up with bias, the fair statement would be that Intel dominates the super-high-end CPU market due to offering faster CPUs than AMD can offer. Sadly, there is actually a very small demographic of the computer-using world that has access to equipment of that level. Below that threshold, neither is better, so Intel and AMD are left to battle out a consumer-preference battle with the same levels of performance, with Intel currently making more sales due to a combination of a well-known name, a massive marketing budget and the halo effect from the top-end.

I'm all for brand loyalty; Intel certainly does have the upper hand at the moment, but suggesting that Intel is undeniably superior at every market segment is the sort of thing that increases the already-high level of miscalculated fear that currently plagues the computer market. Just try not to generalise.


* With exception of the i5-2500s in certain cases. Highly-threaded loads (which best fit the description of "actually using" a CPU to its full potential) allow the Thubans to achieve this, sure. But that's point. The equal raw grunt is clearly there.

It's funny that you say that. According to Tom's Hardware, AMD's "top of the line" is roughly on par with the i5 2300 2.8GHz. However, the i5 2300 costs $180, whilst AMD's equivalent in performance (the Phenom II X6 3.3GHz) costs... $194! The Phenom II x4 955 is roughly equivalent to the i3-2100, and yet it costs $140 to the i3's $125. If you're looking for less performance than an i3, then you start to get into territory that AMD can actually compete in (in other words, territory where Intel doesn't really bother to compete in).

You're operating on outdated information. Intel completely outdid themselves with Sandy Bridge; nothing AMD has out even holds a candle. Even the lowly i3 line completely blows AMD's offerings out of the water.

If Intel is always better, then why does my tricore AMD outpreform my Pentium 2 processor? You can argue age diffrence, but you said it yourself... Intel is always better.

Don't be a smart-mouth. You know what I meant.

Normally I would support Intel, AMD is an alright brand. I tend to think that Intel is more fit for my PC use in gaming, and multi-tasking. I Know some may say it's all about the name if you look at it from a business standpoint. But Intel is used by most mainstream computers. But proudly I am willing to say I want to buy AMD 6-core processor. Since Intel doesn't really have one that I know of yet. Another thing is that its cheaper then the Intel Core i7.

AMD's 6-core processor has horrible performance. Even Intel's midrange line performs better, and it's cheaper. And Intel has 6-core processors, they're just way more expensive (and currently useless to a consumer, as most games and desktop applications are optimized for no more than four cores).

 

[Archer]

It's funny that you say that. According to Tom's Hardware, AMD's "top of the line" is roughly on par with the i5 2300 2.8GHz. However, the i5 2300 costs $180, whilst AMD's equivalent in performance (the Phenom II X6 3.3GHz) costs... $194!

That's because the 1100T has flagship-tax (paying a lot more than the second place because it's the top) and the 2300 isn't. If you go with the almost identical 1090T, it's cheaper than the i5-2300. Plus, it's not just the CPU. AMD boards are traditionally cheaper for the same specs and features.

Z68X-UD5 is $295 AUD - Intel
990FXA-UD5 is $209 AUD - AMD

Sure, it's a bigger difference in the higher end, but that's a huge difference for what is essentially the same board. Not to mention that the 2300 is locked from overclocking and the 1090T (which will happily do 4.2GHz on a good board) is fully unlocked. Both of these apply to the 955/i3 example.

Don't be a smart-mouth. You know what I meant.

He was probably a little antagonistic about it, but it's because you made two huge generalisations against AMD. Do you still maintain that every AMD processor is entirely useless?

Also, what are your current specs, twocows?

 

[Ziraider]

Originally Posted by Ziraider
Normally I would support Intel, AMD is an alright brand. I tend to think that Intel is more fit for my PC use in gaming, and multi-tasking. I Know some may say it's all about the name if you look at it from a business standpoint. But Intel is used by most mainstream computers. But proudly I am willing to say I want to buy AMD 6-core processor. Since Intel doesn't really have one that I know of yet. Another thing is that its cheaper then the Intel Core i7.

AMD's 6-core processor has horrible performance. Even Intel's midrange line performs better, and it's cheaper. And Intel has 6-core processors, they're just way more expensive (and currently useless to a consumer, as most games and desktop applications are optimized for no more than four cores).

OH, I am really shocked that it would, since on Newegg.com it has over 100 reviews and they are all 75% or more 5 egg rating.

 

[SpeedyGeek]

However, the i5 2300 costs $180, whilst AMD's equivalent in performance (the Phenom II X6 3.3GHz) costs... $194! The Phenom II x4 955 is roughly equivalent to the i3-2100, and yet it costs $140 to the i3's $125.

Z68X-UD5 is $295 AUD - Intel
990FXA-UD5 is $209 AUD - AMD

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.

For example, where I usually live Intel processors tend to be more expensive than AMD counterparts (and by counterparts I mean like high end Intel vs high end AMD). But where I am now, AMD is *gasp* more expensive.

Sure, it's a bigger difference in the higher end, but that's a huge difference for what is essentially the same board. Not to mention that the 2300 is locked from overclocking and the 1090T (which will happily do 4.2GHz on a good board)

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? After all, the true performance of the computer depends on not just one component but the entire build.

OH, I am really shocked that it would, since on Newegg.com it has over 100 reviews and they are all 75% or more 5 egg rating.

Try looking into benchmarks if you want a more credible source.

 

[twocows]

That's because the 1100T has flagship-tax (paying a lot more than the second place because it's the top) and the 2300 isn't. If you go with the almost identical 1090T, it's cheaper than the i5-2300. Plus, it's not just the CPU. AMD boards are traditionally cheaper for the same specs and features.

Z68X-UD5 is $295 AUD - Intel
990FXA-UD5 is $209 AUD - AMD

Sure, it's a bigger difference in the higher end, but that's a huge difference for what is essentially the same board. Not to mention that the 2300 is locked from overclocking and the 1090T (which will happily do 4.2GHz on a good board) is fully unlocked. Both of these apply to the 955/i3 example.


He was probably a little antagonistic about it, but it's because you made two huge generalisations against AMD. Do you still maintain that every AMD processor is entirely useless?

He was taking what I said literally in a situation where my meaning was implied.

I think if you're going to step down on the AMD scale, you need to step down on the Intel scale as well. As for overclocking, I don't take it into account because most people don't and shouldn't do it.

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.

Also, what are your current specs, twocows?

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.

 

[Archer]

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.

 

[SpeedyGeek]

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]

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.

 

[Cartmic]

I'm running some Intel thing at the moment, but my preferred system uses an ARM processor. I've using ARM based computers Since 1991.

 

[SpeedyGeek]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[SpeedyGeek]

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.

 

[double trouble!]

In the laptop I'm using... I have an Intel Core 2 Duo T5600 (1.83 GHz)
I'm building my own desktop with a Core i7 2600K. Just waiting for RAM and a video card.

 

[YuDaMan]

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.

 

[Winneon]

AMD Sempron(TM) 2500+

Although I would prefer a Intel i3, i5, or i7. But hey, everyone wants those, eh?

 

[GlaceonX]

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. . .

 

[Raven-NAR-32450]

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?)