AMD vs Intel...Big difference?

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by Coolio10, Feb 3, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Coolio10

    Coolio10 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,124
  2. SystemJunkie

    SystemJunkie Resident Conspiracy Theorist

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Posts:
    1,500
    Location:
    Germany
    With 2.6 Ghz it would be fine.
     
  3. Coolio10

    Coolio10 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,124
    It's not good?
     
  4. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    I would say Intel's processors are better than AMDs at the moment based on the numerous benchmarks made.

    If the laptop seems slow I would blame the slow 5400rpm disk. Vista doesnt help either :p
     
  5. DVD+R

    DVD+R Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,979
    Location:
    The Antipodes
    Well I'm building myself a Slick new system comprising of the following :cool:

    AMD Phenom Processor 9600.AM+2 2.3GHz Quad Core 95w 4MB L2+L3 Cache

    #Gigabyte Mainboard - GA-M57SLI-S4, nForce 670 SLI AM2 2PCI-Ex16,3PCI-Ex1,10USB2.AXT,4DDR2 Dual-CH,6-SATA 3Gb/s Raid/G-lan,1394,HD Audio

    8600GT 512MB PCI-E Gigabyte[GV-NX86T512H] SILENT Graphics Card GDDR2 128bit TV-Out HDTV HDCP

    DDR2-800 Kingston 2GB-Kit[KVR800D2N5K2/2G] RAM, PC2-6400 CL5 240-Pin DMM Kit

    Asus DRW-2014L1T LightScribe 20X SATA DVD-Re-Writer

    Antec Case- Sonata III - Quiet Super Mini Tower - 500w PSU Supports mATX and ATX front HD Audio eSATA, USB 9 drive bays


    # Notice I havent added the Hard Drive as yet, but this may be 500GB

    :cool:
     
  6. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    I have two computers, one with an Intel and one with an AMD. I prefer the way the AMD performs compared to an almost identical speed Intel.
    They are both good operating processors but The AMD seems to perform better and runs quite a bit cooler. This is a personal observation, but It's all I have to go by that I have first hand experience with in the last couple of years...
     
  7. farmerlee

    farmerlee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Posts:
    2,585
    I use both amd and intel dual core processors and theres no real noticeable difference for everyday use. Vista runs just as badly on both systems :).
     
  8. QQ2595

    QQ2595 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Posts:
    159
    I have two laptops with AMD(Turion 64X2) and Intel.

    I think the AMD one is cheaper and it has a powerful capability.
     
  9. Huupi

    Huupi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Posts:
    2,024
    Nice config,for harddrive i would add biggest Raptor or if your money can buy go for the newest SSD drives. I like to have my systemdrives small,but guess you may think different.
     
  10. SystemJunkie

    SystemJunkie Resident Conspiracy Theorist

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Posts:
    1,500
    Location:
    Germany
    I also made this experience in the past but don´t know how good Core 2 DUO cpus are, I mean I never had one to test. In the past Intel was always a bit slow when you switched lots between applications, Amd was always more fluent especially when surfing the Internet. Maybe someone can give feedback (in comparison to e.g. X2 4800-5600+ vs C2D6600/C2D6750) if Core2Duo or Quad feels as liquid and fluent like Amd X2s espescially when switching apps and opening browsers. (in the past Intel(P4/P3) always had a slight lazyness/delay maybe because of FSB or less L1 Cache, don´t know)
     
  11. jrmhng

    jrmhng Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2007
    Posts:
    1,268
    Location:
    Australia
    On a laptop Intel has much better power management.
     
  12. SystemJunkie

    SystemJunkie Resident Conspiracy Theorist

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Posts:
    1,500
    Location:
    Germany
    We are talking about subjective speed feeling when switching between apps and starting/stopping browsers for example. That was in the past always AMDs speciality don´t know actual state of Core 2s.
     
  13. Coolio10

    Coolio10 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,124
    I noticed most benchmarks are not fair when using amd and intel chips.

    For example this test: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/207763-28-t7600-dv9000t.

    They try to get the ghz close and the intel is higher plus it has 4mb cache compared to 1mb in the tl-60 which is way unfair. Why? The intel is probably $400 more so why compare performance specs if the price is going to be the main factor for consumers.
    Maybe gamers wouldn't mind paying $400 more but office work or home work will go for less.

    The AMD i bought comes with everything including HDMI and the intel that is $300-$400 more has nothing extra and missing features from the AMD laptop.
     
  14. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,013
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    imo laptop wise intel wins right now, but when using it for everday tasks there will be little difference. intensive apps yes intel will outpace the amd.. i own a bunch of laptops and have some core 2's and amd's turion's and for now i will only buy core 2


    honestly the amd tends tp perform like the the intel dual core pentiums which are prob the best bang for the buck right now
     
  15. Fuzzfas

    Fuzzfas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Posts:
    2,753
    1) Tom's hardware, as i have read in hardware fora, has a reputation of supporting Intel. Which does have a real advantage for now though,

    2)Intels were always more costly. Being cheaper and performing well was the selling point of AMDs.

    I honestly stop following processor evolution since my last AMD 3800+ X2, because i don't feel the need for anything stronger... IMHO, if you are not a gamer, ANY dual core, is more than enough to run any normal application except for professional video editing, designing etc.

    With the prices of notebooks dropping, i think that the best thing to do is simply get the best bang for buck. You buy a better dual core? It's already surpassed by a quad core. With my entry-level dual core and an "old" NV6600, i can do anything, including watch high definition video without slowdowns.

    So, unless you have need for particularly CPU-hungry apps, i think that the few seconds benefit you may get, are justified only if you find a better price.

    As for feeling it slow, maybe it's Vista,i don't know. In WinXP there is a dual core fix patch and you must edit your boot.ini file and add a parameter. In this way the 2 cores are used better.

    If i were you, i would ask for help to some specialized hardware forum. There are some real gurus over there.
     
  16. Coolio10

    Coolio10 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,124
    Look at this comparison of computers i setup.

    http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/co...st&page=2&catid=25315&sort=3&logon=&langid=EN

    If you had to pick the best bang for the buck which would you pick. So not necessarily the best unless it is worth the $100-$200 more.

    For non-application based work such as moving files or just clicking the start menu would intels larger cache or amd's higher ghz be better?

    I am now sure vista is just plain buggy to cause slowdowns sometimes.
    I have to right click and refresh for firefox downloads to show on the desktop......how did microsoft miss that.

    And my slowdown with youcam software happens to others.
     
  17. Fuzzfas

    Fuzzfas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Posts:
    2,753
    Coolio, as i said, unfortunately, i stopped following the CPU evolution when i got my socket 939 AMD dual core.

    I think that the main limiting factor of those models above, is, as stated before, the slow hard disk. The Intels are supposed to have better performance for the same Ghz, but between a 1,67 Intel and a 2.0 AMD, i don't think you will see some real difference for simple tasks like moving files etc. Heck, i passed from AMD3200 to dual 3800+ Χ2 (which has 2 3200+ cores inside at 2.0 GHz) and in normal things you can't notice the difference. You only notice it in multitasking. With the dual core you can do many things at the same time without freezing.

    I would buy the Turion 2.0Ghz, to save the 100 $... Or i would search a model with 7200 rpm hard disk and give the extra 100$ for it... I don't think it is worth to give much money on PCs nowdays, because they get obsolete so fast and cost always cheaper, that it's best to buy an "entry level" cheaply and replace it with another entry level in a few years.

    I have a friend with Intel dual core HP notebook and he thinks that there is a general lag as compared to XP, because of Vista being heavy...

    This is my opinion, but as i said, i am not updated in CPU evolution nowdays. I used to be, until i realised that i had more than enough power for my needs with an entry level dual core.

    RAM is good and expandible to 4GB, so no problem there either. The slowdowns, IMHO, have something to do with Vista and the slow hard disk.

    Ny advice is, buy cheap. Just think, that in a while blu ray burners will be common and yours won't have it. Notebooks aren't easily upgradable. That's why i prefer desktops... You can upgrade them continously and protect your investment. With notebooks, i would take the Turion 2.0. IMHO, it doesn't worth the extra money for something else.
     
  18. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,007
    atm intel is winning hands down.
    i normaly favour AMD but this time round i brought a intel Q6600 quad core 2.4ghz its much more powerful than the AMD Phenoms
    lodore
     
  19. SystemJunkie

    SystemJunkie Resident Conspiracy Theorist

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Posts:
    1,500
    Location:
    Germany
    Good choice.

    Fully understandable.
    But I would say X2 5200+ is the minimum level where you don´t need any further upgrade.
     
  20. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,013
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    why not build your own?? you can get so much more for your money that way..

    get a ifl90 whitebook from compal, the cpu, hdd, ram, wifi card plug them in and load up your os.. i build my own all the time. i almost never buy them pre done anymore.. i can recc sager (will ship to canada), compal, xotic pc (will ship to canada), or eurocomm is in canada...

    not sure if zipzoomfly will ship to you but they have the best price for the barebones system that i have found atm..
     
  21. Fuzzfas

    Fuzzfas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Posts:
    2,753
    Well, in the past, i was upgrading CPUs like mad. For now, i see no need. I don't play new games, i usually use the PC for internet, listening to music, burning dvds, p2p, word processor,watching films.

    Right now i can surf, while having p2p and burning a dvd and listening to music with no problems. More than that, i don't know what i could do. :D
     
  22. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,013
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
  23. jet_jeff

    jet_jeff Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Posts:
    2
    my vote to intel processors...
     
  24. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,013
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
  25. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    I'd have to agree. Iv'e used virtually identically configured desktops one with Intel and one with AMD. Get the AMD and save a few dollars.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.