Age old debate AMD vs Intel

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: konakona

did you get a chance to read AT's latest article on PII / C2Q / i7 gaming in realistic scenarios? their conclusion seems to point to the exact opposite of what you are saying... in that article, PII let C2Q take the avg fps but felt "smoother" in actual gameplay.

I thought 3.5+ghz most people are getting with x3/x4 is enough for current and imminent games...

Yes, because "smoother" is very scientific.

Smoother is amdzone babble.

"Yea, the chips may not be as fast, but everything just feels smoother!" :roll:

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: edplayer
on the internet

Microcenter is selling the 920 for $200 today only

How is the AMD $200 cheaper than a Q9550 when you can buy one for $232

The X3 710 is $125 and a decent mobo with tons of features like ESATA, firewire and other goodies is also $50 to $100 more expensive for the same feature set. I spent a considerable amount of time trying to configure an equivalent or slightly better performing Intel system when I decided to go ahead and upgrade and I was not able to get the pricing down to as low as I just paid for the X3 710 and the ASRock mobo without sacrificing some features on the mobo.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: konakona

did you get a chance to read AT's latest article on PII / C2Q / i7 gaming in realistic scenarios? their conclusion seems to point to the exact opposite of what you are saying... in that article, PII let C2Q take the avg fps but felt "smoother" in actual gameplay.

I thought 3.5+ghz most people are getting with x3/x4 is enough for current and imminent games...

Yes, because "smoother" is very scientific.

Smoother is amdzone babble.

"Yea, the chips may not be as fast, but everything just feels smoother!" :roll:

So, by this logic you are equating AT with AMDZone?

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Little price comparo:

Prices taken from Newegg, disregarding shipping/tax/MIR

AMD X4 940: $225
Biostar TA790GX: $100
4gb Kingston DDR2-1066: $43
Total: $368

Core i7 920: $229 (Micro Center price)
Zotac X58: $195
6gb Crucial DDR3-1066: $80
Total: $504

So, while the AMD X4 940 setup is $136 cheaper, the Core i7 is hardly earth-shatteringly expensive. Just based on this, the AMD is probably a better value. However, if you figure the cost of an entire system - HDD's, case, PSU, etc - the overall premium for the Core i7 is not out of line, at all.

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Little price comparo:

Prices taken from Newegg, disregarding shipping/tax/MIR

AMD X4 940: $225
Biostar TA790GX: $100
4gb Kingston DDR2-1066: $43
Total: $368

Core i7 920: $229 (Micro Center price)
Zotac X58: $195
6gb Crucial DDR3-1066: $80
Total: $504

So, while the AMD X4 940 setup is $136 cheaper, the Core i7 is hardly earth-shatteringly expensive. Just based on this, the AMD is probably a better value. However, if you figure the cost of an entire system - HDD's, case, PSU, etc - the overall premium for the Core i7 is not out of line, at all.

You are 100% right flipped gazelle. The i7 build is not as attractive if you have everything but the CPU/MB, but the cost difference diminishes if you need a whole new system. The i7 is a very good value(the 920 at least), and extremely fast . I really can't recommend the 940 or 965 unless you have a high-end WC rig...and then you probably don't care too much about a more expensive CPU/MB combo...

 

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: soonerproud
The X3 710 is $125 and a decent mobo with tons of features like ESATA, firewire and other goodies is also $50 to $100 more expensive for the same feature set.

the OP posted X4 940

and where are you seeing this $50~100 premium for S775 boards?

I see them starting at $100. Where are you seeing comparable AMD boards for $0~50?

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: konakona

did you get a chance to read AT's latest article on PII / C2Q / i7 gaming in realistic scenarios? their conclusion seems to point to the exact opposite of what you are saying... in that article, PII let C2Q take the avg fps but felt "smoother" in actual gameplay.

I thought 3.5+ghz most people are getting with x3/x4 is enough for current and imminent games...

Yes, because "smoother" is very scientific.

Smoother is amdzone babble.

"Yea, the chips may not be as fast, but everything just feels smoother!" :roll:

so did you read the article? or just stigmatizing AT for not being intel friendly enough?
things they said:

i7 > * for SLI/CF configurations
X3 > C2Q for CoH and Crysis Warhead, no perceptible difference in all other titles
X3 for best bang for buck in games

they had minimum framerates that prove X3 coming out on top in the said titles. sorry if my paraphrasing made it sound less scientific, but its still unduly rash of you to write them off without giving that article a chance.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: edplayer

Originally posted by: soonerproud
The X3 710 is $125 and a decent mobo with tons of features like ESATA, firewire and other goodies is also $50 to $100 more expensive for the same feature set.

the OP posted X4 940

and where are you seeing this $50~100 premium for S775 boards?

I see them starting at $100. Where are you seeing comparable AMD boards for $0~50?

The op was open to the X3 710/20 in a later post.

For the same feature set as this board, it is going to cost an additional $50 to $100 to get the exact or similar features as on the board I just linked. That includes shopping by the combo deals.

We are not talking about where they are starting (which those boards lack a lot of features the board I linked has.) but where the price is at to get matching features.

I am not a fanboy of either Intel or AMD but on my very limited budget the AMD platform X3 combo can not be beat by Intel at this time. I can get cheaper Intel chipsets if I am willing to go bare bones, but the cost of equivalent processing is higher when specing Intel vs AMD at this time in both dual and quad core processors.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: konakona

did you get a chance to read AT's latest article on PII / C2Q / i7 gaming in realistic scenarios? their conclusion seems to point to the exact opposite of what you are saying... in that article, PII let C2Q take the avg fps but felt "smoother" in actual gameplay.

I thought 3.5+ghz most people are getting with x3/x4 is enough for current and imminent games...

Yes, because "smoother" is very scientific.

Smoother is amdzone babble.

"Yea, the chips may not be as fast, but everything just feels smoother!" :roll:

So, by this logic you are equating AT with AMDZone?

Im equating anything that cannot be measured as BS.

"Smoothness" is a subjective trait and has no place in anything legitimate.



If something says "Although the maximum framerate was higher, the minimum FPS dips were much lower and/or more frequent", that could quantitatively explain something like "smooth." (This is often discussed in the GPU forum).

 

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

The op was open to the X3 710/20 in a later post.

I didn't see him post that in this thread. Anyways, its clear that he is (or was) under the impression that there is a $200 difference

Originally posted by: soonerproud

For the same feature set as this board, it is going to cost an additional $50 to $100 to get the exact or similar features as on the board I just linked. That includes shopping by the combo deals.

We are not talking about where they are starting (which those boards lack a lot of features the board I linked has.) but where the price is at to get matching features.

I didn't mean that S775 boards start at $100, I meant that you can find $100 boards with the features you listed (esata and firewire). You can find $50 S775 boards. Here is a board that is similar to the one you posted:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16813157151

Its $20 more so there is a small premium, nothing like the $50~100 you are claiming

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: konakona

did you get a chance to read AT's latest article on PII / C2Q / i7 gaming in realistic scenarios? their conclusion seems to point to the exact opposite of what you are saying... in that article, PII let C2Q take the avg fps but felt "smoother" in actual gameplay.

I thought 3.5+ghz most people are getting with x3/x4 is enough for current and imminent games...

Yes, because "smoother" is very scientific.

Smoother is amdzone babble.

"Yea, the chips may not be as fast, but everything just feels smoother!" :roll:

So, by this logic you are equating AT with AMDZone?

Im equating anything that cannot be measured as BS.

"Smoothness" is a subjective trait and has no place in anything legitimate.



If something says "Although the maximum framerate was higher, the minimum FPS dips were much lower and/or more frequent", that could quantitatively explain something like "smooth." (This is often discussed in the GPU forum).

What you are describing is more closely defined as a benchmark, rather than a review. It is perfectly legitimate for a review to include subjective information. Here's a quote from the review in question:

After playing through several levels on each platform, even with the improved performance of the Q9550 after switching to the 9.3 driver set, we thought the Phenom II 940/720BE offered a better overall gaming experience in this title. Are we going to say those three words again? Our therapist advised us not to hold our feelings in as they would eventually manifest and be channeled into a bad review for someone. So without further adieu, Smoother Game Play, Smoother Game Play. That feels better, but all joking aside, we simply experienced better player movement and weapon control during heavy action sequences with our Phenom II processors compared to the Q9550 platform. This was especially true if we were running background applications (IM, File Transfers, AntiVirus, etc.) and especially if CPU usage was over 90%, the Phenom II system never stuttered or gave us a slight pause between level transitions like the Q9550 (editor - Sounds like an SSD review). It might not be noticeable to everyone and at first we thought it was a placebo effect, but doing a blind test with an A/B box always lead us to the Phenom II. The $64 question is if we had the same user experience with the i7 platform. The answer is yes. The i7 offered an improved game play experience over the Q9550 platform based on the same reasons we listed for the Phenom II. Simply put, integrated memory controller and CSI/HTT platform designs perform better than the previous front side bus platforms with these type of system loads.

The article notes that that this is not a "serious issue", and only marginally noticeable. It would be helpful if there had been a follow-up with a slightly different configuration using the Q9550, to see if the slight lack of "smoothness" persisted. This could possibly then either affirm or refute the hypothesis that the IMC of the PhII and Core i7 had such an impact.

So, while I wouldn't call subjective testing B.S. - after all, anyone can throw canned benchmarks out there and call it a review, true pros are unafraid of subjective analysis - when opening a potential can of worms, you better call for backup.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

The article notes that that this is not a "serious issue", and only marginally noticeable. It would be helpful if there had been a follow-up with a slightly different configuration using the Q9550, to see if the slight lack of "smoothness" persisted. This could possibly then either affirm or refute the hypothesis that the IMC of the PhII and Core i7 had such an impact.

So, while I wouldn't call subjective testing B.S. - after all, anyone can throw canned benchmarks out there and call it a review, true pros are unafraid of subjective analysis - when opening a potential can of worms, you better call for backup.

So you are saying things that have no scientific measure should be held in the same regard as things that can be completely tested and re-tested by people other than the reviewer (hard synthetic and real-life benchmarks)?

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

The article notes that that this is not a "serious issue", and only marginally noticeable. It would be helpful if there had been a follow-up with a slightly different configuration using the Q9550, to see if the slight lack of "smoothness" persisted. This could possibly then either affirm or refute the hypothesis that the IMC of the PhII and Core i7 had such an impact.

So, while I wouldn't call subjective testing B.S. - after all, anyone can throw canned benchmarks out there and call it a review, true pros are unafraid of subjective analysis - when opening a potential can of worms, you better call for backup.

So you are saying things that have no scientific measure should be held in the same regard as things that can be completely tested and re-tested by people other than the reviewer (hard synthetic and real-life benchmarks)?

No, I think that things that can be made evident through empirical means ought to be, but that there is room for a more subjective element. Think of the "hard numbers" as the steak, and the "feeling" as the veggie on the side.

There should be an effort to quantify this particular issue - namely, Q9550 "smoothness" in one particular game - or at least a get little depth. Maybe the issue is motherboard/chipset related, and maybe only with ATI video cards. It should be pretty easy to test several Q9550 & mobo & video card combinations with one game, and come to a researched conclusion, if not a measurement.

 

[poohbear]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
In my opinion, it isn't wise to try and build a computer to last you 3-4 years. The only time someone could have done that without shelling out major dough was s939 with the dual cores. A core i7 is nice, but you can get near indentical gaming performance with a phenom X4/Q9xxx. I would shoot for a two year lifespan and spend half the $$. Think about it, four years ago i had a pentium 4 2.26ghz with 256mb pc2100 and a Geforce ti 4200. Four years from now this hardware will sound much more ridiculous then that pentium 4 is now.

I'd get a Phenom 2 X3 and a 4850 and be done with it.

so true. 4 years from now we'll laugh @ the highest end i7 w/ all the bells & whisltes.

That's why u should buy for what your budget allows NOW. 3-4 years is like a century in computer years. as for gaming, u're not gonna notice a big difference w/ any of the current gen cpus. the video card is the most important component for gaming @ resolutions we all game at. there's only so much the cpu can do.

 

[Jabbernyx]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Not "rediculous" at all. Just ask folks who bought S478 late in it's life, or S754 just months prior to S939. If there were confidence that AMD could ramp up PhII's to 4 Ghz or higher, that would be a good argument for going AM3. That's not likely the case, though.

I :heart:ed my Venice S754 nFore4 system.

 

[Jacque]

I think Intel and AMD has their pros and cons...but I'm sticking with AMD because they're much cheaper than Intel and I never had any problems with my AMD machines for the past 10 years.

 

[Imager]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: Imager

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: Imager
ok, narrowed it down to two options for my new PC - which CPU to get for a lot of video/movie burning and gaming, lotsa multitasking.

AMD Phenom?II X4 940 Quad-Core

or

Intel® Core? 2 Quad Q9550 @ 2.83GHz 1333FSB 12MB L2 Cache 64-bit

I go new about every 4yrs or so.

Read AT review.

If you can afford Core i7, that would be the way to go if you want to keep the same system for 4 years.

The Q9550 is a bit faster than the PhII X4 940.

The PhII X4 940 is cheaper than the Q9550.

You could get the X4 940, and an AM3 motherboard, and DDR3 memory, and have a future-upgradeable platform. The question is, will there ever be an AM3-compatible CPU that is faster than the top S775 CPU (Q9650)? I doubt it, but who knows?

Edit: If you plan on using an aftermarket cooler, Ewiz has the PhII X4 920 oem for $175.

Edit #2: AMD is introducing another PhII model this month, so you might want to wait a little longer, to see if the newer model interests you, or drives prices down on current PhII's.

Thanks for the quick reply. I seriously looked into the Core i7 and wanted to go that route, however that put me at about $300-400+ more then what I was able to price the other two at. Actually I think the AMD actually ended up being about $500 or so less, cause that was even about $200 less then the Q9550. I could easily wait another month or so - no biggie on that. Just trying to really narrow it down.

Main current PC (in sig) that I wanted to pass down is now farked up and I need to spend some cash to fix that up which makes the above purchase that much tighter.

Core i7- $200
mobo- $170 AR
ram 6gb ddr3- 56 AR

How is that expensive? In fact, it's barely more than a Core 2. People need to let go of Core 2 and move on. Hate to break it but Core 2 is DEAD.

Great prices on those...for ONE day sales, hehe.
With normal prices, it came out to be about $300 or so more then then Core2 Quads, and $500 or so more then the AMD.

My current rig is going to cost a little to get back and running it seems so I need to also take that into effect now.

BTW - what is the AR?

 

[Imager]

Originally posted by: Jacque
I think Intel and AMD has their pros and cons...but I'm sticking with AMD because they're much cheaper than Intel and I never had any problems with my AMD machines for the past 10 years.

I've been with AMD for the past 10yrs for the above same reason. I was leaning towards the Core i7's until budget for them put me over the top.

 

[Targon]

For those questioning the whole concept of "upgrade path", for those who work for a living and have money come in on a regular basis, doing an $800 system purchase today, followed by a $200 CPU purchase in even three months MAY end up being a bit easier than spending $1000 today. Some might argue that it would be best to wait, but if your computer is down, buying a computer in the short term makes more sense to get you back up and running.

Then, you also have the case of those with an Athlon 64 X2 5600+ but with a motherboard that supports the new Phenom 2 processors. Can you really bash people for suggesting the Phenom 2 is a much better deal? The AMD 790GX chipset motherboards for the most part will handle the Phenom 2 processors, both DDR2 as well as the DDR3 versions. So, you can buy a system with a cheap CPU but with a $50 processor, and then get a HUGE upgrade in a few months with just a CPU upgrade.

 

[Imager]

Originally posted by: Targon
For those questioning the whole concept of "upgrade path", for those who work for a living and have money come in on a regular basis, doing an $800 system purchase today, followed by a $200 CPU purchase in even three months MAY end up being a bit easier than spending $1000 today. Some might argue that it would be best to wait, but if your computer is down, buying a computer in the short term makes more sense to get you back up and running.

Then, you also have the case of those with an Athlon 64 X2 5600+ but with a motherboard that supports the new Phenom 2 processors. Can you really bash people for suggesting the Phenom 2 is a much better deal? The AMD 790GX chipset motherboards for the most part will handle the Phenom 2 processors, both DDR2 as well as the DDR3 versions. So, you can buy a system with a cheap CPU but with a $50 processor, and then get a HUGE upgrade in a few months with just a CPU upgrade.

WOW - got a little lost on that one...seemed to me you are saying to get a new PC and spend the 1K, but then go cheap and only spend a bare min then upgrade??!! Little confused...

My time for gaming is a little less ATM, so I'm trying to get by with just my laptop. But yes the budget is targeted for NOW...not now and then in a few months/1yr down the road.

 

[deimos3428]

There are really only three options when buying any computer (or component).

1. Buy only what you need today.
2. Buy what you need today, plus upgrade flexibility
3. Buy more than what you need today

The first option is most affordable at the time of purchase. The pitfall here is that you may end up wasting money by paying for an entirely new computer (or component) that has one small bit of functionality you require.

The third option is a gamble that your future needs will match what you've currently over-buying. The pitfall here is that they may not! Technology does not always expand in predictable fashion, and you may end up wasting money by never fully utilizing the capacity you've pre-purchased.

The second option is meant to be a budget-conscious way of sidestepping these two pitfalls. Like insurance, you want to waste a little bit of money, to ensure you don't waste a whole lot of money.

So as long as the premium on an upgrade path is small, that's the way to go. If an upgrade path is expensive, it's probably not worth it.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: deimos3428

So as long as the premium on an upgrade path is small, that's the way to go. If an upgrade path is expensive, it's probably not worth it.

then your implying he should get an amd?

Because the LGA1366 has the most expensive upgrade path.
The LGA775 is a dying upgrade path.

The AM2 is the only budget orientated upgrade class..

But you know the top two would wipe the floor off even an upgraded AM2 package if you packaged the top two correctly. :T

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: Imager

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: Imager

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: Imager
ok, narrowed it down to two options for my new PC - which CPU to get for a lot of video/movie burning and gaming, lotsa multitasking.

AMD Phenom?II X4 940 Quad-Core

or

Intel® Core? 2 Quad Q9550 @ 2.83GHz 1333FSB 12MB L2 Cache 64-bit

I go new about every 4yrs or so.

Read AT review.

If you can afford Core i7, that would be the way to go if you want to keep the same system for 4 years.

The Q9550 is a bit faster than the PhII X4 940.

The PhII X4 940 is cheaper than the Q9550.

You could get the X4 940, and an AM3 motherboard, and DDR3 memory, and have a future-upgradeable platform. The question is, will there ever be an AM3-compatible CPU that is faster than the top S775 CPU (Q9650)? I doubt it, but who knows?

Edit: If you plan on using an aftermarket cooler, Ewiz has the PhII X4 920 oem for $175.

Edit #2: AMD is introducing another PhII model this month, so you might want to wait a little longer, to see if the newer model interests you, or drives prices down on current PhII's.

Thanks for the quick reply. I seriously looked into the Core i7 and wanted to go that route, however that put me at about $300-400+ more then what I was able to price the other two at. Actually I think the AMD actually ended up being about $500 or so less, cause that was even about $200 less then the Q9550. I could easily wait another month or so - no biggie on that. Just trying to really narrow it down.

Main current PC (in sig) that I wanted to pass down is now farked up and I need to spend some cash to fix that up which makes the above purchase that much tighter.

Core i7- $200
mobo- $170 AR
ram 6gb ddr3- 56 AR

How is that expensive? In fact, it's barely more than a Core 2. People need to let go of Core 2 and move on. Hate to break it but Core 2 is DEAD.

Great prices on those...for ONE day sales, hehe.
With normal prices, it came out to be about $300 or so more then then Core2 Quads, and $500 or so more then the AMD.

My current rig is going to cost a little to get back and running it seems so I need to also take that into effect now.

BTW - what is the AR?

1 day sales? $500 more? Where are you shopping, ripoff.com? The MSI X58 PRO was $169.99 AFTER REBATE for over a month. The RAM was $57 for a couple of days but there is still 6GB of Corsair DDR3 1333 for $70 AR. Core i7 is regularly $230 everyday at MicroCenter.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: deimos3428

So as long as the premium on an upgrade path is small, that's the way to go. If an upgrade path is expensive, it's probably not worth it.

then your implying he should get an amd?

Because the LGA1366 has the most expensive upgrade path.
The LGA775 is a dying upgrade path.

The AM2 is the only budget orientated upgrade class..

But you know the top two would wipe the floor off even an upgraded AM2 package if you packaged the top two correctly. :T

Vis-a-vis LGA775 vs AM2, AT's own benchmarks refute this.

 

[konakona]

I think he probably means with anything non-gaming related, which is true as he puts it. He did recommend AM2 for budget gaming in another thread anyway.