AMD phenom 4 core vs athlon 2 core

[Red Squirrel]

I'm debating between getting a dual core athlon 64 or a 4 core phenom 64. Obviously phenom will be better, but just how much better? Is it worth the extra money to go quad core? This will be for a VM server running Linux software raid.

 

[Roguestar]

Depends what you're doing. If you're going to often be running many parallel processes or lots of VMs then quad-core may benefit you highly. If you're going to spend the money to get a quad core phenom you may as well get an Intel quad core, seeing as they perform better.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Is it really the case now with Intel. As far as I know they ARE ahead of the game, but I also have heard AMD is still more stable and does better with certain applications such as Linux/VMs or other types of processing (while Intel is better at games and graphical stuff). But I have not really read up that much on it. I've always gone AMD, but I am considering Intel if it is in fact better. I did also hear AMD is coming out with 8 core by Christmas so even debating on if I wait till then.

 

[Roguestar]

Intel and AMD CPUs are always subject to a lot of BS and FUD on both sides. Neither are particularly customised in any way for gaming or server applications or anything like that. Intel CPUs generally do better in games etc because they perform better, same with most other applications. AMD aren't particularly better in any one region and AMD's chips lately have been somewhat disappointing compared to Intel's current offerings. Intel's CPUs are no less "stable" than AMD's CPUs and at the moment are clock-for-clock better performers than their AMD counterparts, which is why AMD have been forced to cut prices a lot to compete. If I were you, I'd get a good Intel Quad-Core now, like the Q9300 and you'd be very happy with it.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I'll give Intel a shot then, I've always been AMD person and know their chips better but time for change eh!

 

[Roguestar]

I know what you mean; until I got my E6300 two years ago I had nothing but AMD processors up until then. No point in staying loyal to the brand if the stats aren't in your favour, though. In a way I'm glad intel released the Core 2 so that AMD were shocked out of being complacent with their position. Now the increased competition is leading both companies to produce better and better CPUs, which is always good for the end consumer.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Yeah the competition is good for sure. Eventually AMD might beat Intel again, then Intel will beat AMD... its basically a game of catchup.

One thing I have noticed though is in the past years the clock rates have been rather steady, guess they just can't push more anymore, so its easier to parelalize it instead by adding more cores, cache etc.

 

[Fox5]

There's always an AMD triple core. They start at a lower price than many of Intel's dual cores now.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I set myself up a system on tigerdirect for about $1700. Still debating on if I really do NEED this upgrade (I WANT it ) as that's a lot of money and I'm saving up for a house.

8GB of ram, 2TB raid 5 (capacity for another 2TB raid 5 array) Intel Core 2 Quad, case, psu, whole shebang.

My excuse is career advancement. I'll need that server so I can setup complex windows VM environments so I can study for my A+, MCSA/E and possibly other certs like Linux+ It will also have production VMs and the host itself will be prod.

OR do I want till the 8 cores come out? Decisions decisions.

 

[Red Squirrel]

ordered! That's gonna hurt the wallet, but will be sweet! Can't wait to see the performance difference. I did my own research too and everyone is saying Intel is way ahead right now so it really did make more sense to go Intel.