I am so confused right now

[tomaccogoats]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819115017

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819103273

I keep going back and forth and back and forth and back and forth...I can't make up my mind on which one to get for my new build...what are your opinions?

 

[Quiksilver]

q6600

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: Quiksilver
q6600

Any research at all would indicate this is the best choice. Cheaper, faster, cooler.

 

[taltamir]

my Q6600 is a really bad one.. its VID is really terrible compared to other SLACR models...

But I did OC it to 3ghz while undervolting at the same time (UNDER volting)

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: Quiksilver
q6600

Any research at all would indicate this is the best choice. Cheaper, faster, cooler.

At 2.6GHz is the Phenom still slower than a 2.4GHz Kenstfield?

No argument that the Q6600 is cheaper and cooler, and if overclocked to each chip's max potential then Q6600 is no doubt faster...but I thought a 2.6GHz Phenom would give a Q6600 at stock a run for the performance charts. no?

 

[tomaccogoats]

Okey, thanks guys. I did some research, but most of the sites I found were just Intel and AMD fanboys flaming eachother =/

 

[o1die]

You just need to pick your price range. Both Intel and Amd will work fine. It's a matter of whether you want to overclock and how much to spend on the motherboard. Fry's is closing out so much stuff right now. For $100-110, you can get a great cpu with free board. Yesterday it was the e7200; today it's the tri core 8450 amd.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: Quiksilver
q6600

Any research at all would indicate this is the best choice. Cheaper, faster, cooler.

At 2.6GHz is the Phenom still slower than a 2.4GHz Kenstfield?

No argument that the Q6600 is cheaper and cooler, and if overclocked to each chip's max potential then Q6600 is no doubt faster...but I thought a 2.6GHz Phenom would give a Q6600 at stock a run for the performance charts. no?

You're right, sorry, I was probably subconsciously factoring overclocking with my comment about the Q6600 being faster than the 9950. They probably are pretty well matched at stock.

And, as a matter of fact, checking the Newegg prices just now, the Q6600 is $190 and the 9950 is $180(!), although you do need to buy a cooler separately.

OP, you can simply check out reviews at Anandtech and Techreport to get the facts regarding the CPU's, without having to subject yourself to AMD/Intel flamewars.

 

[TC91]

i would go with the q6600 (especially if you want to overclock, 3ghz is pretty easy to achieve on them but ymmv), but first calculate the cost of each platform, and then see which one is more expensive. If you plan to run them at stock, then you could flip a coin.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: TC91
i would go with the q6600 (especially if you want to overclock, 3ghz is pretty easy to achieve on them but ymmv), but first calculate the cost of each platform, and then see which one is more expensive. If you plan to run them at stock, then you could flip a coin.

There's not really anything to calculate... on either platform, you could go for a $50 motherboard or a $200 one. Video card, memory, hdd, etc. can be the same for each. The differences lie in performance and features.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I'm good with all of this. I'd recommend the Q6600. But I missed an opportunity three years ago just to "try" an AMD configuration, and I've used Intel exclusively and in general (with or without over-clocking; with our without OC-capable motherboards) from the early 1980s. There is an inherent bias, even as we recognize that Intel and AMD fit a duopoly model in the market, or that Intel is a "dominant" firm. There is a knee-jerk reaction to withdraw from products in such a market, but not this one. It is the inherent nature of things. Even Microsoft demonstrates the phenomenon that dominant firms or monopolists can provide superior product support.

It becomes even more complicated to think that Intel's Nehalem will offer a new architecture in respect to the memory controller which AMD has used for some time.

I may be imagining things, but I think the profile of our members here has shifted. Three years ago, a lot of our member-gurus used -- and recommended -- AMD. There was an even distribution of threads on AMD and Intel, or it was lopsided toward AMD. I see now that a lot of people have jumped on the Intel bandwagon -- hot to check out the latest steppings, or find the skinny on the newest processor releases.

 

[phexac]

Originally posted by: BonzaiDuck
I'm good with all of this. I'd recommend the Q6600. But I missed an opportunity three years ago just to "try" an AMD configuration, and I've used Intel exclusively and in general (with or without over-clocking; with our without OC-capable motherboards) from the early 1980s. There is an inherent bias, even as we recognize that Intel and AMD fit a duopoly model in the market, or that Intel is a "dominant" firm. There is a knee-jerk reaction to withdraw from products in such a market, but not this one. It is the inherent nature of things. Even Microsoft demonstrates the phenomenon that dominant firms or monopolists can provide superior product support.

It becomes even more complicated to think that Intel's Nehalem will offer a new architecture in respect to the memory controller which AMD has used for some time.

I may be imagining things, but I think the profile of our members here has shifted. Three years ago, a lot of our member-gurus used -- and recommended -- AMD. There was an even distribution of threads on AMD and Intel, or it was lopsided toward AMD. I see now that a lot of people have jumped on the Intel bandwagon -- hot to check out the latest steppings, or find the skinny on the newest processor releases.

That's because back then AMD made the better chip and it doesn't right now?

 

[SlowSpyder]

I would think between those two chips it's pretty much a wash. They're pretty close in performance and both should over clock to 3GHz, probably a slight edge generally speaking the the Q6600 in overclocking.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: phexac

Originally posted by: BonzaiDuck
I'm good with all of this. I'd recommend the Q6600. But I missed an opportunity three years ago just to "try" an AMD configuration, and I've used Intel exclusively and in general (with or without over-clocking; with our without OC-capable motherboards) from the early 1980s. There is an inherent bias, even as we recognize that Intel and AMD fit a duopoly model in the market, or that Intel is a "dominant" firm. There is a knee-jerk reaction to withdraw from products in such a market, but not this one. It is the inherent nature of things. Even Microsoft demonstrates the phenomenon that dominant firms or monopolists can provide superior product support.

It becomes even more complicated to think that Intel's Nehalem will offer a new architecture in respect to the memory controller which AMD has used for some time.

I may be imagining things, but I think the profile of our members here has shifted. Three years ago, a lot of our member-gurus used -- and recommended -- AMD. There was an even distribution of threads on AMD and Intel, or it was lopsided toward AMD. I see now that a lot of people have jumped on the Intel bandwagon -- hot to check out the latest steppings, or find the skinny on the newest processor releases.

That's because back then AMD made the better chip and it doesn't right now?

Yup. I think that the majority of At'ers are more performance- or value- oriented than brand-loyal.

 

[ultimahwhat]

the obvious question: what are you looking to do with this computer?

AMD has some nice integrated graphics on their boards (e.g. 790GX or even the 780G if you don't care too much to overclock), which would be fine if you're not going to be doing heavy gaming.

also, i've heard that the 9950 comes with a stock cooler fan.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: ultimahwhat
the obvious question: what are you looking to do with this computer?

AMD has some nice integrated graphics on their boards (e.g. 790GX or even the 780G if you don't care too much to overclock), which would be fine if you're not going to be doing heavy gaming.

also, i've heard that the 9950 comes with a stock cooler fan.

My guess is that it does... my 9850 came with the copper plate/4 heatpipe stock AMD heatsink/fan. It's actually a really nice unit for a stock unit.

 

[nerp]

Stock coolers for the higher AMDs are really quite good.

 

[Avalon]

You'll want to read up on reviews (this site has one) that target the kind of programs you run. I'd agree with IDC that a 2.6Ghz Phenom could be fairly comparable to a 2.4Ghz Q6600 in many applications. It's also $13 cheaper going by your links.

Once you find out which one tends to perform better in the apps you run, you'll also want to ask yourself if you'd be overclocking your PC. If so, then I'd have to definitely recommend the Q6600...otherwise, tossup.

 

[taltamir]

I have gone through a set of about 7 AMD machines... now I am getting intels... why? because back then AMD made better & cheaper chips, now they don't.
The only reason to get that phenom is if you already own an AMD mobo. Although at the low end, the X2 line can be more attractive (to the non overclocker) then intel's. starting at cheaper price points, and being coupled with the terrific 780G.

The Q6600 is better. and yes, even at 2.6ghz vs 2.4ghz the Q6600 wins. Get it.

 

[starfireone]

Unless you are a highend gamer you will never notice the difference between the two chips. Performance in a PC does not just lie alone in the CPU but also in the motherboard chipset, video card performance and most important in the amount of memory you have installed on the motherboard and the video card. You can have a very fast good performing CPU and a cheap motherboard, less than 1gb of memory and a low end video card and have very very lousy PC performance. So I suggest you also look at a highend video card and max memory for your mother too.

I personally have a PC that runs a AMD 5000 blackedition CPU chip and I am very happy with its performance on games, internet and applications. But yes the Intel chip is slightly faster when playing some games. But not enough for me to personally notice.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: starfireone
Unless you are a highend gamer you will never notice the difference between the two chips. Performance in a PC does not just lie alone in the CPU but also in the motherboard chipset, video card performance and most important in the amount of memory you have installed on the motherboard and the video card. You can have a very fast good performing CPU and a cheap motherboard, less than 1gb of memory and a low end video card and have very very lousy PC performance. So I suggest you also look at a highend video card and max memory for your mother too.

I personally have a PC that runs a AMD 5000 blackedition CPU chip and I am very happy with its performance on games, internet and applications. But yes the Intel chip is slightly faster when playing some games. But not enough for me to personally notice.

What if the OP isn't much of a gamer? Why spend big $$ on a high-end video card? He can also get solid gaming performance with a Radeon 4850 or Nvidia 8800GT.

"Max memory for [his] mother...?"

 

[suklee]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
"Max memory for [his] mother...?"

I too have recently jumped back on to the Intel side with my Q6600. The last Intel I had was the Celery 300A I think. In between I've had a K7, Barton 2500+, Venice 939, x2 939, and maybe more... don't remember exactly...

 

[nyker96]

they probably same at stock speeds if you don't overclock. At overclocking speeds the Intel will be faster.

 

[SolMiester]

I thought the Phemon struggled with its small L2 cache?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Just checked back here, and re-examined the OP's links to the NewEgg Intel and AMD offerings.

There is such a thing called "the bandwagon effect" in market demand, but people are attracted to a commodity for a reason. Sometimes, the reason is frivolous; other times -- not.

The linked Intel processor has some 2,200+ reviews, and I thought I saw just over a hundred for the AMD processor.

I have friends who wanted to upgrade their old computers to new dual cores. One of them had taught programming at the high-school level, and jumped on a Dell with an E6300 Intel. The other one -- a very bright person whose help I'd seek if I did something wrong and needed a lawyer -- doesn't know much about computers, and got an AMD system at a bargain price.

Even Maximum PC Magazine, which was pushing the AMD line two or three years ago, gives a limp assessment of Phenom while comparing it to the QX9650.

This could all change. But I'm pretty happy with my Q6600; almost got giddy at the performance of an over-clocked E8400; and -- I couldn't help myself -- I decided to get the E8600 with a replacement mobo.

I should start selling my spare parts, but there's the fam-damn-ily to consider, and I depend too much on this technology.