AMD vs Intel

hey guys ive read a ton about the core 2 duo kickin amd ***....but i was shopping and it seems that all the core 2 duos are so much more expensive for the realatively same ghz speed.....so i was wondering what were 2 relatively similar cpus in the performance category....

i am looking right now at the amd 5000 x2 just to give u guys a cpu that i would like 2 have...

Mike

I'm running a Core 2 duo 2.4 G, and an Amd 4800 x2, and I have to say both are awesome systems. Yes, when reading performance reviews on the net, the Core 2 does seem to perform better, but here in South Africa my Intel cpu is almost twice the price of the Amd. So, I think if you're looking for the best performance-to-price ratio, then probably go for the Amd.

Google up some benchmarks. Mhz/Ghz has always been a pretty worthless comparison for 2 different chips running on different technologies. So in other words you can't compare a 2.4Ghz Core2Duo to a 3.0Ghz Pentium D and expect the Pentium D to win. Similar applies comparing Intel to AMD.

Maybe somebody will do the research for you and post a comparable performing C2D to that x2, but your best bet is googling yourself.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/pricevperf/index.x?pg=1

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2007q1/cpus/index.x?pg=1

I've always worked on (and actually tested) for comparability, the E6300 core2duo and the AMD 5000+. Both are about the same price and compare in performance too.
BUT, i'd choose the E6300 cos you can overclock it to hell and back. Put it in a Gigabyte DS3 mobo and you could get up to 3GHz with a stock cooler (if you're lucky). You'll definitely get 3GHz, with an AMC and decent ram though.
THERE is the difference in quality.

alright thanks guys....i had heard that anything intel had to offer was crap inside a given price range...but now im all cleared up...

Intel also uses less energy for its Core2Duo chips and they run at a lower temperature so you can overclock them more.

Don't forget we are on the brink of the new 1333 FSB range, so current price of core 2's will drop, its all good!

Yes, the Core 2 Quad Q6600 is supposed to go down to only $266 after the QX6850 is released.

$266 only? wow. How much does it cost now? about $450?

That will make the quad a more appealing chip, but still not for the gamer, not enough multi threaded software available, good for the multi tasker.

Stupid question, Wheres the poll?

AMD.

If there's a 2.0 ghz intel core 2 duo and an AMD Phenom 2.0 ghz which one will be faster ?

Core 2 Duo. But why resurrect this thread...?

CPU comparison chart. Threads like this are for sissies. After 40 pages of this you'll need a nap. If you have trouble falling asleep, try counting processor specifications! http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/16/cpu_charts_2007/

I like the AMD processors I've put into all the computers I've built.

I also prefer AMD.. its less expensive, and i bet just as comparable as Intel. so AMD +1 :)

Holy thread resurrection, Batman!

But seriously, try to look at the date of the last post in the thread before posting in it.

AMD for the $$$ is my way to go.

Last 6 years AMD disappointed me. So for now Intel for me is the only way to go, well at least for now.

Amd is better than intel, for gamers like me -;-

In my professional opinion, Intel makes superior products. AMD wouldn't even be around if it wasn't for Intel. AMD started out as, and is still, the cheap knockoff alternative to real Intel hardware.

That's not necesarily true zep, here's a did you know for noob comments. Intels architecture in their newest line of cpu's was done by who first, ooohhhhhh AMD.

And the Pentium 3-4 got smoked by similarly priced AMD processors (Athlon and up) several years ago. It wasn't until the Core series that Intel took the lead again.

wiscountryboy has probably purchased another new system since this thread was started:haha: but I still say Intel is better (at least for what I use my system for).

In my professional opinion, Intel makes superior products. AMD wouldn't even be around if it wasn't for Intel. AMD started out as, and is still, the cheap knockoff alternative to real Intel hardware.

Yes zephead, Intel IS buying a "Stairway to Heaven"...!

I concur..
You may have noticed in 1 or 2 of my posts that I'm not all too crazy about AMD.
As far as I'm concerned they can go over the hills and far away!

That would monopolize the industry and throttle competition, which would just hurt us, the consumers. AMD CPUs are priced better than Intel's offerings at the low-end and mid-end of the price range, where a chipmaker stands to make the most revenue.

It's not just price competition. If not for AMD's competition, Intel would not be pushed into making faster and faster processors, at least not as soon. I doubt that we would have the i7 series processors now.

I'm not too sure that's the reason mailpup, Intel probably would have progressed regardless just to keep making sales.

It's not just price competition. If not for AMD's competition, Intel would not be pushed into making faster and faster processors, at least not as soon. I doubt that we would have the i7 series processors now. I think any manufacturer is their own competition. Products have to evolve or people will just keep using the old one. So it follows that this year's Intel has to be better than last year's anyway, regardless of what AMD does, or nobody will buy it.

Does AMD's existence add to their motivation certainly,

It's all biblical really, Pentium begat Pentium 2, which begat Pentium 3.....[ ]......et al.

That would monopolize the industry and throttle competition, which would just hurt us, the consumers. AMD CPUs are priced better than Intel's offerings at the low-end and mid-end of the price range, where a chipmaker stands to make the most revenue.

Well first, AMD's chips are priced the way they are because of Intel's competition. There's no reason to assume that those prices are affixed out of the goodness of AMD's heart.

Second, without AMD, Intel would still be able to "throttle" itself. (In an auto-erotic sort of way, mind you).

That's not necesarily true zep, here's a did you know for noob comments. Intels architecture in their newest line of cpu's was done by who first, ooohhhhhh AMD.I never said anything about the modern day core product line. AMD used to make cheaper, lower quality alternatives to Intel processors as a main means of survival.

I have an AMD 286 CPU with an Intel copywright on it. AMD was licensed to produce the same processors that Intel was making for awhile and they made their name as cheap alternatives. It wasn't until Intel produced the Pentium that AMD started making their own product line. And, if anyone recalls the K5 and K6, they were considerably less reliable overclockers. They couldn't be pushed as far as most Intel processors of the era and were more prone to reflections on the bus.

I agree that AMD has since evolved into a different company, but this fact does not change the company's history.

That would monopolize the industry and throttle competition, which would just hurt us, the consumers. AMD CPUs are priced better than Intel's offerings at the low-end and mid-end of the price range, where a chipmaker stands to make the most revenue.

If AMD left the processor market, that might open up room for Via to crawl out from only producing low power (literally) processors.

I doubt Via would do anything of the sort, given that they don't have any fabs of their own. Their main source of income is chipsets (especially AMD chipsets), and while they would look to try and diversify, I don't think they would be able to stand up to a juggernaut like Intel.

IBM would have a much better chance of doing that, if they play their cards right.

Well first, AMD's chips are priced the way they are because of Intel's competition. There's no reason to assume that those prices are affixed out of the goodness of AMD's heart.
That's what I was trying to say cap (maybe it came out wrong). We need both companies, so we can have better products at lower prices. No fanboyism intended.

That's what I was trying to say cap (maybe it came out wrong). We need both companies, so we can have better products at lower prices. No fanboyism intended. Personally, I think that we should all thank our lucky stars that Microsoft doesn't decide to go into the chipset business.

Although, it might be cute to have Bill Gate's picture on every CPU heat shield. That said, he might make a good mascot. Perhaps he would come to be known as the, "Aunt Jemima of Overclocking".

I doubt Via would do anything of the sort, given that they don't have any fabs of their own. Their main source of income is chipsets (especially AMD chipsets), and while they would look to try and diversify, I don't think they would be able to stand up to a juggernaut like Intel.If AMD didn't exist, there would be some alternative to Intel, regardless of how slow and/or crappy the processors were. If one company controlled the entire desktop CPU market another would try to prevent a complete monopoly by introducing alternative products. After all, there are plenty of corners that Intel doesn't cut.

"Aunt Jemima of Overclocking"
LMAO that made me laugh so loudly that I scared my cat! (who promptly mauled my thigh; NOT a good experience)

@zephead, I guess we'll never know, will we? :)

My last pc was an intel and the one before that and my current one is AMD and I personally love AMD.. Just my .02

Over time, i've had the general impression (maybe true or not, but my impression) that new software products seemed to use Intel as the "gold standard" for Quality testing. Issues with other vendor CPUs (like AMD) sometimes slipped through the crack and more often weren't revealed until after product release.

The most glaring example was the MS release of XP SP3 (which initially failed on many AMD processors) (and, btw, turned out to be an HP issue not MS. but still it was AMD that fell through the cracks)

Intel of course.

i think amd has more value for your money