Intel vs. AMD (part deux)

Looks like I waited too long to reply to this old thread which has now been closed:
thread602-1262244

It has been almost 2 years now, and even with the new K10 architecture found in AMD's Phenom CPUs, there is still a lot of ground to make up with AMD leaving a lot to be desired. I've also been hearing rumors about a flaw in the early Phenoms that restricts the maximum clock to 2.3GHz. Anyone care to comment on that?

Well I hate to be the one to say it, but after being put on the spot earlier I can only feel justified by saying "See, I told you so!". There, I vented! Now if ya'll can put the past behind you, then so can I. Let's move on, shall we?


Comments/suggestions about AMD's future??

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[Sympology]

I'm looking at a budget system and at this end, AMD's new system seems to be blowing Intel out of the water.

The 780 Chipset combined with the new 4450e processor seems one hell of a set up for the price, especially for media centres.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/03/04/amd_780g_chipset/

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[LawnBoy]

And they did have some problems with the Phenoms early on, that's why they were 2 months late getting them into the supply chains. Everything is supposed to be fixed at this point.

I've always liked AMD, they have great price per performance values. Releasing a 3-core version of the Phenom seems to be an exercise in futility to me.






"We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes

 

[wahnula]

Sort of like the Nvidia vs. ATI GFX wars...one has all the high-end parts and the other kills in the midrange or budget sector, although with the 3870 x2 AMD has entered the top tier.

StuReeves, I would NOT consider the Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-SH2 a "budget" part, but a "midrange" part. I assemble business systems for our office and have been buying MB/CPU/HDD/RAM combos for about $150...now THAT's a true "budget" system...and I alternate between AMD and Intel just for fun. I find the performance similar. I guess a $99 M/B would be "enthusiast budget".

It's like getting into a Ford/Chevy debate...they both have their followers, blind or otherwise. I've found it's always best to enter the purchasing arena open-minded, and select the best system for YOU that best meets your budget and computing needs at that time.

cdogg, you obviously were right in that post from two years ago, and time has borne that out. The Core 2 Duo architecture continues to have the top spots today. Still, this is a professional forum, I doubt that anyone had any intent other than hearty debate.

Tony

Users helping Users...

 

[paparazi]

Hi cdogg,
I never took you for a stirer......lol
Whilst I completely agree with you on the overall point ieIntel has a far better product range than AMD at the moment) I personally evaluate things a little differently to you.
Surely the point is: choosing the best performing CPU/mainboard combination at a given price point.
The reality for most users is: they simply buy a PC, use it for 3/4 years and replace it with another after that time, very few ever upgrade or overclock.
Whilst I agree that AMD cannot compete in the medium to high PC sector, their combinations remain very competitive in the lower to middle price category.
So whether it's AMD or Intel, the advice still remains the same....buy the best performing motherboard and CPU combination at your chosen price point. That will mean, lower end users may be wise to choose an AMD system for the best price/performance.
Martin




On wings like angels whispers sweet
my heart it feels a broken beat
Touched soul and hurt lay wounded deep
Brown eyes are lost afar and sleep

 

[cdogg]

Stu,
That's interesting. What factors are you taking into consideration? Is it just media center capabilities, or are you trying to stay under a certain dollar amount?

The reason why I ask is because if gaming is any concern, then the latest article on the best video cards per price category doesn't mention the 780G. In fact, 4 out 5 cards under $250 are GeForce recommendations:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/04/07/the_best_gaming_graphics_cards_for_the_money/

Tony,
I was half-kidding about being right or wrong! It's great that I was, but a lot of things went wrong for AMD delaying any kind of true retaliation so far. So I've gotten lucky, I guess you could say!!


This isn't meant to be taken so seriously. I only hope to stimulate some lively debate. I'm not on either side as I've pointed out many times in the past!!

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[cdogg]

Martin,
Thanks for the feedback, and no I'm not trying to stir the pot!!

In your opinion since you do this for a living, what motherboard/CPU/video card combo would you assemble on the budget side? I'm only curious as it's been almost 6 months since I've built one for a budget-minded customer.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[kmcferrin]

cdogg,

The 780G isn't a graphics card, it's a mainboard chipset with integrated graphics, HD decode, etc.

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCSE:Security 2003

 

[cdogg]

kmcferrin,
Yes, thanks I realize that it is. I should have worded that better. I guess my follow-up question should have been would you go with the 780G mobo (all-in-one budget option) over a cheap board with one of the recommendations in that article?

I try to keep up with the gaming on the PC, but I've fallen behind a few months as of late...

 

[wahnula]

The 780G isn't a graphics card, it's a mainboard chipset with integrated graphics

One of the features of this IGP is it is upgradeable to Hybrid CrossFire by simply adding an economy x16 PCIe card like the 3470.

Tony

Users helping Users...

 

[Sympology]

I have two fold requirements.

I want a resonable spec pc, to replace an AMD 1.8 Athlon & Geforce 440, damm noisy fan and 80 gb hdd as well as an aging Intel (1.4 / 40gb) laptop.
As it will be residing in the lounge, need to keep the noise down and looking at a cube style case.

I don't play games (except the Wii), but still would like to do some video editing and photo manlipulation as well has watch things like BBC's iPlayer.
I don't have a HDD, but may do in a year or two, so the option to hook it up later is a bonus.

And as have little one on the way, money is tight!

so looking at:

Cube case (quiet / Silent)
780G board
AMD 4850e & Silent fan(less)
2gb ram
Aroung about 500gb HDD (dependant on price)
Rest stolen from old pc (DVD writer, wireless card etc etc)


Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[SimonDavies]

I have both at home although in the AMD family it's the older 939 processors rather than the AM2 ones. Out of the 4600 and 4800x2's I own along with the E6600 and Q6600's I would say that the Intel chips just make life easier for me (no need to have the AMD software installed on the OS etc). Don't get me wrong, the AMD's are great cpu's, if I hadn't thought so at the time I wouldn't have purchased them, but I remember the days of Cyrix processors, trying to get WINTEL code running on them proved difficult (infact, try running Exchange on an old Cyrix processor, you can't, it just won't install).

For me, if I want performance over price then its going to be Intel for me at the moment.

SimonD.

The real world is not about exam scores, it's about ability.

 

[paparazi]

cdogg
We have been building with MSI 690V or G mATX boards recently, fitting them with AMD X2's in the 4400 to 5600 range with very good features and performance for the price.
I have to admit that we haven't tried the 780G as of yet but the first build will come very soon.
The reasons have been that generally the onboard graphics are slightly more powerful when compared to an equivelent Intel chipset (even more so now the 780G is out) and the combination offers the most features and best price/performance for a budget machine.
Best onboard GPU is important for those not necessarily wanting to game but requiring smooth Vista Aero operation.
The new 780G also appears to have an untouchable feature set which make it ideal choice for a modern multimedia applications without going too mad on the budget (exactly the kind of plus features you might require from a modern multimedia office unit.
Martin

On wings like angels whispers sweet
my heart it feels a broken beat
Touched soul and hurt lay wounded deep
Brown eyes are lost afar and sleep

 

[kmcferrin]

Hmm...I never had problems with Cyrix CPU's, and I owned several. What AMD specific software have you had to install with your OS?

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCSE:Security 2003

 

[SimonDavies]

It was the AMD Dual-Core Optimizer software for XP. In itself not an issue at all but it's remembering to do so after rebuilding the OS.

SimonD.

The real world is not about exam scores, it's about ability.

 

[bobbyforhire]

I'm going to say Hit and Mis. I have had alot of cpu's. Not one of my Intels have ever done the crazy things that my AMD's have done. But then again you get what you pay for. IMO i would pick Intel with the companys money and AMD for my own if i'm on a budget. But if money was not in play i would pick an Intel over a Amd any day..

 

[ATLMatt]

Intel is better than AMD, NVidia is better than ATI, and the Atlanta Braves are better than your team.

Stay tuned for updates based on what I build my next system with, and what city I move to next. ;-)

Seriously though, I have been happy with the AMD builds and the Intel builds I have used over the year. What makes me really happy, is both companies competing heavily against each other, which means every few years when I decide I want a new PC, I can go to tomshardware.com, read the benchmarks for each chip based on the games I am currently playing, and build a shiny new PC with whichever chip overclocks the best, or needs the least overclocking, depending on how adventurous I am feeling that day.

I don't ever want either company to "win" the "processor" wars, because that would mean less cheap toys for me. (Also more expensive upgrades for my business) Basically, the more they go back and forth in superiority from generation of chipset to generation, the more we win.

 

[Sympology]

Totally agree.

People often write of AMD as the poor mans intel, but that's not true.
IMHO the K5 was much better than the P2
Athlon better that the P3

and rememebr Intel were completely caught out by Optereon, with them lumbered with Itanic.

AMD lost their way recently and Intel have stormed ahead, but it looks like AMD are starting a fight back once again.

As a side note, Intel have also had to withdraw chips due to faulty instructions and some "advancements" could nail systems.
The amount of servers we had to shut down HT in the early days (W2K Server) because it would crash and cripple various compnents, depsite them being Dual processor friendly


Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[cdogg]

IMO i would pick Intel with the companys money and AMD for my own if i'm on a budget

I don't ever want either company to "win" the "processor" wars

Let's try to stay on track here. The intention is not really about comparing Intel to AMD, though the title of this thread "plays" with the notion. If you read the original thread I linked to above, you will find that we're trying to be careful not to bash Intel or AMD. Instead I was hoping to generate a discussion about where we stand today with AMD, recent issues, and a general outlook for the near future. Intel doesn't have to be mentioned in the same breath necessarily!

For example, an article came out yesterday talking about AMD's stock price concerns and declining value of its most recent acquisition of ATI. It went on about their decision to slash 10% of their workforce which is reminiscent of a move Intel did a couple years ago to cut costs. Then there's also recent press about early glitches in the Phenom CPU's that supposively have been hammered out now. And what's all the fuss about a triple-core CPU? Can someone weigh in on this one?

I wish to collect information here, not challenge it!!

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[BadBigBen]

Hola, I think the TrippleCores are more geared toward the Workstation/Server area, where Dual or even Quad CPU Sockets are a concern...

i.e. at work I have assembled a workstation with 16 CPU (AMD) on a SuperMicro board, for simulation calculation at a research facility... the machine checked out fine with the hardware tests we put it through... but at the customers end, problems arose only after the 13th thread of calcsoft he was using, basically locking the system up beyond usuability... now if those tripple cores where to be had at that time, he would have been happy with the build as it would have been a) cheaper and b) would not have locked up...

now until Intel can place the Memory Controller Hub on to the chip (eliminating most of the North Bridge), I would guess that we also would see tripple core Intels for the server market...

for home use, I would think that these tripple cores are a waste of time...

PS: as far as I am informed, AMD still leads in the Floating Point calculation speed, where as Intel leads in the Integer Calculation department...


Ben

"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."