Intel vs. AMD System

[FireDK]

I'm about to buy a new PC and I was wondering which one of these configurations is better. I'll be using it as an all-purpose computer, so gameing, office and multimedia included. Tell me what you think.


********************************************************************************

CPU | Intel Pentium 805 LGA775, 2.66 GHz, Socket 775, FSB 533MHz, 2 x 1 MB L2 Cache, Dual Core, BOX

MB | Asus, Chipset nForce4 SLI Intel Edition, Socket LGA775, 4 x Dual Channel DDR2 667, 2 x PCIEXP16x, 2 x PCIEXP1x, 8 Channels, Gigabit LAN, SATAII / ATA133, FSB 1066MHz, ATX                           

RAM | Twinmos DDR2 (240), 1024 MB, PC5300, 667MHz, CL5.0, CHIPSET TWINMOS

HDD | Western Digital, 250 GB, 7200 RPM, SATA II, 8MB                                                   

VGA | XFX GeForce 7300LE, PCI Express, 128 MB, 64 BIT, 450 / 400 MHz, TV + DVI

CASE | Miditower Linkworld 321-02U, 420W P4, Black, C2222, Prescott Ready, Airguide, 2 x USB, 24 PIN

DISPLAY | Hyundai ImageQuest, Dynaflat-x Q770, 17in, 0.25, 70KHz, Max 1280 x 1024 @ 60Hz, OSD, TCO99, Silver

********************************************************************************

CPU | AMD Athlon64 3500+, 2200 MHz, Socket 939, BOX

MB | Epox, Chipset nForce4, Socket 939, 4 x Dual Channel DDR400, 1 x PCIEXP16x, 2 x PCIEXP1x, 8 Channels, Gigabit LAN, SATAI / ATA133, ATX             

RAM | Kingmax DDR (184), 1024 MB, PC3200, 400MHz, SUPER TSOP (MPXD42D-D8HT4)

HDD | Western Digital, 250 GB, 7200 RPM, ATA100, 8MB                                                    

VGA | XFX GeForce 7300LE, PCI Express, 128 MB, 64 BIT, 450 / 400 MHz, TV + DVI

CASE | Miditower Linkworld 321-02U, 420W P4, Black, C2222, Prescott Ready, Airguide, 2 x USB, 24 PIN

DISPLAY | Hyundai ImageQuest, Dynaflat-x Q770, 17in, 0.25, 70KHz, Max 1280 x 1024 @ 60Hz, OSD, TCO99, Silver

********************************************************************************

Born from The Dark, in the black cloak of night!
And please excuse my spelling...

I am a sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate.

 

[kmcferrin]

A couple of corrections here, attrofy, Intel wasn't pushing the Xeons for 64-bit computing, they were pushing the Itanium for 64-bit computing, which was completely incompatible with pretty much all existing software that had been written at the time. AMD's strategy was to provide the key 64-bit features in a chip that could also run 32-bit code (as Intel did in the days of the 16 to 32-bit transition), and that turned out to be the correct decision.

Grenage, the K8L should be at least as good as the Core 2 Duo when they are released in a few months (about the same time that Intel will have finally started shipping more than 20% of their CPUs as Core 2 designs). There's also the shrink to 65nm that AMD has been working on, which should allow them to ramp the clocks up over 3GHz (which would take a lot of the bite out of Core 2).

 

[BadFrog]

Nelviticus, thank you for that information, I had not seen that yet. However I think attrofy somehow got into my head while I was formulating a response because he pretty much wrote what I was thinking lol:

My personal opinion - I don't think this is the knock-out blow that Intel has been hoping for (needing) for several years. It reminds me of the nVidia/ATI war. I personally like ATi and would like to see them reign supreme - but it seems every other board release, ATI staggers back on top (barely) and nVidia is right around the corner, and holds the title for the next 6-8 months. I believe the same is true with AMD and Intel. Just when Intel gets a leg up for a month or two, AMD comes back for the next year and a half or so.

Again, thanks for the info!

Jeff~


"Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy"
Albert Einstein

 

[attrofy]

kmcferrin - Sorry - you are correct - the Itanium is indeed what I was refering to - the hand is quicker then the brain on most days....

Badfrog - for the same reasons above, I appologize to you - its bad enough I gotta live with myself in my own head - it is unexcusable when I get into other peoples heads...

Something I found completely enthrawling today....

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2807

If AMD is acquiring ATI, and things go well for them, this could open a whole new can of worms for "traditional" GPU/CPU interaction....at the least, the concept of new integrated chipsets and other "options" would be great for us as consumers.

Of course, an already unstable company taking the reigns of another company on rocky footing might be the proverbial straw to do them both in. Then we may be left with Intel-only options, and NVIDIA and Intel will laugh all the way to the bank.

In either case, it will definately be something to watch for in the coming year.

 

[cdogg]

Hate to join the party late, but I wanted to add another 2¢ regarding Intel's "knock-out" blow:

Intel's Core 2 Duo is revolutionary, period. Not since the release of the Pentium has there been such an increase in overall "desktop" performance in one model. Intel borrowed concepts from both the Pentium M and Pentium D cores, and addressed concerns over efficiency, noise, and cooling.

The result was a processor and platform that excels in all three as well as becoming the new leader in "performance per MHz" (low-end 2.4GHz Conroe easily outperforms a 2.6GHz FX-60 and even gives the new 2.8GHz FX-62 a run for its money). More importantly, the Core 2 Duo introduces a new category for competition: [maroon]performance per Watt[/maroon].

I disagree with attrofy's comment that this new entry is just a brief leap in the game of leapfrog between AMD and Intel. AMD's fastest offering that just came out, the Athlon 64 FX-62 clocked at 2.8GHz, loses by 20% pretty much across the board. In some cases, particularly video encoding tasks, the Athlon loses by 30%. And we're talking about the newest and fastest Athlon for the new AM2 platform folks. That's not a small feat by any means.

Couple all that to the fact that this new Windsor model is all that AMD has in its immediate future through the end of next year. Some have even said that AMD's road map beyond that is still very uncertain. That's odd considering AMD has been touted over Intel for its openness regarding new architecture upgrades years in advance. That either means that AMD is now keeping secrets all of a sudden, or it means that this could be a dip in the curve that will last a long time. One thing's for sure, however. Intel has swapped places with AMD, and now Intel is the one with a clear cut future that looks more promising.

In the most recent THG article, they overclocked the 2.93GHz Conroe an amazing 17% to 3.66GHz and pitted it against the 2.8GHz Athlon FX-62 overclocked as far as it would go to 3GHz. They had this to say about the results:

A quick look at the power consumption we measured during our testing also shows that an overclocked Intel system under heavy load requires 29 fewer watts than the AMD unit, while delivering 30 percent more performance...

...Want an comparison of a more mundane, everyday sort? Try this on for size: the overclocked Intel system compressed an entire 2.5 hour movie on DVD in under 6 minutes! This involved converting from DVD9 to DVD4.7 formats. The real strengths of the Intel Core 2 clearly lie in the video realm: the Intel system converts a 2 hour movie into the well-known DivX format in 93 minutes, whereas the AMD system takes 155, or just more than one hour longer, to complete the same task.

You can read the entire article here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/02/thg_tuning_test/index.html

I guess that's more like throwing a dollar into the pot, I apologize for the novel! By no means am I an Intel fan-boy, nor do I work for them I swear! In fact, the last two PC's I built had AMD platforms. There's no question AMD has led the race more than 90% of last 4 years. However, I'm giving Intel credit where credit is due. This isn't some fling that's going away in a matter of months...

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[Cwgunder]

Wow, I knew that this was going to turn into a Intel vs AMD topic. I always enjoy a good debate.

Let's not forget the original question and the fact that this FireDK said that he's not much of a gamer, which means the pentium D 2.66 will work just fine. (even for playing HL2)It's still dual core, though I don't think it supports hyperthreading (don't quote me on that)

From what I've read and heard, it's true. the Core 2 Duo stomps AMD's best processors on just about every benchmark, but that's part of what's makeing a good deal on this system. The Pentium D processors have been reduced in price since the Core 2 Duo hit the market this month, which makes for a good deal.

here's some of the prices I've found for the new processor.

Model Cache Clockspeed FSB Price

Core 2 Extreme X6800 4 MB L2 2.93 GHz 1066 MHz $999
Core 2 Duo E6700 4 MB L2 2.66 GHz 1066 MHz $530
Core 2 Duo E6600 4 MB L2 2.40 GHz 1066 MHz $316
Core 2 Duo E6400 2 MB L2 2.13 GHz 1066 MHz $224
Core 2 Duo E6300 2 MB L2 1.86 GHz 1066 MHz $183

compaired to the price of the Pentium D

Pentium D 840 $486 (3.2 GHz)
Pentium D 820 $235 (2.8 GHz)
Pentium D 805 $146 (2.66 GHz)

also, I'm not sure what socket the core 2 duo's use, but I'm willing to bet that he's have to upgrade the system board as well to acommidate for the upgraded processor.

oh and to point out. I recently heard something about AMD soon been offering 2 CPU bundles of Athlon 64 parts for under $1,000 per pair, which will basicly create a true 4x4 system, I wonder how haveing 4 actual cores will compair in the benchmarks.

My money is on Intel, but it's anybody's game and it's always will be. The best thing to do is to go for what suites your needs.



Hope this helps

Good Luck!

Chris

 

[kmcferrin]

More importantly, the Core 2 Duo introduces a new category for competition: performance per Watt.

I disagree. AMD was marketing on performance per watt long before the Conroe was released. In fact, Sun's entire marketing effort for their x64-based line of servers have revolved around performance per watt since at least February of 2005, and these are all Opteron-based servers.

I disagree with attrofy's comment that this new entry is just a brief leap in the game of leapfrog between AMD and Intel. AMD's fastest offering that just came out, the Athlon 64 FX-62 clocked at 2.8GHz, loses by 20% pretty much across the board. In some cases, particularly video encoding tasks, the Athlon loses by 30%. And we're talking about the newest and fastest Athlon for the new AM2 platform folks. That's not a small feat by any means.

I disagree here as well. The Conroe/Core 2 Duo is a completely new architecture for Intel and it is competing against AMD's architecture that has remained essentially unchanged for approximately three years. The only difference between the FX-62 and previous AMD CPUs is the clock speed. Granted, AMD did recently add DDR2 support to their CPUs, but that is nothing like releasing a new architecture.

Think about this, Intel's latest and greatest CPU is faster than their AMD's 3 year old design. Well, of course it is! It should be! The really telling thing here is that it took Intel 3 years to beat AMD's old design. When AMD does release their new architecture, you can be sure that the leap-frogging will continue.

Couple all that to the fact that this new Windsor model is all that AMD has in its immediate future through the end of next year. Some have even said that AMD's road map beyond that is still very uncertain. That's odd considering AMD has been touted over Intel for its openness regarding new architecture upgrades years in advance. That either means that AMD is now keeping secrets all of a sudden, or it means that this could be a dip in the curve that will last a long time. One thing's for sure, however. Intel has swapped places with AMD, and now Intel is the one with a clear cut future that looks more promising.

I disagree here too. AMD still has the shrink from 90nm to 65nm that should be going before the end of the year, which will allow their CPUs to run with lower voltages (which means less heat) and higher clock speeds. The Conroe/Core 2 is already at 65nm. Once AMD makes the transition you will see cooler, faster Athlon X2s which will help close the gap between Intel and AMD. Furthermore, there is the announced 4x4 initiative for users who need ultimate performance. Not to mention the K8L, which should be coming in the first half of 2007, which will pretty much eliminate any remaining advantage that Intel has with the Conroe.

Yes, yes, I know that we're talking about the future, and Conroe is supposedly here today. But it's not here in any significant numbers. Today is the launch date for the low-end Conroe CPUs, and you can't get ANY Conroes from Newegg.com, one of the largest computer components sellers in the US. Just about everywhere else you can "pre-order" them, but they are not generally available. Most of the CPUs are being taken by the big OEMs (HP and Dell), and everyone else gets to fight over what's left. By the time that Intel is shipping them in a sufficient volume to meet demand, AMD will be well on their way to releasing their future products.

Now regarding the ATI/AMD merger, most people are seeing it as either driven by CPU chipsets or GPUs. But that doesn't really make much sense, when nVidia makes the premier chipsets for AMD CPUs, and you want your CPUs to be able to run with any graphics card. From what I have been reading, the biggest reason for buying ATI was to get the engineering expertise. ATI and nVidia both have years of experience in designing, manufacturing, and releasing high-performance GPUs in short turnaround times. Typically they release a completely new product every 12 months and then a refresh to the product at the 6 month point. Getting their hands on this expertise will allow them to make improvements to their CPUs at a much more rapdid pace. So while Intel may have the performance crown today (or on any given day), it is going to have a hard time maintaining it over a longer period of time.

Most importantly, AMD has committed to maintaining a price/performance ratio that is equal to or higher than Intel's, and then they cut the prices on their Athlon 64 and X2 CPUs to prove it. As long as they maintain their price/performance competitiveness then the only sales that they're really looking at losing are on the high end desktop, which is a pretty small segment of the market. At the company where I work we are still buying AMD-based HP desktops and servers, because they are still less expensive than (and provide more performance per dollar) than Intel alternatives.

 

[cdogg]

kmcferrin,
Can you think back on another time when the release of a new CPU architecture provided this much of a jump in performance in one leap? I can't, not since the original Pentium was released. It's one thing to be a fan of AMD, but it's another to ignore Intel's achievement here. You risk losing the perception of objectivity among your peers. I've been on both sides of the ball, defending AMD at times in the past 5 years on this site, especially when Intel fan-boys discounted the Athlon and Athlon XP's potential. I try to remain neutral when I can.

AMD was marketing on performance per watt long before the Conroe was released

That is true. I was merely trying to say that Intel's newcomer acknowledges the importance of this category. It will be a new source of competition between both in the eyes of the consumer, when in the past, only AMD advertised the comparison.

I disagree here as well. The Conroe/Core 2 Duo is a completely new architecture for Intel and it is competing against AMD's architecture that has remained essentially unchanged for approximately three years. The only difference between the FX-62 and previous AMD CPUs is the clock speed. Granted, AMD did recently add DDR2 support to their CPUs, but that is nothing like releasing a new architecture.

Well, I must disagree with your disagreement!

Technically speaking, the Pentium M (Banias and Dothan cores) are heavily modified versions of the older Pentium III architecture - the one that would have continued to give the Athlon and Athlon XP a run for its money had Intel not decided to ditch it in favor of the P4 years ago. And we all know the Conroe is an extension of the Pentium M. What you've really witnessed here is Intel essentially improving the PIII to a point that it runs faster. cooler, and more efficient than the Athlon that's been here all these years. It was Intel's sneaky way of getting back to a concept of the succesful architecture they shouldn't have left in the first place.

You could say that the Athlon 64 is three years old (probably more like 2.5 once you factor in availability and price). However, the old Pentium 4 architecture goes back almost 6 years. Does that mean we should praise the P4 more than the Athlon? Of course not...

AMD still has the shrink from 90nm to 65nm...Once AMD makes the transition you will see cooler, faster Athlon X2s which will help close the gap between Intel and AMD.

How much of that gap remains to be seen. We already know that the Conroe can be easily overclocked as much as 15% (hell, some are reporting above 20%), which places the Conroe comfortably in the 3.5GHz range with a CPU that can easily outperform the Athlon X2 MHz for MHz. I'd be surprised of the die shrink gets them immediately above 3.2GHz, and I think the real answer will come from the K8L as you have said.

I'm hoping AMD continues to put up a good fight, as we all know that means lower prices for you and me. I could care less as to who's winning this year, or who will be winning next year. Just thought I'd have some fun and make a prediction.

After the first K8L is benchmarked, you can be sure I'll be back in this thread to comment!

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[FireDK]

Thank you everybody for your posta. They have been really helpful.

After some more "digging" through the PC dealers in my town I've come up with a new one and I'm going to stick with it. It seems to be really good for about 370$ (without VAT) and that's about how much I can spend right now.

CPU INTEL Pentium D 820, 2.8 GHz, Dual Core, FSB 800 MHz, Socket LGA775, 2x1MB L2 Cache, Box

MB GIGABYTE GA-8N-SLI, nVidia Crush SLI, Socket LGA775, FSB 1066 MHz, LAN, Sound, 2xPCIExpress, Serial ATA 2, Raid SATA, Dual DDR2

RAM PRINCETON DDR II, 1GB, PC5300, 667 MHz

HDD SEAGATE 250 GB, 7200rpm, 16MB, Serial ATA2

VGA GIGABYTE NX73T256P-RH, nVidia GeForce 7300GT, PCIExpress, 256MB, 128 bit, DDRII, TV-Out, DVI-I, TwinView, Heatsink, Core 450MHz, Mem 800MHz

Born from The Dark, in the black cloak of night!
And please excuse my spelling...

 

[attrofy]

FireDK,
Glad to hear you settled on a system. Sounds like it should work well for you.


kmcferrin,
Regarding the AMD/ATI merger, what you say regarding manufacturing makes sense. One of the things I have heard that might be a potential upside for AMD as well is the ability to include their own board instruction-sets (architecture). Right now many AMD componenets still use Intel's architecture and seeing what AMD did when it re-wrote the rules on how to get performance out of a CPU, it will be interesting to see what comes from a redesigned architecture.