Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Planning on buying a 2x core desktop and laptop...


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Lucky Man

Lucky Man

  • Members
  • 7 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:40 PM

Posted 19 March 2009 - 08:38 PM

Which is better, Intel or AMD? in terms of speed, overclocking, and reliability....

They say lesser disk space is much better for peformance.. Ex a 320gb desktop works faster than a 1TB destop with the same specs. Is it true?

Can i have a good customized build for a laptop with 2x core and >2gb Ram and 512 graphics (i heard kingstion sux)... money aint a factor....

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 the_patriot11

the_patriot11

    High Tech Redneck


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,762 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wyoming USA
  • Local time:04:40 PM

Posted 19 March 2009 - 09:48 PM

I personally, usually recomend AMD. this isnt to say Intel is bad, but its mainly because I game, and while intel CPUs typically handle many large programs like video editing, better, Ive found AMD CPUs handle streaming media like games a lot better and since Im a gamer I typically enjoy this feature. That, and AMD CPUs do 90% of what most people use their computers for no problem at all, for usually 1/2 to 1/3 the price of intel, makes them great bang for the buck. In my mind, from my own use of both intel and AMD CPUs, they both have their strengths/weaknesses, and when added up I'd say their really pretty equal to be fair, its just a matter of preference. I really dont see why a smaller hard drive would affect your performance that much, I really dont especially with SATA II. I imagine with IDE your gonna be bottlenecked with a drive that large but with sata II I dont think you will notice much, if any difference between a 320 gig hard drive or a 1 terabyte except in search/formatting time, and that can be cut down by partitioning up the drive into several smaller partitions.

picard5.jpg

 

Primary system: Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3, Processor: AMD Phenom II x4 945, Memory: 16 gigs of Patriot G2 DDR3 1600, Video: AMD Sapphire Nitro R9 380, Storage: 1 WD 500 gig HD, 1 Hitachi 500 gig HD, and Power supply: Coolermaster 750 watt, OS: Windows 10 64 bit. 

Media Center: Motherboard: Gigabyte mp61p-S3, Processor: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+, Memory: 6 gigs Patriot DDR2 800, Video: Gigabyte GeForce GT730, Storage: 500 gig Hitachi, PSU: Seasonic M1211 620W full modular, OS: Windows 10.

If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.


#3 dpunisher

dpunisher

  • BC Advisor
  • 2,234 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South TX
  • Local time:05:40 PM

Posted 19 March 2009 - 10:22 PM

Not to blatently disagree, but.........................seriously, Intel's forte is gaming. The Core2 architecture has spanked AMD since day one. Look at any comparison chart and see where AMD is in relation to Intel. True some of the later Phenoms are keeping up with the Core2 pieces, but thats it, just keeping up (being generous). Not even going to bring the I7 stuff up as that would be cruel.


Overclocking.......Intel, not even an argument.

Reliability.............toss up. Historically Intel has been the more reliable of the two choices, but a lot of that was due to the plethora (I like that word) of chipsets motherboard venders used, and AMDs reluctance to make motherboard chipsets in the past. I still think an Intel chipset (P35/P45/X38/X48/X58) is the more solid offering. If you go with a 3rd party chipset (NVidia etc) then it is absolutely neck and neck. Most stability issues are due to specific manufacturers rather than AMD/Intel issues.

Hard drives.....just look at the specs. Size doesn't matter (with hard drives at least).

Sorry to sound like an Intel fanboy, but that's the facts in my book. I bought/owned AMD (and it's stock) when the Athlon64 hit the street and mopped up P4s. I don't play favorites. If money is no object then Intel is the easy choice, at least for now. If AMD turns the tables, you can be assured I will be one of the first (or second) in line to buy their stuff.

Edited by dpunisher, 19 March 2009 - 10:23 PM.

I am a retired Ford tech. Next to Fords, any computer is a piece of cake. (The cake, its not a lie)

3770K @4.5, Corsair H100, GTX780, 16gig Samsung, Obsidian 700 (yes there is a 700)


#4 the_patriot11

the_patriot11

    High Tech Redneck


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,762 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wyoming USA
  • Local time:04:40 PM

Posted 19 March 2009 - 11:12 PM

eeeh personally I just think intels got all the hype, AMDs more efficient use of cache and higher bus speeds make for better gaming in my opinion. Intels cache use isnt as efficient, which is why they dump boatloads of it into it to compensate and generally works. as far as quality, provided you dont overclock and yes i think intel overclocks better then AMD though I still never recomend it, ive found the CPU generally outlasts the rest of the computer, AMD or intel. in the end, as far as CPUs come down to it, I think its more of personal opinion, and regardless of which one actually performs better, either one will run nearly anything on the market today. I mean seriously, a quad anything is generally far more power then anyone truly needs it just comes down to want. I mean my dual core does all my gaming needs fine, and I do do a lot of hardcore gaming. :D

picard5.jpg

 

Primary system: Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3, Processor: AMD Phenom II x4 945, Memory: 16 gigs of Patriot G2 DDR3 1600, Video: AMD Sapphire Nitro R9 380, Storage: 1 WD 500 gig HD, 1 Hitachi 500 gig HD, and Power supply: Coolermaster 750 watt, OS: Windows 10 64 bit. 

Media Center: Motherboard: Gigabyte mp61p-S3, Processor: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+, Memory: 6 gigs Patriot DDR2 800, Video: Gigabyte GeForce GT730, Storage: 500 gig Hitachi, PSU: Seasonic M1211 620W full modular, OS: Windows 10.

If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.


#5 fairjoeblue

fairjoeblue

  • Members
  • 1,594 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Local time:05:40 PM

Posted 20 March 2009 - 12:07 AM

It used to be if you are a gamer theonly way to fly was AMD.

Since the Intel Core2Duo came out that has pretty much flipped.

Personally, I avoid AMD like the plague.

The main attraction to AMD is price but you get what you pay for.
OCZ StealthXstream 700W,Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R , E8500, Arctic Freezer Pro 7, 3GB G.Skill PC8500,Gigabyte Radeon HD 4850 OC [1GB ], Seagate 250GB SATA II X2 in RAID 0, Samsung SATA DVD burner.

#6 the_patriot11

the_patriot11

    High Tech Redneck


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,762 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wyoming USA
  • Local time:04:40 PM

Posted 20 March 2009 - 12:25 AM

I actually used to be hard core intel before the core2 came out till my best friend got me hooked on AMD. bought a laptop with a AMD turion 1.8 ghz socket 754 CPU. not extravagant but I thorougly enjoyed it, though still wasnt so sure about AMD till my friend talked me into buying the AMD athlon x2 6000+ windsor. since then, all my builds have been AMD. have loved them. I like the core2 duos and quads, they are nice chips but really overpriced if you ask me. as far as get what you pay for, I really think thats a myth as far as CPUs concerned, and is what is keeping intel in business-people think that since your paying more then it must be better. in some cases, that is true but not in processors, I honestly believe either way you go youll get a quality CPU that will do everything you need it to.

picard5.jpg

 

Primary system: Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3, Processor: AMD Phenom II x4 945, Memory: 16 gigs of Patriot G2 DDR3 1600, Video: AMD Sapphire Nitro R9 380, Storage: 1 WD 500 gig HD, 1 Hitachi 500 gig HD, and Power supply: Coolermaster 750 watt, OS: Windows 10 64 bit. 

Media Center: Motherboard: Gigabyte mp61p-S3, Processor: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+, Memory: 6 gigs Patriot DDR2 800, Video: Gigabyte GeForce GT730, Storage: 500 gig Hitachi, PSU: Seasonic M1211 620W full modular, OS: Windows 10.

If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.


#7 DJBPace07

DJBPace07

  • BC Advisor
  • 4,869 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:40 PM

Posted 20 March 2009 - 12:37 AM

As you can see, there are fan boys, and girls, on either side of the AMD/Intel argument. If you are watching your budget and don't want bleeding edge, jaw-dropping performance, AMD is a good choice as their processors are of good quality and are cheaper. The Black Editions of AMD chips have unlocked multipliers making them easier to overclock. However, Intel does have the newer chips and their new i7 runs circles around AMD's flagship CPU, the Phenom II 940, though it can hold its own against many Core 2 CPU's. A few months ago, AMD had a bad run of luck with their original Phenom chips and quality control. Later CPU batches and the Phenom II's have solved many of the problems, but AMD's image took a severe beating. Only recently is AMD catching up to Intel's Core 2 line with the Phenom II. It will ultimately boil down to do you want to pay for a little higher performance or do you want one that's slightly less powerful but also much less expensive. FYI, Intel has released a new CPU pricing list...and there are no reductions in price.

Kingston isn't bad, I've used them before. As for your hard drive question, generally no the performance is usually the same. However, I do suggest using a SATA 3Gb/s and one with a 32MB cache. If you really want high-speed storage, go for solid state drives but they will cost a fortune. If you're going for a gaming laptop, I say don't bother. It will be obsolete soon anyways and you cannot upgrade it.

3939.png

 


#8 the_patriot11

the_patriot11

    High Tech Redneck


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,762 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wyoming USA
  • Local time:04:40 PM

Posted 20 March 2009 - 12:53 AM

yeah Kingston does make decent quality ram albeit kinda generic. I typically put Patriot Ram in my machines, Ive found that brand to have the best price/performance ratio out there, runs cool, tight timings, good performance. generally suck a lil more power then Corsair or other name brands, but not enough to be a huge issue.

picard5.jpg

 

Primary system: Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3, Processor: AMD Phenom II x4 945, Memory: 16 gigs of Patriot G2 DDR3 1600, Video: AMD Sapphire Nitro R9 380, Storage: 1 WD 500 gig HD, 1 Hitachi 500 gig HD, and Power supply: Coolermaster 750 watt, OS: Windows 10 64 bit. 

Media Center: Motherboard: Gigabyte mp61p-S3, Processor: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+, Memory: 6 gigs Patriot DDR2 800, Video: Gigabyte GeForce GT730, Storage: 500 gig Hitachi, PSU: Seasonic M1211 620W full modular, OS: Windows 10.

If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.


#9 fairjoeblue

fairjoeblue

  • Members
  • 1,594 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Local time:05:40 PM

Posted 20 March 2009 - 01:44 AM

The AMD's, even the "top of the line" have half as much,or less, Cache as a bottom of the line C2D .

The AMD's usually have a faster front bus though .

I've always avoided AMD simply because of the cooling issues .

What it REALLY boils down to is what a person prefers.

If everybody only liked either Intel or AMD then there would be only 1 manufacturer to choose from .
OCZ StealthXstream 700W,Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R , E8500, Arctic Freezer Pro 7, 3GB G.Skill PC8500,Gigabyte Radeon HD 4850 OC [1GB ], Seagate 250GB SATA II X2 in RAID 0, Samsung SATA DVD burner.

#10 Lucky Man

Lucky Man
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 7 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:40 PM

Posted 20 March 2009 - 02:16 AM

well there are lotsa weight on both side of the plank... from all over the net, i find that Intel tipped the scale a little... AMDs main attraction would be the FSB.... pls help me with this another comparison tho...

Core 2 Duo vs Athlon x2 , Centrino2 vs Turion x2 ????

#11 DJBPace07

DJBPace07

  • BC Advisor
  • 4,869 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:40 PM

Posted 20 March 2009 - 02:24 AM

Currently, the Athlons are not produced in 45nm, only the Phenom II's are. Core 2 Duo's would be superior to the the Athlon X2's. I'm not familiar with the mobile chipsets so I can't really compare the Centrino with the Turion. I have heard of problems with the Turion.

3939.png

 


#12 fairjoeblue

fairjoeblue

  • Members
  • 1,594 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Local time:05:40 PM

Posted 20 March 2009 - 03:55 AM

Go here,

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-cha...chmarks,16.html

Select how you want to compare CPU's & click on it.
OCZ StealthXstream 700W,Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R , E8500, Arctic Freezer Pro 7, 3GB G.Skill PC8500,Gigabyte Radeon HD 4850 OC [1GB ], Seagate 250GB SATA II X2 in RAID 0, Samsung SATA DVD burner.

#13 DJBPace07

DJBPace07

  • BC Advisor
  • 4,869 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:40 PM

Posted 20 March 2009 - 03:15 PM

That list is far from up-to-date or comprehensive, they don't even have Phenom II's or i7's.

3939.png

 


#14 the_patriot11

the_patriot11

    High Tech Redneck


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,762 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wyoming USA
  • Local time:04:40 PM

Posted 21 March 2009 - 06:18 PM

AMD has a faster front side bus then intel, which is good for streaming media such as games. AMD doesnt have as much cache as intel (in fact kind of a downside, better use of but less of it) but makes far better use of the little cache it has. Intel cache use isnt very efficient, so they compensate by adding lots of it, which isnt a bad thing-in fact, the way intel has its architecture it makes a fair trade and works good, especially when running large programs and doing video editing or a lot of multi-tasking. That being said, both CPUs have different strengths and weaknesses, and in my opinion youd be well served either way.

picard5.jpg

 

Primary system: Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3, Processor: AMD Phenom II x4 945, Memory: 16 gigs of Patriot G2 DDR3 1600, Video: AMD Sapphire Nitro R9 380, Storage: 1 WD 500 gig HD, 1 Hitachi 500 gig HD, and Power supply: Coolermaster 750 watt, OS: Windows 10 64 bit. 

Media Center: Motherboard: Gigabyte mp61p-S3, Processor: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+, Memory: 6 gigs Patriot DDR2 800, Video: Gigabyte GeForce GT730, Storage: 500 gig Hitachi, PSU: Seasonic M1211 620W full modular, OS: Windows 10.

If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users