Which of them both do you prefer? And why?
AMD or Intel.?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Wesker776"][QUOTE="Threesixtyci"][QUOTE="Wesker776"] ...in a PC hardware forum.
Not everything is limited to games here.
Domobomb
Hmm... a HD3870 in crossfire mode? I suppose you got that setup just for word processing or video editing, huh.
...and what does that have to do with the topic at hand? :roll:
[QUOTE="yoyo462001"][QUOTE="Domobomb"][QUOTE="X360PS3AMD05"]Whoever gives me more for my money.Domobomb
That would be AMD ATM.
that depends on what price range..Everything up to, and including the quads. Pretty much every AMD CPU is a better value against its Intel counterpart. There are a few exceptions though, like the Phenom 9600, which is $60 more then the 9500 for .1GHz.
You're starting to green with fanboyism.
Care to give examples on all fronts where AMD offers better value for money? I know that AMD offers exceptional value on the low end market (e.g. 4000+), where Intel shoots itself in the foot by cutting L2 cache density to very low levels.
On the dual core front, AMD can only compete up to the Core 2 Duo E6750, before the 6400+ gets completely outperformed by the E6850, E8190, E8200, E8400 and E8500. Price wise, AMD offers EQUAL value for money (up to the E6750 vs 6400+) here and there compared to Intel, but one could argue that the higher power consumption of AMD CPU's and the lack of a HSF with BE CPU's pushes them out of competition in some cases.
On the quad core front, AMD is hardly competitive. No AMD Phenom X4 CPU can outperform or match the Q6600, let alone the Q9300, Q9450 or Q9550. BUT, it should be noted that the 9500 X4 offers good value for money for those wanting to get into multithreaded apps like 3D rendering.
I'm not going to include Extreme Edition or Skulltrail CPU setups, as they don't offer good value for money (well, actually, Skulltrail would be a dream for digital media content creators). But the fact is that AMD is lacking on the CPU halo front.
Phenom needs to scale to higher clock speeds (3.2GHz+), but it looks like that won't happen on AMD's 65nm process. That, or the architecture itself isn't efficient enough in comparison to Core 2.
No, you're wrong. AMD is the better value. a 6000+ goes for $160 where the 6750 goes for $200. They perform about the same, but AMD costs way less. A $160 intel would be the e6550, and the 6000+ out does that. AMD is the better value.
There's no question that AMD doesn't have an offering to compete with the Wolfdale, or the higher end Core Duos, but that's not what was being discussed.
Also, your bit about the Quads is incorrect. Phenom performs roughly equal to a Q6600. I think there's about 10% difference in synthetic benchmarking.
Source:
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dualcore-shootout.html
That doesn't include E6750, but here's a few that do:
Source:
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale.html
There's also power consumption that you should pay attention too (someone has to pay the electricity bill):
The 6400+ is no match for the E6750. Further, the 6000+ doesn't outperform the E6550, as you say it does--the 6000+ is 200 MHz slower than the 6400+, while the E6550 is 333 MHz slower than the E6750--the difference of 133MHz isn't enough for the 6000+ the overtake the E6550.
Further, pricing isn't as drastic as you make it out to be. A quick price search on techreport shows the E6750 only $20 more than the 6400+, using minimum pricing.
Further, we can't ignore Wolfdale. It's on the market, people can buy it and it's performance is very impressive. It even puts existing 65nm Core 2's to shame.
Phenom X4, even 200 MHz faster than Core 2 Quad, can't even match or outperform it consistently. I don't see how it's competitive:
...then there's the power bill, again:
Source:
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-phenom.html
Log in to comment