To AMD or not to AMD?

[Stephan Rose]

Well my PSU and motherboard fried today so...I need to build a new
computer this upcoming week.

I've always used Intel in the past but I am considering to give AMD a
try just for the fun of it and see what all the hype is about.

Thing is, I have absolutely zero experience with AMD so I can't make
any good judgement as to what CPU to go with. I need to make up my
mind by monday though because that is when I am ordering parts.

Here are the specs on my current Intel system, may it rest in peace:

P4 3.2 GHz, 2 Gig DDR2 RAM
900GB Storage Space =)
GeForce 7800 GT (used to run 2 in SLI but just run a single card now)
Plus all the other usual bits of hardware, Sound card, DVD Burner,
etc.

So if I try AMD, I need a setup that at exceeds the above specs (may
as well upgrade while I am at it...)

Here is a little more info as to what the machine is used for:

- Latest games of course...gotta have fun =)
- Software Development (C/C++, C#)
- Mechanical Engineering occasionally, pretty demanding CPU hogging
software and 3D requirements.

I'm not concerned to save a buck or two, on the contrary, I rather
spend an extra hundred bucks if its worth it.

So any suggestions? =)

Thanks in advance,

 

[Wes Newell]

I'm not concerned to save a buck or two, on the contrary, I rather
spend an extra hundred bucks if its worth it.

So any suggestions? =)

The last Intel I owned was a 486, and I just recently upgraded to an
AMD AM2 MB and X2 3800+ cpu. However, the only reason I didn't go with an
Intel Core 2 Duo was because it was just released and priced way above
retail and MB's weren't out yet that had on them what I needed (4 PCI
slots). Sounds like a Core 2 Duo might be the way for you to go. You
should be very happy with one of those or an X2 AMD. The Core 2 Duo has a
slight edge in performance, but price wise per performance, AMD X2 3800+
has a slight edge. IOW's take your pick.
I wouldn't even consider a Pentium D thouigh. It'll eat you out of house
and home in extra power consumption and also won't perform as well as the
other 2 cpu's

 

[John Weiss]

I've always used Intel in the past but I am considering to give AMD a
try just for the fun of it and see what all the hype is about.

Here is a little more info as to what the machine is used for:

- Latest games of course...gotta have fun =)
- Software Development (C/C++, C#)
- Mechanical Engineering occasionally, pretty demanding CPU hogging
software and 3D requirements.

I'm not concerned to save a buck or two, on the contrary, I rather
spend an extra hundred bucks if its worth it.

Well, it depends on how much you value absolute performance...

The latest reviews of the Intel Core 2 duo Extreme all say it blows away any
current AMD CPU, including the previous performance champ, the FX-62. So,
if you're looking for absolute performance, go there.

If you still want to try AMD, the current problem is future upgrade paths.
Even though socket AM2 was just introduced with the FX-62 and several other
Athlon X2 CPUs, it appears that socket may be relatively short lived, and
other sockets may be on the way soon. So, if you are looking for
upgradability as well as performance, you may be out of luck.

Also, you have to wade through the plethora of options in the X2 series.
There are CPUs with the same model numbers (e.g., 4600+) with a variety of
socket, L2 cache, clock speed, and power specifications. Do you want Socket
939 or AM2; 512 or 1024 MB cache; 35, 65, 89, or 110 Watts power draw? Will
your apps work better on raw clock speed or added L2 cache?

Bottom line IMO is that this is not a good time to switch to AMD for raw
performance -- only for performancerice ratio. I'll be looking forward to
the evolution of the low-power (35 watt) 3800+, hoping for a faster CPU and
dual-socket capability in a cool & quiet package for media center use.

 

[Peter van der Goes]

Well my PSU and motherboard fried today so...I need to build a new
computer this upcoming week.

I've always used Intel in the past but I am considering to give AMD a
try just for the fun of it and see what all the hype is about.

Thing is, I have absolutely zero experience with AMD so I can't make
any good judgement as to what CPU to go with. I need to make up my
mind by monday though because that is when I am ordering parts.

Here are the specs on my current Intel system, may it rest in peace:

P4 3.2 GHz, 2 Gig DDR2 RAM
900GB Storage Space =)
GeForce 7800 GT (used to run 2 in SLI but just run a single card now)
Plus all the other usual bits of hardware, Sound card, DVD Burner,
etc.

So if I try AMD, I need a setup that at exceeds the above specs (may
as well upgrade while I am at it...)

Here is a little more info as to what the machine is used for:

- Latest games of course...gotta have fun =)
- Software Development (C/C++, C#)
- Mechanical Engineering occasionally, pretty demanding CPU hogging
software and 3D requirements.

I'm not concerned to save a buck or two, on the contrary, I rather
spend an extra hundred bucks if its worth it.

So any suggestions? =)

Thanks in advance,

Assuming your DDR2 memory is OK, you'll want to find an AM2 CPU/Motherboard
combo, so you can reuse your existing memory. Don't even look at Socket 754
or Socket 939, they use DDR memory.

 

[NoNoBadDog!]

Well my PSU and motherboard fried today so...I need to build a new
computer this upcoming week.

I've always used Intel in the past but I am considering to give AMD a
try just for the fun of it and see what all the hype is about.

Thing is, I have absolutely zero experience with AMD so I can't make
any good judgement as to what CPU to go with. I need to make up my
mind by monday though because that is when I am ordering parts.

Here are the specs on my current Intel system, may it rest in peace:

P4 3.2 GHz, 2 Gig DDR2 RAM
900GB Storage Space =)
GeForce 7800 GT (used to run 2 in SLI but just run a single card now)
Plus all the other usual bits of hardware, Sound card, DVD Burner,
etc.

So if I try AMD, I need a setup that at exceeds the above specs (may
as well upgrade while I am at it...)

Here is a little more info as to what the machine is used for:

- Latest games of course...gotta have fun =)
- Software Development (C/C++, C#)
- Mechanical Engineering occasionally, pretty demanding CPU hogging
software and 3D requirements.

I'm not concerned to save a buck or two, on the contrary, I rather
spend an extra hundred bucks if its worth it.

So any suggestions? =)

Thanks in advance,

despite the hype and hyperbole from the Intel fanboys, AMD is *still* the
best chip on the market. I would suggest you look at the Athlon64 X2.

Even with the advent of the Core 2 Duo, Intel still hasn't got a clue that
they need to get away from having the memory controller not on the die
itself. The Core 2 Duo claims the fastest clock speed, but in real world it
will be slower because it uses the L2 cache buss to handle CPU to CPU
communications. Due to this architecture, the L2 cache, although large, is
"shared". This means that the two cores cannot operate independently like
the Athlon64 X2 can. It also dramatically increases the latency of data
transfer in the L2 cache. It is not a very elegant or efficient means of
allowing the two cores to see each other, but it is cheap for Intel to build
it that way.

FWIW, the Intel fanboy crowd can flame me all you want. Intel has a
long...long way to go before it catches up to AMD.

Bobby

 

[NoNoBadDog!]

Well, it depends on how much you value absolute performance...

The latest reviews of the Intel Core 2 duo Extreme all say it blows away
any current AMD CPU, including the previous performance champ, the FX-62.
So, if you're looking for absolute performance, go there.

If you still want to try AMD, the current problem is future upgrade paths.
Even though socket AM2 was just introduced with the FX-62 and several
other Athlon X2 CPUs, it appears that socket may be relatively short
lived, and other sockets may be on the way soon. So, if you are looking
for upgradability as well as performance, you may be out of luck.

Also, you have to wade through the plethora of options in the X2 series.
There are CPUs with the same model numbers (e.g., 4600+) with a variety of
socket, L2 cache, clock speed, and power specifications. Do you want
Socket 939 or AM2; 512 or 1024 MB cache; 35, 65, 89, or 110 Watts power
draw? Will your apps work better on raw clock speed or added L2 cache?

Bottom line IMO is that this is not a good time to switch to AMD for raw
performance -- only for performancerice ratio. I'll be looking forward
to the evolution of the low-power (35 watt) 3800+, hoping for a faster CPU
and dual-socket capability in a cool & quiet package for media center use.

Complete bull-hockey. AM2 is also ready for DDR3, and will last at least 3
years. Intel, on the other hand, has so many confusing socket/chipset
combos that you need a week and a supercomputer just to figure out which
chip works with which motherboard.

 

[John Weiss]

despite the hype and hyperbole from the Intel fanboys, AMD is *still* the
best chip on the market. I would suggest you look at the Athlon64 X2.

Even with the advent of the Core 2 Duo, Intel still hasn't got a clue that
they need to get away from having the memory controller not on the die
itself. The Core 2 Duo claims the fastest clock speed, but in real world
it will be slower because it uses the L2 cache buss to handle CPU to CPU
communications. .. . .

FWIW, the Intel fanboy crowd can flame me all you want. Intel has a
long...long way to go before it catches up to AMD.

Your "hype and hyperbole" on behalf of AMD does you and AMD no favors. I'm
not an "Intel fanboy"; I'm writing this on my dual Opteron workstation.

There is not a review I've read (PC-Magazine, Maximum PC, Tom's Hardware...)
that says even the FX-62 can come close in real-world performance to the
Core 2 Extreme -- overclocked or not. Those are the currently shipping, top
of the line CPUs from AMD and Intel. Stock clock speeds are actually quite
close at 2.8 and 2.93 GHz, respectively.

Overall, the Core 2 Extreme blows away the FX-62 by around 28% (per Tom's
Hardware) in performance. Even in the multitasking tests the Core 2
performs 31% better, giving lie to your "CPU to CPU communications"
argument. There are only a couple Sisoft Sandra SYNTHETIC memory benchmark
tests where the FX outperforms the Core 2, and a game or 2 where graphics
dominate over CPU performance where the FX falls just slightly behind.

For now, Intel has the top spot in absolute performance. Whether or not
someone wants to pay for that performance is another issue entirely. At the
mid- and low ranges, an X2 in Socket 939 will beat the pants off a P4 or
Core duo, likely at a lower cost. For more $$, a higher-end X2 in Socket
AM2 will still beat anything short of the Core 2 duo. Next month, who
knows...

 

[Frodo]

With AMD, try to get a dual core CPU that has 1024K of level 2 cache per
core (like the X2 4400+),
most AMD dual cores come only with 512K per core, should better for that 3D
stuff with more cache.
AMD rates their CPUs by performance rating not true clock speed.
The AMD X2 4400+ true clock speed is 2.2GHz, but AMD rates the CPU as having
the performance of an Intel dual core running at 4400MHz
As you have DDR2 memory, you would have to go with socket AM2 motherboard,
as the older socket 939 only use DDR.
Check out the forums at this place http://www.extremeoverclocking.com/

 

[VanShania]

Yes, Intels flagship Core Duo kicks Amds ass, but your paying $1000 for it.
All the other processors beneath Intels flagship Core Duo do out perform
their Amd counter parts, but not as much. I would say that what ever you
get, make sure its Dual Core. I just hope there isn't any stability
problems. There are a couple of patches that apparently have to be applied
with AMD to smooth the dual cores out.
--
Love and Teach, Not Yell and Beat
Stop Violence and Child Abuse

A64 3500+, Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939 motherboard
All-in-Wonder 9800Pro 128mb AGP, MSI Theater 550 Pro
X-Fi Extreme Music,Antec 550 watt,Thermaltake Lanfire
2 Gb Dual Channel PC3200 OCZ Platinum 2-3-2-5 CL2.5
2XSATA WD 320gb Raid Edition, PATA WD 120Gb HD
Pioneer 110D, 111D, Liteon 1693 Dual Layer burners
XP Media Centre Edition 2005
Sidewinder Precision Pro 2 Joystick
Logitech optical mouse
19 in Viewsonic A91f+
BenchMark 2001 SE- 19074
Games I'm Playing- Falcon 4, SP:WAW

 

[Gojira]

Sorry,can't let that one go by.An E 6600 costs $350 and just about equals
AMD's $850 top of the line FX62.The $580 E 6700 blows away anything AMD has
right now.Will AMD catch up?Given their track record,probably,but let's give
Intel some credit for getting it right this time.The real winner in this
competition is the consumer,but we only win if we don't let loyalty to one
brand blind us to the best choices and bargains out there.

 

[Logan]

despite the hype and hyperbole from the Intel fanboys, AMD is *still* the
best chip on the market. I would suggest you look at the Athlon64 X2.

Even with the advent of the Core 2 Duo, Intel still hasn't got a clue that
they need to get away from having the memory controller not on the die
itself. The Core 2 Duo claims the fastest clock speed, but in real world it
will be slower because it uses the L2 cache buss to handle CPU to CPU
communications. Due to this architecture, the L2 cache, although large, is
"shared". This means that the two cores cannot operate independently like
the Athlon64 X2 can. It also dramatically increases the latency of data
transfer in the L2 cache. It is not a very elegant or efficient means of
allowing the two cores to see each other, but it is cheap for Intel to build
it that way.

FWIW, the Intel fanboy crowd can flame me all you want. Intel has a
long...long way to go before it catches up to AMD.

Bobby

So all the publications and websites that have put the Core 2 through
extensive testing and declared them the winner are wrong,and you're
right?Sounds like you have your own "fanboy" problem to deal with.I'll never
understand this blind devotion to any manufacturer in complete ignorance of
the facts.Does AMD make good processors?Certainly,and they deserve credit
for pushing Intel into improving.But for now,Intel has recaptured the lead
in performance and price.

 

[VanShania]

Intel E6300 Core 2 Duo 1.86Ghz EM64-bit Socket 775 CPU, 1066FSB, 2MB
L2 - retail box

$269.84

Intel E6400 Core 2 Duo 2.13Ghz EM64-bit Socket 775 CPU, 1066FSB, 2MB
L2 - retail box $311.84


Intel E6600 Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz EM64-bit Socket 775 CPU, 1066FSB, 4MB
L2 - retail box $447.84

Intel E6700 Core 2 Duo 2.6Ghz EM64-bit Socket 775 CPU, 1066FSB, 4MB
L2 - retail box $733.84

AMD Athlon64 X2 3800+ Windsor Socket AM2 64bit CPU, 2.0Ghz, 2x512k
L2 - retail box $186.84

AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+ Windsor Socket AM2 64bit CPU, 2.2Ghz, 2x512k
L2 - retail box $226.84

AMD Athlon64 X2 4600+ Windsor Socket AM2 64bit CPU, 2.4Ghz, 2x512k
L2 - retail box $322.84

AMD Athlon64 FX-62 San Diego Socket AM2 64bit CPU, 2.8Ghz, 2x1MB L2 -
retail box $1,044.84

AMD Athlon64 X2 Dual Core 3800+ Socket 939 CPU, 2.0Ghz, 2x512k L2 -
retail box $201.84

AMD Athlon64 X2 Dual Core 4200+ Socket 939 CPU, 2.2Ghz, 2x512k L2 -
retail box $245.84

AMD Athlon64 X2 Dual Core 4600+ Socket 939 CPU, 2.4Ghz, 2x512k L2 -
retail box $331.84

AMD Athlon64 X2 Dual Core 4800+ Socket 939 CPU, 2.4Ghz, 2x1MB L2 -
retail box $370.84


Now when I look at the prices, and knowing the excellent expandability of
AMD motherboards as opposed to the not so expandible Intel boards(as
mentioned in a previous post), not mention that the performance difference
that I would see would be very disappointing compared to the price I would
pay, Amd leads the way. With my 939 system and single core processor, I can
record 2 movies(he he, threw a splitter in) and play Steel Panthers without
experiencing any hiccups(probably due to that 2 gb dual channel ram) I could
never do that with 512mb ram or my old barton 2600 system. Because of how
smooth my current system runs, I know that once I get a dual core processor,
this computer should last me a few years. I am worried about how long my AGP
vid card will handle future graphics.

--
Love and Teach, Not Yell and Beat
Stop Violence and Child Abuse

A64 3500+, Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939 motherboard
All-in-Wonder 9800Pro 128mb AGP, MSI Theater 550 Pro
X-Fi Extreme Music,Antec 550 watt,Thermaltake Lanfire
2 Gb Dual Channel PC3200 OCZ Platinum 2-3-2-5 CL2.5
2XSATA WD 320gb Raid Edition, PATA WD 120Gb HD
Pioneer 110D, 111D, Liteon 1693 Dual Layer burners
XP Media Centre Edition 2005
Sidewinder Precision Pro 2 Joystick
Logitech optical mouse
19 in Viewsonic A91f+
BenchMark 2001 SE- 19074
Games I'm Playing- Falcon 4, SP:WAW

 

[Stephan Rose]

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone for your input, it is highly
appreciated.

Looks like most everyone appears to be reccomending Intel so I'll give
a Core Duo 2 a try and wait for AMD to kick Intel's butt again

Thanks again everyone!

 

[NoNoBadDog!]

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone for your input, it is highly
appreciated.

Looks like most everyone appears to be reccomending Intel so I'll give
a Core Duo 2 a try and wait for AMD to kick Intel's butt again

Thanks again everyone!

By reviewing the posts, AMD was recommended over Intel.

Oh well, it's your money...


Bobby

 

[Stephan Rose]

By reviewing the posts, AMD was recommended over Intel.

Oh well, it's your money...

It's not an easy decision to make...I'm still playing with it a
little...

Dunno 100% for sure yet...but I guess I will need to decide SOMETHING
for sure tomorrow morning =)

Though more people did reccomend (other places I have talked to) the
Core 2 Duo from intel over AMD at this moment....*shrug*...

What is the right choice? I suppose either one can be the right choice
depending on the circumstances.

 

[NoNoBadDog!]

It's not an easy decision to make...I'm still playing with it a
little...

Dunno 100% for sure yet...but I guess I will need to decide SOMETHING
for sure tomorrow morning =)

Though more people did reccomend (other places I have talked to) the
Core 2 Duo from intel over AMD at this moment....*shrug*...

What is the right choice? I suppose either one can be the right choice
depending on the circumstances.

Either one will be a "right" choice. The AMD offers more future
compatibility choices..the AM2 socket will allow you to upgrade to a faster
processor, or even to a quad core, when you want to. The Intel won't allow
you to do that. The architecture of the AMD chip and motherboard are better
than the Intel. When dealing with raw processor core frequency, the Core 2
Duo is faster but 98% of those buying them will never use the chip anywhere
near it's rated speed. Point is moot.

My suggestion...go with AMD. Better future-proofing, cheaper, and just as
fast in real world use.

One last note; years ago, I was a big fan of Intel. Then Intel started
their deceptive marketing. I would not buy a Core Duo or a Core 2 Duo,
simply because Intel tries to market them as dual core, which they are not.


Bobby

 

[Tom Horsley]

It's not an easy decision to make...I'm still playing with it a

little...

The Core 2 duos do seem to be a decent chip, but for me the
lack of the memory bandwidth that amd has is the most important
point. Memory is a huge bottleneck, and it isn't quite
as bottled on amd as it is on intel.

 

[kevinbeall]

Either one will be a "right" choice. The AMD offers more future
compatibility choices..the AM2 socket will allow you to upgrade to a
faster processor, or even to a quad core, when you want to. The Intel
won't allow you to do that. The architecture of the AMD chip and
motherboard are better than the Intel. When dealing with raw processor
core frequency, the Core 2 Duo is faster but 98% of those buying them will
never use the chip anywhere near it's rated speed. Point is moot.

My suggestion...go with AMD. Better future-proofing, cheaper, and just as
fast in real world use.

One last note; years ago, I was a big fan of Intel. Then Intel started
their deceptive marketing. I would not buy a Core Duo or a Core 2 Duo,
simply because Intel tries to market them as dual core, which they are
not.


Bobby

So, Bobby, which AMD CPU would you choose from a money to value ratio at
this point? I'm also looking to upgrade, but I'm not sure if I should wait
a few months and see what is coming out or just go ahead and buy now. I
guess the argument could be made that a month might bring cheaper prices.
Money is not a problem, but I'm not in the habit of throwing it away,
either. BTW, I'm a gamer and I also use my computer to edit some home video
and keep up with my wife's music... nothing too taxing, but I DO like new
technology

 

[NoNoBadDog!]

So, Bobby, which AMD CPU would you choose from a money to value ratio at
this point? I'm also looking to upgrade, but I'm not sure if I should
wait
a few months and see what is coming out or just go ahead and buy now. I
guess the argument could be made that a month might bring cheaper prices.
Money is not a problem, but I'm not in the habit of throwing it away,
either. BTW, I'm a gamer and I also use my computer to edit some home
video
and keep up with my wife's music... nothing too taxing, but I DO like new
technology

Your analogy will always be true. You can wait a month, but then you could
just as well say at that time "Well, if I wait another month..."

I would look at any of the current crop of AMD Athlon64 X2 processors; 4800+
is a good trade of speed and price.

Don't concern yourself with the "latest technology" worry. No matter when
you buy, it will not be very long until something better comes along. As I
stated earlier, any AM2 based AMD processor/motherboard you buy will give
you several years of life and an easy upgrade path...the same cannot be said
about Intel.

Basically, shop carefully and get the best you can for your budget. I would
shop for at least 1GB of RAM, 200GB HDD, and an 8x DVD Dual Layer burner.

Have fun and happy shopping!

Bobby

 

[Carlo Razzeto]

If you still want to try AMD, the current problem is future upgrade paths.
Even though socket AM2 was just introduced with the FX-62 and several
other Athlon X2 CPUs, it appears that socket may be relatively short
lived, and other sockets may be on the way soon. So, if you are looking
for upgradability as well as performance, you may be out of luck.

Yes, but Skt AM2 will be K8L compatible, so you're not out of luck, you just
don't get co-processors which may not be that big of an impact anyway.

Also, you have to wade through the plethora of options in the X2 series.
There are CPUs with the same model numbers (e.g., 4600+) with a variety of
socket, L2 cache, clock speed, and power specifications. Do you want
Socket 939 or AM2; 512 or 1024 MB cache; 35, 65, 89, or 110 Watts power
draw? Will your apps work better on raw clock speed or added L2 cache?

Intel has no shortage of choices them selves

Bottom line IMO is that this is not a good time to switch to AMD for raw
performance -- only for performancerice ratio. I'll be looking forward
to the evolution of the low-power (35 watt) 3800+, hoping for a faster CPU
and dual-socket capability in a cool & quiet package for media center use.

Intel does have the current performace crown, and unlike the P4 day's it's
base around a solid architecture, so perhaps core 2 would be a good choice.
But this is not to say that AMD doesn't have any viable offerings or that
there are any real problems with going AMD. In fact there's a thread running
in the oppisit direction on comp.sys.intel currently where posters concluded
that while Intel has the best CPU, ironically AMD currently has the best
platform (as far as desktops go).

Carlo