EggXpert

I know this is a heated debate.... but can people give me reasons why Intel might be better than AMD and vise versa.......

Just want to know people's own experiences with Amd and the latter....

Right now it's a toss up, especially when it comes to price for performance.  Intel has faster chips, clock for clock in most situations, especially gaming.  The big thing AMD has going for it right now is pricing.  There are quite a few processors around the $100 mark that offer reasonable performance.  The big thing Intel has going for it is overclocking.  The E4300, E6300, E6400 and E6600 chips overclock like mad.  My E6400 runs @ 2.13Ghz stock and I have it running 3.2Ghz overclocked without any problems.  Some are able to hit even higher.  On the low end, it's AMD.  In the middle, it's also AMD as the 6000+ running 3Ghz stock is under $230.  For anyone who doesn't want to overclock, or who wants to start from 3Ghz and go up, that's a very nice price and performance level.  Only at the very top end is Intel still dominating as nothing AMD has can touch it.  Of course, you pay a huge price premium for that advantage.  If I were building a system now, I'd be hard pressed to decide whether to get an E6400 or a Athlon 6000+.  It would most likely depend on the motherboard and chipset more then anything.

I just read a ton of reviews and I'll say one thing, it's impressive how well the Intel CPU's perform.  Most of the 6000+ reviews show the E6600 winning most benchmarks, or being slightly behind.  Since the 6000+ is @ 3Ghz and the E6600 is @ 2.4Ghz, it shows how strong the E6600 is, clock for clock.  Even if you don't want to OC, the E6600 is a good choice.  If you do want to OC, then most E6600 CPU's are hitting 3Ghz or more (YMMV of course), which makes it even more compelling.  The only place AMD wins in this contest is the fact the 6000+ is around $240 retail while the E6600 is $310.  That's a pretty big difference and could effect the choice of anyone on a serious budget.  Since I'm comfortable overclocking, I'd still probably look at the E6400 or E6600 myself.

I guess I am just stuck in the AMD Mode. I haven't bought an INTEL chip since the Big Intel vs AMD battle started and I have no complaints. Then again my Company provided me recently with a D820 laptop (Dell) with Duo Centrino and I am quite amazed. I can actually play Tiger woods 2007 at work now... gotten quite good at it too.

The reason I have always used intel is because there products are highly upgradable..... I have a socket 478 and I was actually able to find a mobo that had a pci-express slot with that socket.. the one in my sig...... I don't hear many people ever being to upgrade there mobos to one that has pci-express that own AMD....

Well, You might be right about that, and I somewhat agree, but the lifetime for my computers over the last couple of years, has come down from 18 months to 6 months. And besides the DVD Burner and sometimes the video card, there is not much that goes with the old machine. So it doesn't really matter much.

i believe I would have the same approach if I was to go with Intel.

 

As stated earlier Intel currently has the fastes proc, but at what a price.

While AMD came out with its AM2 socket not too long ago, so on the release of their new cores you will be ready to move to the faster ones.

Also, to use an odd analogy...intel "hits" hard slowly, while amd "hits" moderatly very fast...for this reason you can't just compare Ghz speeds for a Intel chip rated at 2.5 GHz will be noticably slower than a 2.5 GHz AMD proc.

All you need to do is look at clock speeds. While many people say they are important because they dictate speed, I say nay... they are important because while they do dictate operating speeds, they also show that while AMD might not have the best performing processor and that their processors perform better per clock than intel's (or used to anyways). Visit Tom's Hardware and look at their CPU charts. For instance, an AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz will perform better than a Pentium EE 840 Smithfield clocked at 3.2GHz. That's a 1.2GHz clock deficit and yet, the AMD pulls out on top in CPU intensive tests (not in memory intensive tests because the AMD is paired with DDR 400 v.s the Pentium paired with DDR2 667). Now, fast forward to today. intel has created a processor with superior architecture that beats AMD in most benchmarks. Maximum PC even did an article before the new intel processors hit the market that showed their architecture as being superior, and I'll be damned if it isn't.

AMD is behind in world's fastest processor at this point, but their pricing will always be a plus and unless I'm mistaken, not everybody has the need (or the funds) for world's best or fastest processor. Also, it is important to look at the relevance of such test results and benchmarks. Many show results such as arbitrary numbers in the tens and hundreds of thousands (3DMark results), how many operations the processor can perform (Sandra and others) and how many frames a processor can reach in a certain game. Let me just ask, who would miss the 30 seconds more it takes the AMD to encode the heinous amount of songs that are used in one conversion benchmark? At frame rates in the 200 and 300 range, who would miss the extra 30 that the intel processor can achieve that the AMD cannot? Who would really care how many floating point operations a processor can perform if it works well enough that the user doesn't notice?

I certainly wouldn't. AMD very well may come out on top again as it has in the past, and it may not. I will continue to patronize the company that will sell me a processor that:

-Performs the tasks I need efficiently

-Has a decent price/performance ratio

-Will not break the bank

 

ALSO: Hardcore extremist AMD fanboys (and girls) will always be hardcore extremist AMD fanboys and hardcore extremist intel fanboys will always be hardcore extremist intel fanboys. There's no sense in trying to change or deny that. I think this thread is excellent for telling WHY you love the processor you love BECAUSE there is no better processor for every human being. The results are subjective and vary with the individual's computing needs.

Here here chipmunkofdoom2. Cheers. That is exactly what one should be doing.... Telling how you work with your processor. Not bragging about how yours is better..... I have really been thinking of upgrading to a new processor, but to tell the truth I wasn't really sure whether or not  to do that, because I thought that my computer worked pretty well for what I do.... I guess I felt pressured to buy and upgrade to a newer parts... I guess I also felt left-out too..... but i guess "fanboys will be fanboys."  Thank you....

No problem. I'm not going to lie, I like to use AMDs. That being said, if intel offered an alternative to what I need for a comparable price that performed as well as the AMD rival, I'd consider it if I needed to upgrade. Too much emphasis is placed on what's the best and what's the fastest, not necessarily what will do for your purposes. I'm not going to say that a faster processor won't help in overall system speed and games, but it gets to the point where something bottlenecks performance and a faster CPU will no longer help, whether it be the HDD access times or RAM or whatnot. I'm content with having a system that's pretty darn fast; it doesn't have to be the fastest.

chipmunkofdoom2:

No problem. I'm not going to lie, I like to use AMDs. That being said, if intel offered an alternative to what I need for a comparable price that performed as well as the AMD rival, I'd consider it if I needed to upgrade.

Considering Intel is cutting prices very soon, they'll be in line with AMD (or cheaper) within days.  What I've heard is the price of the E6600 will go down to around $180 or so.  If true, it will be an great deal.  The processor compares favorably to the 6000+ at stock settings and is better at overclocking.  For $50 - $60 less then the 6000+ it would be an awesome deal.

True, but I don't overclock and in RAM intensive applications, the 6000+ beats the E6600 in most tests. Plus, I currently have an AM2 motherboard and the cost of upgrading to an intel motherboard would more than make it not worth my while. Also, I don't really need to upgrade... this old 3200+ does just mediocre in games, but unfortunately, games come only second to working 35 hours a week and taking 18 credits.

chipmunkofdoom2:

True, but I don't overclock and in RAM intensive applications, the 6000+ beats the E6600 in most tests. Plus, I currently have an AM2 motherboard and the cost of upgrading to an intel motherboard would more than make it not worth my while. Also, I don't really need to upgrade... this old 3200+ does just mediocre in games, but unfortunately, games come only second to working 35 hours a week and taking 18 credits.

Not really talking about you.  Anyone who is starting from scratch, for instance, should seriously look at the E6600 when the price drops.  Not doing so would be fanboy idiocy only.  I just don't understand people that get locked into one brand of anything.  That is the height of ignorance.  Up until not that long ago, the new conroe chips beat everything AMD had, hands down, and AMD fanboys were still talking about how AMD was better.  Then AMD got better for a while, only from a price/performance perspective.  Now that the Intel chips are going down in price, that advantage goes away.  Please link me to a review from a site that worth a crud that says AMD is still better at memory intensive apps.  I've read at least a half dozen to a dozen reviews and the 6000+ beat the E6600 in very few tests.  At the time, I figured the 6000+ was a good deal because it was cheaper by quite a bit.  If the E6600 drops down where it's supposed to, it makes a much better value then the 6000+.  Not to mention the 6000+ runs hotter, so needs better cooling from what I understand.  For those who are interesting in overclocking, which is quite a few, the deal becomes even better because the E6600 hits levels the AMD chips can't even think about.  Not just raw Ghz, but in overall speed.  If the E6600 @ 2.4Ghz is holding it's own and beating the 6000+ running at 3Ghz, think about what the result would be against a 3.2Ghz E6600 and a 3.2Ghz 6000+.  I'm thinking the E6600 would totally own the 6000+ at the same clock setting.

People really need to get off the fanboy crap.  A few years ago, I worked for a AMD hardware review site.  At that time, AMD had the best chips hands down.  The P4 (early version) was a complete joke.  The B and then C revision chips, however, were a different matter.  I evaluated my AMD only stance at that time and found it lacking.  I quit the site and bought an Intel system and you know what?  I was very happy with it.  It ran great and was at least comparable, if not faster then a comparable AMD system.  I had both at the time so I can honestly say there were good and bad points about each platform.  Since then, I've bought what makes the most sense, regardless of what brand the chips, video cards and such were.  I still stick with stuff I find reputable of course, but I know longer make the decision due to being locked into AMD only, or Nvidia only, or whatever.

For me this is an easy decision.
I upgrade when AMD is on the top, because AMD and Intel hand the performance crown back and forth.
Now its true that AMD has openly castrated Intel for the last..... 3+ years with the performance lead.
AMD had the performance crown for such a long time, and didn't impact the market nearly as well as it should have.
If you follow the AMD vs Intel case that is currently going on you'll get a feel for what company Intel is like.
Whether AMD wins the case or not will prove or disprove my next statement.
Intel used unfair business deals to weasle AMD out of business.
Basically companies were afraid to buy AMD.
And now Intel is suffocating AMD with this price war.
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31708/118/
So it all depends on if you want AMD to survive.
If you want AMD to die.... do you remember netburst P4?
The Centrino Marketing hype?
Intel can throw money out the door and make it all back.

So I'm going to wait to upgrade when Barcelona comes out.
Gotta help the little guy, cause heck, AMD is the reason we even have the Core 2 Duo.

wtburnette:

Not really talking about you.  Anyone who is starting from scratch...

I understand that you didn't mean me, but I wasn't really speaking for anyone else, was I? I was speaking for myself (I mean, if I said otherwise please point it out)

wtburnette:

Please link me to a review from a site that worth a crud that says AMD is still better at memory intensive apps.

I feel since nobody else has said this that I must warn you; you are coming very close to sounding like an intel fanboy (which you so readily lash out at it). All I'm saying is do some homework.  In my first post on this tread, I cited www.tomshardware.com with my earlier claims. Tom's Hardware has video card, HDD, CPU and other performance benchmarks. The 6000+ beats the 6600 in 8 out of 20 tests, most of those being memory intesive (and the 6000+ is also only running on DDR2 750 while the 6600 is running DDR2 800. Why? Can't say, however when benchmarks are often a second or so off, that can make a big difference). Also, I don't know why you're trying to defend intel to me, I've already done my research, and I think I've also already said that I know intel has the better chip now.
 

I'm not a fanboy at all, I simply keep informed as to what the best chips for the best price are.  At this point in time, the 6000+ beats the E6600 for price/performance.  Even though it's slower then the E6600, it's a better deal because it's cheaper.  Soon, when the Intel price cuts take effect, the E6600 will be a much better deal because it'll be cheaper and faster.

BTW, there are quite a few people (myself included) who don't use Tom's Hardware as a guide to anything.  I read over a half dozen reviews, from places like www.hardocp.com, www.techreport.com and www.anandtech.com, which I value a great deal more for tech articles and reviews over Tom's Hardware (or about any other site for that matter).  In all the reviews I've read, there were very few benchmarks overall that showed the 6000+ beating the E6600 and when it did, the margin was very thin.  I guess I also find it hard to discount overclocking.  The 6000+ is close to being tapped out.  From what I've read, it's pretty much hitting the ceiling and there isn't a lot of room left for these chips to OC.  The E6600 on the other hand, is easily hitting 3.2Ghz - 3.6Ghz rather easily in many cases.  The performance differences of the chips have a whole new dimension added in under that light.

I just want to make sure that someone attracted to the title, AMD vs Intel actually looks at all the arguments and decide what makes the most sense.  Right now AMD makes sense at times and Intel makes sense more often.  Soon, you pretty much have to be an AMD fanboy to buy AMD chips after the price drop.  Now, don't get me wrong, I hope and pray AMD comes out with something soon that beats Intel soundly.  Not just for price and performance, but outright performance in general.  That would make me very happy because Intel needs the competition.  Without AMD, Intel processors would still be slow and cost an arm and a leg.  Competition is great and makes things better for us end users.  Also, out of 4 systems that I own and run at home right now, 3 of the 4 are AMD.  The one I use the most is my Intel PC.  The other three computers have older AMD CPU's and work just fine, but I never saw the point in going AM2 (still don't).  I apologize if this sounds like I'm trying to convince you, since you can't really often change someone elses mind.  I just want people who are curious to come into this thread and see info supporting both sides.  AMD and Intel both make fantastic CPU's and as long as you're informed as to what works best for what need and makes the best financial sense, you'll make the correct choice when making a purchase.

Just a quick update.  Price checks at a few vendors this morning show the E6600 now priced at around $234 (with free shipping from ZZF, it's OOS @ Newegg).  At this price point it's now under the price of the 6000+ and is now a better value.  Unless you already have an AM2 mobo, then the E6600 is the better deal, especially if you OC.  If the price drops further, it'll be an even better deal.  IMO, AMD now rules on the low end of things, but the middle and top end are Intel territory. 

These sorts of threads are generally pointless.  Fanboys will rant and rave and flame and the companies will continue to go back and forth with eachother.

 Personally, I am an AMD fanboy and I'm always rooting for them.  However, my gaming rig, previous gaming rig, laptop, and backup rig are all Intel based.

 Currently, Intel offers the best line of CPUs across the board.  Outside of fighting a price war, AMD doesn't have much of a chance in offering the superior line of CPUs until they release their cpus based on the K10 architecture.

Pre- Core 2, AMD was the clear winner.

My response to the same topic in another thread:

matkisson:

No, you just have an additional 2MB of cache... it doesnt make a major gaming difference

While it may not make a major difference, it does make a difference.  When you take all the things that make a 5%-10% increase in performance alone and add them up, you get a very nice performance boost.

"The 4MB L2 cache can increase performance by as much as 10% in some situations. Such a performance improvement is definitely tangible"

and to lb562high, Intel on recently with the release of the c2d's have out performed AMD. AMD has been the leader in processors for many years before Intel put out the c2d's.

AMD has only been the undisputed leader in gaming performance since they released the Athlon64. 

 

The reason AMD tops Intel for gaming is because of the fact that the memory controller is on the CPU, not the motherboard.

While AMD's integrated memory controller is wonderful, Intel's Core 2 processors now offer even quicker memory access than AMD's Athlon 64 X2, without resorting to an on-die memory controller.

 

Finally, if you want to take $ into account and go $ for performance, AMD kills Intel multiple times over.

Not exactly.  Thanks to recent price cuts, AMD does offer a slightly better dollar:performance ratio but that is ignoring anything above Intel's e6600.

See here: April Confrontation: AMD and Intel Start the Price War

 

I suddenly feel like im repeating myself...

I suddenly feel like you really aren't sure about what you are talking about. 

amd's have better memory management ... thats not debateable.

Your right that it isn't debatable. But your wrong about AMD being the clear winner in this area as I have already proven. 

Accurate comparisons :

65nm to 65m, not 65nm to 90nm  

2 cores to 2 cores, not 4

No. Accurate comparisons are taking products that are contemporaries of eachother designed to compete with eachother. 

comparing the AMD X2 4800+ to the E6600 without OCing proves that AMD leads the way in memory intensive computing. But the E6600 is 100Mhz slower -_- ... ok ... then OC it to 2.5Ghz .. but it still gets beat by the 4800+

You seemed to be a bit confused mate.  The E6600 performs greater than or equal to an AMD Athlon64 FX62 (which is faster than the X2 4800+) in games.

Please see: Contemporary Dual-Core Desktop Processors Shootout

 

 

See also: AMD Conquering 3GHz: Athlon 64 X2 6000+ CPU Review (page 4 - Gaming Applications)

 

And there are several threads already in existence on the same topic. One of the better ones is AMD or C2D for gaming ... the only true answer ...

 

 

Jukebox360:

Recent news shows AMD's quad-core architecture is 50% faster, at all clock speeds, than Intel's quad-core. AMD may not be as fast in the dual-core race, but it looks like they are winning in the quad.

In reguards to quad cores, i believe it. Intel bottlenecked their quads when they doubled the cores and only added 25% to the bus ... not smart. This is why the benchmarks of the c2q's arent nearly double the c2d's. Bottleneck bad.

matkisson:

In reguards to quad cores, i believe it. Intel bottlenecked their quads when they doubled the cores and only added 25% to the bus ... not smart. This is why the benchmarks of the c2q's arent nearly double the c2d's. Bottleneck bad.

Or maybe it is because the law of diminishing returns. Also, I don't believe that going from one core to two cores (across the same architecture CPUs) yielded a doubling of performance in most cases.

tonjohn, you seem to be cherry picking with at least one of your graphs, specifically the memory latency taken from Anandtech. If you bother to read the update under that chart it states

"As many astute readers have pointed out, Core 2's prefetchers are able to work their magic with ScienceMark 2.0, which results in the significant memory latency advantage over AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62. This advantage will not always exist; where it doesn't, AMD will continue to have lower latency memory access and where it does, Intel can gain performance advantages similar to what ScienceMark 2.0 shows."

Then continues with  

"Because of the Core 2's intelligent prefetchers doing too good of a job with ScienceMark memory latency test, we wanted to also showcase situations where Core 2 would feature slower memory accesses than the AMD platform with its integrated memory controller. Everest's results are more in line with what we'd expect to see, with the FX-62 offering over 23% faster memory accesses than the X6800. CPU-Z's latency tool also reported somewhat similar findings, with an 18% performance advantage due to AMD's integrated memory controller. CPU-Z also provided us with numbers that showcase how well Core 2 can perform if its prefetchers are able to "guess" correctly; at lower strides the Core 2 Extreme manages faster memory access than the FX-62. The 128-byte stride numbers are indicative of what will happen if the pre-fetchers are not able to get the Core 2 the data it needs, when it needs it, while the 64-byte numbers show you what can happen when things go well."

 Take specific note of this line from the above quote "Everest's results are more in line with what we'd expect to see, with the FX-62 offering over 23% faster memory accesses than the X6800."

The average performance graph can also be considered misleading as it ts a "mean of all normalized results obtained during our test session." this includes synthetic benchmarks along with benchmarks of apps that may not intrest all people.

 I also have some reservations reguarding any benchmark being 100% reliable when it eliminates the human element (I understand that this has to be done to maintain repeatable results). My concerns may be unwarranted in this reguard, but it just seem as though these results are like testing how well a boat handles on glass smooth water and 0 wind, when in reality those conditions rarely exist.

All that being said, I do believe Intel has a very fine processor design in the Core 2 Duo, but it also wouldn't surprize me if the Athlon X2 competes with the Core 2 Duo a little better than the benchmarks indicate when a few waves and some wind are added.

wtburnette:

Just a quick update.  Price checks at a few vendors this morning show the E6600 now priced at around $234 (with free shipping from ZZF, it's OOS @ Newegg).  At this price point it's now under the price of the 6000+ and is now a better value.  Unless you already have an AM2 mobo, then the E6600 is the better deal, especially if you OC.  If the price drops further, it'll be an even better deal.  IMO, AMD now rules on the low end of things, but the middle and top end are Intel territory. 

Agreed. I don't think though that it's impossible to get a good chip from AMD, but you'd be paying more than you could for an intel.

Jukebox360:

Recent news shows AMD's quad-core architecture is 50% faster, at all clock speeds, than Intel's quad-core. AMD may not be as fast in the dual-core race, but it looks like they are winning in the quad.

 

I also live, eat, and breathe benchmarks, so if you have any to support that claim, I'd love to see them. If not, don't bother. 

 

I went AMD because of the great prices. I got an X2 6000+ for $239, not that much more than a 1.8ghz Core 2 Duo, which it kills. It performs better than all Core 2 Duos but the two highest end (The Extreme and E6700). I was very happy with my purchase.