AMD/Intel choice

Hi all,

I am buying a new pc. Can anyone tell me if I should settle for an Intel
processor/motherboard or go in for AMD processor/mb. I Googled for the
comparison but didn't find anything helpful some of them were mixed reviews.
Which motherboards are best for AMD and for Intel?

I'am also planning to make it a dual OS. I have heard that AMDs are good for
Linux.

Any help appreciated in this regard.

Thankyou all,
Arty

"Artnut" wrote in message ...
Hi all,

I am buying a new pc. Can anyone tell me if I should settle for an Intel
processor/motherboard or go in for AMD processor/mb. I Googled for the
comparison but didn't find anything helpful some of them were mixed
reviews.
Which motherboards are best for AMD and for Intel?

If I were building a PC today, it would be using an Intel processors.

AMD was THE choice when Intel was making Prescott CPU's, but now Intel seems
to be the better of the two.

Artnut wrote:
Hi all,

I am buying a new pc. Can anyone tell me if I should settle for an Intel
processor/motherboard or go in for AMD processor/mb. I Googled for the
comparison but didn't find anything helpful some of them were mixed reviews.
Which motherboards are best for AMD and for Intel?

I'am also planning to make it a dual OS. I have heard that AMDs are good for
Linux.

Any help appreciated in this regard.

Thankyou all,
Arty



AMD covers low and mid-range. Intel processors cover low, mid-range and high.
Intel's middle of the road stuff now, compares to AMD's best stuff. Price
for performance matches pretty well, where the two companies are competing
and having a price war. But the very best Intel processors, would still
sell for the traditional $1000 mark. And the very best Intel processors
are not described in the following, simply because they may not be very
good value for your average computer.

Some midrange processors were tested here. The AMD 6000+ socket AM2, is
compared to some other Intel processors. An Intel E6700 (or the current E6750)
is slightly better than the AMD one. The Intel does it, while running at
2.66GHz, while the AMD processor is running at 3GHz to try to keep up.
These processors are dual cores, meaning tasks enjoy the services of two
processors inside the same integrated circuit package.

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2933

If you go to the bottom of that page, the high end of the AMD line, is
drawing more power than the Intel processors. That is a slight
disadvantage. The AMD processors, AFAIK, are 90nm for their higher end
ones (versus 65nm for Intel), and the processor has a higher power
consumption as it nears 3GHz. Intel has processors, ones for example,
that are even stronger than the ones shown on the chart, such as the E6850,
that still manage to stay at the 65W TDP spec.

So you can safely buy either an Intel or an AMD system. If you are buying
low end equipment, the processors might be getting closer to one another,
as that System Power Consumption Under Load chart shows. At the midrange,
the midrange Intel processor has better power consumption than the high end
AMD processor.

In practical terms, up to that mid range, like E6700/E6750 or AMD 6000+ or 6400+,
you could simply buy on price, and either company's product will do the
job. When the systems are idle, you'll notice that the AMD system had
a lower total consumption. But if the computer is running SETI all day,
then the AMD solution with something like a 6000+ or 6400+, will run a bit
warmer than its Intel counterpart. For many people, their computers are
idle most of the time (email, MSOffice, web surfing, are bursty applications
that are mostly idle), so that may influence your choice slightly, to the
AMD side.

If you want absolutely lowest price, you have to price out whole systems,
to see how they compare. Current AMD socket AM2 systems use DDR2 memory
(which is cheap), while Intel LGA775 socket systems use DDR2 (cheap)
or DDR3 (more expensive). The Intel motherboard may, on average, be
more expensive as well. One reason for this, is that Intel has been
increasing the FSB of the processor, causing fewer competing chipset
makers to be able to provide a solution. So if an Intel processor
has FSB1333, there are fewer motherboards that do that properly,
than the older FSB1066, where you could find a few VIA chipset boards
for cheaper. You'll notice that the older Intel processors with
FSB1066, are more expensive, so an E6700 suitable for use in a
VIA chipset motherboard, costs more than an E6750, which might only
work with an Intel or Nvidia chipset board. So if you are building
from parts, you have to look at the total price, to decide which
is the cheapest way to go.

Much easier with prebuilt systems, in the sense that you have a finished
price, and it is just a matter of comparing what is in the boxes.

You can get some charts here, but you really have to be a rocket
scientist, to find the mistakes in the results (Photoshop is wrong)
and figure out which processors are dual cores, which are quad cores
etc. I don't think any of the charts on here anymore, compare single
threaded tasks running on the processors, and a lot of real world
applications still do all their work with just one of the two
cores. And thus, this chart is misleading, unless you know how
to convert the figures for comparison purposes. If the chart
showed something like SuperPI execution times, plus something
like Cinebench, you'd have two criteria to go by (single threaded,
versus Cinebench multithreaded/scalable).

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html

I wish another site would offer charts like that, but offer
different benchmarks for comparison purposes. Many sites are
content to run comparison reviews only, without summary charts
of all their work.

Paul

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:14:05 +0530 Artnut wrote:

| I am buying a new pc. Can anyone tell me if I should settle for an Intel
| processor/motherboard or go in for AMD processor/mb. I Googled for the
| comparison but didn't find anything helpful some of them were mixed reviews.
| Which motherboards are best for AMD and for Intel?
|
| I'am also planning to make it a dual OS. I have heard that AMDs are good for
| Linux.
|
| Any help appreciated in this regard.

There probably is no major difference in general. Your specific needs may
dictate one or the other.

I was looking for a dual CPU socket board of workstation class (e.g. uses
ECC memory, so that means Xeon or Opteron). I wanted ATX form factor.
The only board I could find was for Opteron Socket F (1207). So unless
I overlooked a board that does a pair of Xeons in an ATX form factor by
a major mainboard maker, it looks like I'm going the AMD router. The
board I found was the Tyan S2927.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

Somewhere on the interweb "Paul" typed:
Artnut wrote:
Hi all,

I am buying a new pc. Can anyone tell me if I should settle for an
Intel processor/motherboard or go in for AMD processor/mb. I
Googled for the comparison but didn't find anything helpful some of
them were mixed reviews. Which motherboards are best for AMD and
for Intel? I'am also planning to make it a dual OS. I have heard that
AMDs are
good for Linux.

Any help appreciated in this regard.

[snipped]

If you want absolutely lowest price, you have to price out whole
systems, to see how they compare. Current AMD socket AM2 systems use DDR2
memory (which is cheap), while Intel LGA775 socket systems use DDR2
(cheap) or DDR3 (more expensive). The Intel motherboard may, on average,
be
more expensive as well. One reason for this, is that Intel has been
increasing the FSB of the processor, causing fewer competing chipset
makers to be able to provide a solution. So if an Intel processor
has FSB1333, there are fewer motherboards that do that properly,
than the older FSB1066, where you could find a few VIA chipset boards
for cheaper. You'll notice that the older Intel processors with
FSB1066, are more expensive...

This ain't neccasarilly so Paul. A cheap upgrade, which I've just done, is
an E4xxx Intel Core2Duo processor and a mobo (I have an Asus P5PE-VM) that
uses DDR RAM and an AGP card. As I mentioned, as un upgrade it's great. I
was able to use the two x 1GB DDR modules from my Barton XP3200+ rig, as
well as the AGP card. The mobo was cheaper than the CPU, which was cheap to
start with. DDR memory is inherantly faster than DDR2 as it has much lower
latency. Also, I already had it so it was cheap. :-)

OK, the E4500 (2.2GHz) isn't the fastest CPU in the world but it seems, from
what I can tell, to have at least three times the processing power of the
Barton it replaced with far lower power consumption. Also the E4500 is a
slower FSB but isn't more expensive than the faster ones. It has less L2
cache but I'm just offering up another option here.

I don't know if this info is relevant to the OP as he says "buying a new
PC". This sort of option might not be available pre-built. Also, if you want
better upgradability, Asrock make some boards that take both DDR and DDR2
(just not at the same time) and also have AGP and PCIe.

The above build allowed me to triple my processing power for very little
money and, as an added bonus, gives me power savings.
--
TTFN

Shaun.

Artnut wrote:

Hi all,

I am buying a new pc. Can anyone tell me if I should settle for an Intel
processor/motherboard or go in for AMD processor/mb. I Googled for the
comparison but didn't find anything helpful some of them were mixed
reviews. Which motherboards are best for AMD and for Intel?

I'am also planning to make it a dual OS. I have heard that AMDs are good
for Linux.

Any help appreciated in this regard.

Thankyou all,
Arty
The reason intels are out performing amds is because of the fsb
but in reality there ain't much difference the question is how much do you
want to spend.

I know some one who put a E6600 together for £900 plus
I built an amd 5600 for under £400. Another question is what do you want to
use the pc for and make your choose from that

idle my cpu runs at 28 c to 50 c

"darklight" wrote in message
...
Artnut wrote:

Hi all,

I am buying a new pc. Can anyone tell me if I should settle for an Intel
processor/motherboard or go in for AMD processor/mb. I Googled for the
comparison but didn't find anything helpful some of them were mixed
reviews. Which motherboards are best for AMD and for Intel?

I'am also planning to make it a dual OS. I have heard that AMDs are good
for Linux.

Any help appreciated in this regard.

Thankyou all,
Arty
The reason intels are out performing amds is because of the fsb
but in reality there ain't much difference the question is how much do you
want to spend.

I know some one who put a E6600 together for £900 plus
I built an amd 5600 for under £400. Another question is what do you want
to
use the pc for and make your choose from that

idle my cpu runs at 28 c to 50 c


Hello Noozer, Paul, Misfit, Phil, Darklight,

I thank you all for shedding some light on this issue that flummoxed me
quite a bit. You know how it is when bombarded with contrasting views that
more often than not further adds to the confusion.
I sincerely appreciate your time spent to explain the differences between
AMD and Intel.
I asked a few friends for their views and most of them said that AMD is
priced cheaper than Intel but Intel scores high in terms of speed and is
very much advantageous for those who wish to play games.
Another info I got was that it seems the opensource guys prefer AMDs for
their Linux. Is this really true, if yes, why? As of now, I see myself
leaning towards Intel.

Regards,
Arty

Artnut wrote:
"darklight" wrote in message
...
Artnut wrote:

Hi all,

I am buying a new pc. Can anyone tell me if I should settle for an Intel
processor/motherboard or go in for AMD processor/mb. I Googled for the
comparison but didn't find anything helpful some of them were mixed
reviews. Which motherboards are best for AMD and for Intel?

I'am also planning to make it a dual OS. I have heard that AMDs are good
for Linux.

Any help appreciated in this regard.

Thankyou all,
Arty
The reason intels are out performing amds is because of the fsb
but in reality there ain't much difference the question is how much do you
want to spend.

I know some one who put a E6600 together for £900 plus
I built an amd 5600 for under £400. Another question is what do you want
to
use the pc for and make your choose from that

idle my cpu runs at 28 c to 50 c


Hello Noozer, Paul, Misfit, Phil, Darklight,

I thank you all for shedding some light on this issue that flummoxed me
quite a bit. You know how it is when bombarded with contrasting views that
more often than not further adds to the confusion.
I sincerely appreciate your time spent to explain the differences between
AMD and Intel.
I asked a few friends for their views and most of them said that AMD is
priced cheaper than Intel but Intel scores high in terms of speed and is
very much advantageous for those who wish to play games.
Another info I got was that it seems the opensource guys prefer AMDs for
their Linux. Is this really true, if yes, why? As of now, I see myself
leaning towards Intel.

Regards,
Arty


There is a benchmark here on the Linux side.

http://www.linuxhardware.org/article...44&mode=thread

If there was a preference in Linux land, it may be historical (i.e. based
on using older hardware). The nice thing about Linux, is the wide range
of hardware people use for it - even a seven year old system can be used.

I'm not constantly pricing out systems, so if a bargain showed up
tomorrow, I wouldn't necessarily know about it. It doesn't take too
long, to price out some options.

I guess, in terms of system design, I personally would not select
hardware, which was weaker than an old P4 3GHz. At the current time,
that seems to be a good performance level for surfing the web (while
things like email or USENET newsreaders, could survive on a lot less).
In terms of the core clocks on Core2 Duo or Athlon64 X2, that would
correspond to 2GHz on those systems.

The difference is due to the improvement in IPC (instructions per
clock cycle). Both Athlon64, and Intel processors after the Pentium4,
made improvements to their IPC. That is why their core clock doesn't have
to be as high, to get the same performance level. If I was shopping for
a system, I'd want a dual core, for smoother desktop performance. A dual
core means your system may be more responsive, when already doing some
work.

Find a benchmark you like, then write the price of each processor, next
to the items in the chart.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_20...21&char t=434

They have a price/performance chart here, but your choices for the applications
mix, may be different than theirs, which is why your personally constructed
chart, might look different. It is possible this chart, doesn't take the price
of motherboard and memory into account.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_20...21&char t=444

Either AMD or Intel will give you a good solution, as described he

"Intel Core versus AMD's K8 architecture"
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2748&p=1

Paul

Somewhere on the interweb "Paul" typed:


[snip]

I guess, in terms of system design, I personally would not select
hardware, which was weaker than an old P4 3GHz. At the current time,
that seems to be a good performance level for surfing the web (while
things like email or USENET newsreaders, could survive on a lot less).
In terms of the core clocks on Core2 Duo or Athlon64 X2, that would
correspond to 2GHz on those systems.

No no no no no. 2GHz "on those systems" would kick the sh!t out of a P4
3GHz. Twice a day and three times on Sundays.

I recently benched one of the new _single_-core Celeron (Conroe core) 1.6GHz
CPUs (420) with /only/ 512k L2, 35W TDP, as being slightly *faster* than an
Athlon Barton XP3200+ (Both running 200MHz FSB/2GB DDR RAM in dual channel
configuration).

The Celeron 420 would be more than adequate for surfing the web, email,
usenet, most multimedia and even light gaming. I know, I tried it.

Everything above the 420 is overkill unless you're a gamer, bragger,
number-cruncher or otherwise use your computer for professional, heavy
workload purposes. i.e. a "power user". However, the marketers wouldn't like
you to know that. Or the sites that make their money out of people reading
about the latest and greatest.

I have an E4500, 2.2GHz "Allendale" Core2Duo in this machine and it barely
idles. I do some light gaming, browsing, watching xvids/DVDs, email, reading
newsgroups etc. Give me a second...

I have an up-time of three days (perhaps 6 - 8 hours of gaming in that time)
and an average CPU utilisation of 5.3% (high of 96%) and 2.7% (high of 97%)
on cores 0 and 1 respectively. The "high" figures don't mean that I need a
CPU this fast, a slower CPU would have hit 100% and taken a few milliseconds
longer to do whatever it was that took it that high.

Yeah, it's nice to have grunt to spare. However, don't for a minute think
that (unless you fall into one of the "power user" groups mentioned above)
you really need all the computing power that these modern CPUs can give.
--
TTFN

Shaun.

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:14:05 +0530, Artnut wrote:

Hi all,

I am buying a new pc. Can anyone tell me if I should settle for an Intel
processor/motherboard or go in for AMD processor/mb. I Googled for the
comparison but didn't find anything helpful some of them were mixed
reviews. Which motherboards are best for AMD and for Intel?

As Paul points out elsewhere in the thread both AMD and Intel have plenty
of choices in the low to mid ranges. Intel has several $950+ processors
at the high end.

In the low to mid range the AMD 64 X2 6000+ and the Intel C2D E6600
perform equally in several benchmarks. Encoding to Xvid the Intel has a
slight lead. In transcoding DVD9DVD5 the Athlon is 4% faster.


Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe $230
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Windsor $160

The good news is either processor can often be overclocked to perform on
a par with a more expensive sibling. AMD offers two "Black" models which
are multiplier unlocked, a feature normally found only on high end
processors.



I'am also planning to make it a dual OS. I have heard that AMDs are good
for Linux.



Processors from AMD and Intel work equally well with Linux and the BSDs.