Intel or amd better？

I heard people said for quad core cpu， intel is still better than amd。
amd is cheaper， but they said amd lags intel a lot in performance， especially for gaming

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I found the contrary to be true myself. Have a quad core AMD 64 Phenom Black Edition on both my primary (WIN 7 OS) and backup (XP 64/Ubuntu OS) system. Good price, excellent performance...I have had much better luck with AMD than Intel over the years, but then I am a gamer and do art, music & photo stuff heavily. The Phenom with 8 gigs of RAM and a 2 TB HD does the job nicely for me.

My last Intel system smoked and died last year.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

they refer to fps in playing game, intel tested to be better

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You really can't say Intel vs AMD as there are so many different CPU Chips out there, each with different architectures, amount of cores, amount of hyperthreading, levels of cache, pipelining etc etc

This site has benchmark tests for the various CPUs and will give you one method of comparing them:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

But keep in mind, that when you put a system together, other factors come into play that determines how an overall system performs and that also depends on your needs.

Someone just pulling content from the internet and doing light duty computing is not the same as a fanatical gamer for instance.

Arthur

 

AMD makes better chips for the price.

Intel makes chips that are better.

Generally speaking.

 

Because of the availability of very good benchmarking tools, CPU's generally sell for what they are worth (Newer architecture can demand higher prices though as do processors designed for Servers (xeon)). Intel get's a small premium because of their name/reputation, but not that much, and not enough to worry about it if you are buying a system that you are going to use for 4 or 5 years.

For instance:
AMD Phenom II X4 - 940 $135
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD Phenom II X4 940
Intel Core 2 - Quad 8400 $170
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel Core2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66GHz

Both current processors rated the same.

Either of these would be found in high end desktop systems selling for between $1,000 and $2,000 or so, thus the $35 difference in the cost of the CPU isn't much of an issue.

AMD in a system set up for Gaming.
http://www.thenerds.net/VISIONMAN.W...idia_GTX_295_1792MB_P.WGMA3A7900.html?affid=8

Intel in a more modest business system
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...gle-_-Desktop PC-_-Hewlett-Packard-_-83147508

Arthur

 

I beg to differ, intel gets an insane premium for their chips.

 

LOL

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html

AMD Phenom II X6 - 1100 T (top rated Phenom chip)
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Benchmark 6219, price $240

Comparable Intel Processor:
Intel Core I5 2500 3.3GHz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel Core i5-2500 @ 3.30GHz
Benchmark 6518 (5% better performance), price $210 ($30 cheaper)

Or

Intel Core I7 2600 Processor at 3.4 GHz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel Core i7-2600 @ 3.40GHz
Benchmark 8956 (45% higher performance) and that's at just $55 more than the AMD Phenom II X6

Arthur

 

intel has the fastest CPU on the earth

 

Today, I'd think that most people couldn't tell you the difference in the chips. If two computers were side by side, running the same program, it would be very hard to tell which had what processor if you put the best one of each into it. Prices are about the same but AMD seems to be a little better in its prices whenever I look around at prices.

 

From what I understand, there isn't a huge difference for the price, to be honest.
And that is primarily the result of market forces... if there was a distinct advantage of one over the other then the lesser would soon be out of business, so they tend to match each other in terms of price/performance.

Looking at benchmarks you might make a case for one over the other, but you have to bear in mind that the manufacturers might also bias their chips for certain benchmark tests rather than for practical usage... i.e. a better benchmark score might not mean a better practical experience.

Also, with games, some are optimised for nVidia, some for AMD/ATI, so it is more the GFx chip than the CPU that could determine performance.

Personally I think people make too much of the brand rather than the architecture.
If you're a multi-tasking user then a reasonable quad-core would likely be preferable than a faster single-core.
If you're a gamer then at present a single-core might be preferable than a quad-core of the same price, as games are not yet, on the whole, particularly geared for multi-core.

Also, if you're on a budget then investing in the right aspects of the tech are important - such as a gamer would possibly be better off getting a reasonable CPU and best GFx card rather than the best CPU and only a reasonable GFx card.

I also think AMD as a company have struggled recently, so prices may currently be slightly better than for equivalent Intel chips as they try to improve their sales. But I haven't been checking the specifics since I bought my latest PC about 9 months ago.

 

I run a quad core AMD Athlon II 2,600 Mhz setup with windows 7, and 3 Gig of RAM. I'm really happy with it, and it plays all my games faultlessly. The Nvidia GEforce 9200 graphics card has never refused to display a D3D game, video or, well, anything. It's never crashed and the Athlon processors are damn near bulletproof. I've added a Terabyte external HDD for storage, but unusually for me, I've never found an excuse to open the casing yet. The system was built by Packard Bell and so far nothing has broken, come adrift or worn out. It also has some handy ports for my cameras' HDD module.
Without an intel to compare it to I couldnt say which is better, faster or stronger. I've always had Intel before and I took a chance on this system, and I'm really glad. Can't fault it.

 

AMD's - they generally don't get hot enough to cook on, unlike the Intel's I've used in the past...

Also, Intel was caught a few years back using an emulator to slow down AMD chips in their testing (a few years ago mind you)... bad mojo... I'll never use em, if only for the fact that they are lying bastages.

 

Good point, that. I always build my systems, just had much better luck with AMD.

 

Total BS

A CPU manufacturer only states the Clock time of their own chips and give specifics like amount of various Cache levels, amount of pipelining etc and these specifics are easily verified and finally the actual off the shelf CPUs are benchmarked by INDEPENDENT companies.

Just one of many:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

Now as to actual history, AMD is the only manufacturer who has actually stated a HIGHER number on their chips than the rated speed of their chips.

At at time when is was customary to give a Chip Name and Number, where the number equaled the Clock Speed, AMD came up with an architecture that they claimed did more per clock cycle and thus started putting a HIGHER number on their chips to indicate the RELATIVE performance compared to Intel Chip speeds.

Thus an for instance when they sold the Athlon XP 1600+ it actually only ran internaly at 1.4 GHz, but the average consumer would buy it thinking in ran at 1.6 GHz

This is one of the reasons that Intel went away from tacking the Clock speed onto the Chip name, so now it's just an Chip name and Model number, but the model number is not the clock speed.


Arthur

 

Dude, it all depends on what you use it for and if you know how to overclock. It also depends on your other specs. I use AMD and max out on every single spec, and tada, I got a sweet gaming comp that me personally can afford ( being 14 does limit your personal budget ). It really depends on how big your budget is. Well for gaming computers, usually intel i7 EXTREME EDITION. Make sure to get a liquid cooler if you are going with i7 extreme and everything maxed with overclocking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h14-9aeDyn4

This guy did a decent comparison.

Just wait till AMD Bulldog comes out man.......

 

Used both...all good. We could look up CEO pictures and see who has a nicer jaw line.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I would go with intel but anything but an I5 is kind of a waste (on most games). Most games are very GPU heavy so the CPU doesn't even break a sweat. Save money on the CPU and invest in GTX460 or better and you won't be disappointed.

 

I, for one, would never go cheap on the graphics card. Against my religious principles or something....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Agreed, I have 2 EVGA GTX 460s in my rig