|
Intel vs. AMD
|
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
5. January 2007 @ 08:17 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by wg1:
I've been solidly behind Intel since 1999. At that time I was running an AMD Thunderbird 1.5 and my son had an Intel P3/733. We both had comparable ram, the same video cards, and in all respects (except mb and cpu) basically the same layout. His P3 definitely blew me out of the water in performance and stability. That was my last AMD system.
BTW... that P3/733 is still running strong (I'm using it right now). When my son upgraded to his P4/3.0, I bumped up the P3 with 1gb RAM and 250gb HD .. same mb & running XP without a hitch as well as crunching out videos. I only use my P4/2.8 for things I want done a bit faster or are more graphic intensive.
This is a solid Intel family here. Just built a P4/2.8 for my daughter.
Your choice, but you've been limiting your possibilities. Back when the P3 was Intel's top processor, Intel was still king of the hill. It was later when AMD started improving their memory management and later went to the dual cores that they walked away from the Intels. Intel hanging onto Netburst and going with the Prescotts was a long time problem. The last competitive processor to the AMD line (until the new Conroes were released) was the P4 Northwood. After that time and with AMD forging ahead, Intel fell farther behind till this summer when Intel introduced the new Core 2 Duo architecture.
As for the P4 2.8, I can only ask why? That's old tech and you could have built a better dual core Intel with far superior performance almost as cheap. Since Intel came out with the Conroe, both AMD and Intel have been selling their last generation processors at bargain prices. Your P4 Intel is no where near the best Intel has to offer. Unless you want to go with the latest Intel, none of the Intels compare to the AMDs. What I've said is nothing new, it's been proven over and over. I have a P4 floating around in the family and I can honestly say from first hand experience, it's a decent platform, but doesn't come close to the AMDs I've built.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 5. January 2007 @ 08:19
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
5. January 2007 @ 08:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
Pacman: Seems a good buy, but I'm always a bit wary of openbox items. Amen to your most recent comment.
Ace_2: The E6300 is a better buy, unless you can get the 3800+ very cheap like we now can here in the UK (£30 less than the core 2).
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
5. January 2007 @ 08:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ace_2
Of the choices, the 6300 would win out. But consider spending a few more dollars for a 6600 if you're serious about gaming and performace. Then pay close attention to the board choice and make sure the RAM is the best for the setup. To top that off make sure you have a stable PSU as well as it having enough power to supply the system. Some of the RAM manufacturers are now offering good power supplies. I'm not saying buy one, but check the specs on the OCZ and Corsair units. That will give you a good source for comparison. A lot depends on your budget.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
5. January 2007 @ 08:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
IF you can afford it. The 6600 may be a big leap in performance, but it's a big leap in price too, about £100 at present.
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
5. January 2007 @ 08:52 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Pacman: Seems a good buy, but I'm always a bit wary of openbox items. Amen to your most recent comment.
Ace_2: The E6300 is a better buy, unless you can get the 3800+ very cheap like we now can here in the UK (£30 less than the core 2).
Often parts are returned due to compatibility problems and some beginners just can't get a board up and running properly. Besides, it should still be warranted by Asus. If Estuansis didn't pay attention to the spec note, he's going to have an issue with the DDR2 667 he was wanting to use and the Gigabyte board. If he did, then I wonder at the selection because it will entail getting specific RAM for the application. Theonejrs should have pointed that out as soon as Estuansis posted his build list (with the DDR2 667), since the Gigabyte was his suggestion. If he doesn't have it on hand or want to buy the RAM to use with the Gigabyte then this could end up as one of those open box items.
Making and taking suggestions holds a bit of responsibility for both parties. To make suggestions a person should be well aware of particular limitations. As the recipient, it is their responsibility to double check the specs and make sure all parts are compatible/supported. Since the end decision belonged to Estuansis, I hope he saw the note.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 5. January 2007 @ 09:03
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
5. January 2007 @ 09:00 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
IF you can afford it. The 6600 may be a big leap in performance, but it's a big leap in price too, about £100 at present.
The difference is only about $133 US. The leap isn't that large unless the builder is on a seriously limited budget. With the significant performance difference, I'd figure some way of coming up with the $133 difference.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115003
|
|
MichaelP1
Suspended permanently
|
5. January 2007 @ 09:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
yeah but the E6600 is well worth the extra money
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
5. January 2007 @ 12:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yeah, proves my point about you lucky americans, Costs £220 ($428) to get an E6600 here. I note they're $320 at newegg, which probably isn't even the cheapest place.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
5. January 2007 @ 16:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ace_2,
Save up a bit more money and get the Conroe 6400. It's $32 more and far better than the 6300. On a decent MB you can OC it right around 40% easily with good air cooling and even more with water cooling depending on your case cooling. It's the best "bang for the buck" from Intel right now!
Happy Computering,
theone
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
 |
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
5. January 2007 @ 23:16 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Yeah, proves my point about you lucky americans, Costs £220 ($428) to get an E6600 here. I note they're $320 at newegg, which probably isn't even the cheapest place.
When I ran it on PriceGrabber it came up the best. ClubIT had the best price on the 6300.
|
|
MichaelP1
Suspended permanently
|
5. January 2007 @ 23:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
sammorris , we can always buy and send you a CPU to the UK to save you some money
We shall go to the end,we shall fight in France,we shall fight on the seas and oceans,we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air,we shall defend our Island,whatever the cost may be,we shall fight on the beaches,we shall fight on the landing grounds,we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,we shall fight in the hills;we shall never surrender
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 5. January 2007 @ 23:49
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
5. January 2007 @ 23:20 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by theonejrs:
Ace_2,
Save up a bit more money and get the Conroe 6400. It's $32 more and far better than the 6300. On a decent MB you can OC it right around 40% easily with good air cooling and even more with water cooling depending on your case cooling. It's the best "bang for the buck" from Intel right now!
Happy Computering,
theone
Maybe for the novice, but most serious builders are going with the 6600. With the larger shared cache, it is the real winner when it comes to bang for the bucks. If you don't believe me, just check the reviews done by many of the major trades and online sites.
|
|
MichaelP1
Suspended permanently
|
5. January 2007 @ 23:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
yes the E6600 would be my pick also with the 4MB cache
We shall go to the end,we shall fight in France,we shall fight on the seas and oceans,we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air,we shall defend our Island,whatever the cost may be,we shall fight on the beaches,we shall fight on the landing grounds,we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,we shall fight in the hills;we shall never surrender
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 5. January 2007 @ 23:46
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
5. January 2007 @ 23:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
It is the pick of most people willing to invest an extra $100 for noticeably superioir performance. I guess people on strict budgets have to draw the line somewhere. I'd definitely pay the tiny pittance difference between the 6300 and 6400. For me though, $100 isn't going to prevent moving up to a much better performance level. If need be, I'd save longer. You won't be seeing me move up the the X or Q any time soon, unless I win the lottery. Once past the e6600, the return for the buck gets less.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 5. January 2007 @ 23:46
|
|
MichaelP1
Suspended permanently
|
5. January 2007 @ 23:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
actually the X6800 would be my pick but its pricey right now. the price should drop a bit in the spring when the AMD3s hit
We shall go to the end,we shall fight in France,we shall fight on the seas and oceans,we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air,we shall defend our Island,whatever the cost may be,we shall fight on the beaches,we shall fight on the landing grounds,we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,we shall fight in the hills;we shall never surrender
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. January 2007 @ 12:13
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. January 2007 @ 00:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
Exactly the point, diminishing returns. Prices stabilized pretty quick as Intel improved supply to vendors. It will be interesting to see how pricing develops over the coming year. Most good buys have been on the previous generation CPUs. The real steal has turned out to be the Core 2 Duo. I still think Intel is keeping the price artificailly low trying to hurt AMD, even with having the better processor for the moment. Most builders were paying the premium prices for the AMDs only a few months ago. Now AMD has had to drastically cut prices to be able to compete.
|
|
MichaelP1
Suspended permanently
|
6. January 2007 @ 00:06 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Most builders were paying the premium prices for the AMDs only a few months ago. Now AMD has had to drastically cut prices to be able to compete.
LOL yes case in point i got the AMD Opteron 185 for 349.00 a few weeks ago !! when it was selling for about 749.00 last spring
We shall go to the end,we shall fight in France,we shall fight on the seas and oceans,we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air,we shall defend our Island,whatever the cost may be,we shall fight on the beaches,we shall fight on the landing grounds,we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,we shall fight in the hills;we shall never surrender
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. January 2007 @ 00:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
We all know Intel isn't a group of philanthropists. So having proved it has the better processor, why has'nt Intel raised prices to reflect what AMD was demanding only months ago? As proven by AMD, a good segment of the market will pay the premium for the superior performance. AMD is too big for Intel to run out of the market, but Intel will punish AMD any time it can.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. January 2007 @ 01:02 |
Link to this message
|
PacMan777,
Quote:
Maybe for the novice, but most serious builders are going with the 6600.
It all amounts to whether you have the extra $100+. The 6400 overclocks better than the 6600 and the double cache benefits aren't that great. Mostly it depends what you are going to do with it. I'm not a gamer! For me, where my prime use would be encoding video and folding, the 6600's benefits would be very slight, and not worth the extra money. Oddly enough the reverse seems true when it comes to the D-940 with the 4MB cache, at least as far as folding goes. Why they react differently, I don't know.
Hey, If you can afford the 6800, get one by all means. The 6400 would at least double the performance of my OC'd D-940. Like I said the 6400 overclocks better than the 6600. That's enough to keep me happy for a good while. I also consulted a good friend who builds real high end rigs (in the $7,000 range) and even he likes my choice of CPU , MB and memory for my use. Considering I have a case, PS, CPU cooler and a DVD rom on hand and everything else needed will run me about the same as I sold the D-940 for ($750).
Having built over 200 computers in the last 26 years, I'm far from a novice. I go all the way back to the days where you did with jumpers what you do today with the bios set-up. Back then it was either "Learn or Burn"! There was no fail safe in the bios to save your butt!
The original question posted by Ace_2 was Quote:
What's best between an AMD Athlon 64 3800+ and an Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 in terms of gaming performance?
I merely pointed out that for another $18 he could have a CPU that would clock with the big boys! Had he asked which was better for gaming between the 6400 and the 6600 my answer would have been the 6600. Even for gaming, the 6400 at an additional $18 would be well worth it over the cost of the 6300. Much more so than the additional $96 for the advantages of the 6600 over the 6400! Even Intel claims that it's thier most bang for the buck!
EDIT: Price change
Happy Computering,
theone
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. January 2007 @ 01:23
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. January 2007 @ 01:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
MichaelP1,
You don't have to wait until spring! The price just went down. For the 6400 it's now $222. For the 6600 it's $318! From Newegg!
Happy Computering,
theone
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. January 2007 @ 01:18
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
6. January 2007 @ 01:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
AM3 in the spring? I thought it was AM2+ in the summer, and AM3 in 2008? Maybe an upgrade is closer than I thought!
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. January 2007 @ 01:45 |
Link to this message
|
Sammorris,
Quote:
Maybe an upgrade is closer than I thought!
Yup, but it just might involve a new MB and memory as it sure won't be a socket 939 and may even be DDR3!
I still think AMD is in the catbird seat. They made money on every socket 939 they sold having long since recovered thier development costs. Intel never made a profit on the Smithfields or the Preslers and the price of the Conroe is artificially low. I think in AMD's case they brought out the higher clocked AM2s in the 5000+ and 5200+ to sort of fill the gap a bit and to spark more interest in the AM2 platform. This was a smart move on AMD's part as again, it wasn't a major re-design but just an inexpensive upgrade.
Happy Computering,
theone
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
6. January 2007 @ 01:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
Like the 5400+, 5600+ and 6000+ will be?
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. January 2007 @ 01:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
Theonejrs
I was talking in general and I did mention the part about those stuck with a tight budget. PC World, Tomshardware, and Anandtech are just a few of the sources I was referring to. Since you mentioned something more specific, the 6400 being better at overclocking and being as good as the 6600 for real world usage, I'd like to see the sources where you got that info along with the links to that specific info, or post your results if you did your own benches for those systems. You are are the only person I've ever heard say that.
I've yet to see where a 6400 would OC as high as a 6600 and common sense dictates 4MB cache for two cores is better than 2 for real world work, especially where one processor can access more of the shared cache if it needs it and the memory is available. If it can't access more than the other, then it means the entire 4MB is being hit on by the 2 cores which translates to the larger cache outperforming 2MB by just size alone.
The technology has been discussed on many forums and the 6600 has always proven to be better. Why do you think Intel get's away with charging the extra $100 over the 2MB cache Core 2 Duo? (The 6600 is currently selling for about $318 US.) The next step above the 6600 is the 6700 for about $500+. Another $200 for a slightly faster CPU, with the same 4MB shared cache as the 6600. Gets back to diminishing returns. The larger cache and the faster native speed of the 6600 makes it the better choice. Add to that it OCs to a higher level than the 6400 and you see why those willing to spend an extra $100 gets the better package.
When you start getting larger price differences with the next model up with only a slight variation in speed, then it's time to get more serious about the selection. Note the difference and what one gets for it, from a 2MB cache 2.13GHz E6400 at $222, a 4MB cache 2.4GHz E6600 at $318, and the 4MB cache 2.66GHz E6700 at $510. An additional 2MB cache and about 0.3GHz speed for about $100 compared to the next step up costing about $200 more for only about 0.2GHz in clockspeed. A person gets a lot for that first $100 step up and no one I've seen says it isn't worth the money other than you. ... and we both mentioned the budget aspect.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
6. January 2007 @ 01:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think he's referring to the percentage gain. I'm sure I've seen somewhere an E6400 that got to 3.3Ghz on air, whereas the highest air cooled E6600 I've seen is 3.6 (correct me if I'm wrong on these) which although that would make the E6600 faster when OCed by 300mhz versus the 266mhz difference at stock, at this level of overclock, the difference should be 400 (266+50%) so in fact the 6400 has caught up. That and the E6600 has gone up 50% versus 55% for the 6400. Realistically, the performance is better from the 6600, of course it is, but like Russ I'm not convinced the extra dollars are worth it if you're on a constricted budget. If there's $100 extra left for PC in the E6400 zone I'd be tempted to recommend more RAM than going up to the 6600.
On the cache issue, in theory 4MB should make a real difference, but if so, how come my 4200+ with 2x512KB performs close to the E6300 with 2x1MB when that's supposedly a better CPU as well?
|
