Intel is simply smoking amd right now in terms of perfomance. There really can't be to much argueing that.
With that said if you're looking for a cpu you need to figure out what you're primarly doing. And then look for a cpu that best matches your needs and budget. Best way to do that is to look at the benchmark results yourself.
As there is way to much bias from most people. AMD is price/performance.well intel is the best at performance but you will find AMD cpus cheaper and at very good performance.
Intel is simply smoking amd right now in terms of perfomance. There really can't be to much argueing that.
but then all this can change in 3 weeks when zambezi comes out:D then filpped around again when sandybridge-E comes out:D or when ivybridge comes out, etc... this is really a never ending story.
the performance difference is not all that it's made out to be at all. most(all) cpu benchmarks are done at low resolution with almsot no graphics setting turned up/enabled. if you have to make the game look like 3dmark03 cpu test to show the difference then lol. truthfully, i have two pc's and i m not impressed by the 2500k at all.
i swapped in my gpu's from the AMD rig and the framerate increased by only 1 in some games and the biggest difference was about 20 FPS in a game that i was getting 268 fps in already on the AMD rig. Intel is better right now because for the price of a faster AMD you can get a intel chip which is better, not monumentally better as forum fanboys rave about but better still.
if you have AMD right now, you aren't missing anything.
Anand do vigerous testing and class the CPU's in a hierarchy, or more of a block of similar performing CPU's at gaming.
Use the link as referance, and see how how your budget will take you. AMD may be better at price, but they currently only have mid range CPU's in comparison to Intel's.
For now, AMD if your on a budget, Intel for gaming prowess.
CPU gaming benchies are all done at lower settings than the customer is going to play it, in order to shift the load from GPU to CPU, but none of our computers are going to work that way when we play our games.
here's the whopping intel difference in games witht he same RAM?GPU at settings that gamers actually play at
The difference between the Intel and AMD is PRICE.
There is such of a small difference in speed and power between the that you would never see the difference in eather card.
Again the biggest difference in the cards is PRICE.
If you can tell the difference in thousands of a second then go INTEL and spend more money.
Most people I know can not see the difference at the thousands of a second level. So for me I will always go AMD I like there prices better. I can buy 2 top AMD chips for the price of 1 top INTEL chip.
Also INTEL has to pay for all of there commercials. You also are paying for the INTEL name. Both of these are raising the price of there chips. Think like when you buy a pair of NIKES shoes they are more expensive then the no name brand. Both shoes are mostly the same shoe. So why are you paying more for the NIKES? Its all of there advertising, and you are buying a Name. Reminds me of INTEL I cant remember the last time I saw an AMD commercial.
ya amd just call the engadget of the world and do a press release and their stuff sell themselves,why bother with ads lol.often they ll format their press release as an ad so they get both advange and cost little!
I rather pay more than to have a piece of shit.. amd cpu's are too lousy as far as i experience. i got intel for a change. and i never trust amd agian. yeah amd is cheap but it has cheap performance compare to intel. why are some fools are trying hard to prove that it is faster? what a fool and stubborn. idk if amd 1st released 64bit or multi core etc.. but after intel release their products it really beats amd.
If your reading this please know I'm NOT an intel fanboy. I'm just stating that intel and AMD are for different uses.
For pure, raw power AMD have the upper hand. The highest clocking processor they have at stock speed at the moment is an phenom ii x4 955 at 3.9 ghz with 4 cores. The highest stock speed intel processor is the i7 extreme, which is around £870 more. Also the only 6 core processors are the incredibly expensive i7 upper end ones, but AMD have affordable x6 processors, which are still very good. (intel have xeon, but those are only really for servers)
Intel on the other hand will lose against AMD in raw power, but have special technology which give them the upper hand. They have hyper threading which can boost performance dramatically. Also they are better for longer periods of time, due to the fact they don't heat as much as AMD processors and they are more steady.
Think of AMD as a drag racer, which zooms at incredibly fast speeds in a short race and smash intel, but intel will take over in a race with lots of turns and long areas, because it's a rally car.
In conclusion intel currently have the upper hand with there sandy bridge architecture, but all in all they will both serve you fine and do a fantastic job. And AMDs new bulldozer processors will come out soon, and they might pummel intel into the ground or they might not. We'll just have to wait and see.
There are quite a few things wrong with that. First, a Phenom II X4 955 is 3.2 GHz. Next, it's not the top bin. The top bin of Deneb is a Phenom II X4 980, which is 3.7 GHz.
It's also important to note that clock speed isn't the only thing that matters. The Pentium 4 570J is the highest stock clocked desktop processor ever released, at 3.8 GHz.
It also launched way back in 2004. As you might guess, processors have come a long, long way since then. Some architectures manage to do more per clock cycle than others. NetBurst was terrible at this. Better IPC is Intel's main advantage over AMD at the high end.
Hyperthreading does help a little if you have programs that scale well to many cores. But it doesn't help that much, and isn't nearly as nice as additional real cores. AMD could implement hyperthreading on its own processors, but sees it as a bad idea for technical reasons.
Honest truth: It may not matter to anyone reading this forum.
Intel chips are more expensive but are technically more powerful. I say technically because it all depends on what you're doing, how MANY things you're doing, for how long, and how often.
The other factor is, frankly, 99% of the PC market will never notice a difference in processors beyond a certain gap. Your computer is more likely to bottleneck a skadjillion more places (RAM and GPU most commonly for gamers) than at the CPU. Which means you could have a $300 Phenom or a $1000 Intel 6-core nightmare machine, and never see a performance difference in most normal gaming/computer use.
AMD is, simply put, BALLS TO THE WALL POWER. Intel may have 2600k with 3.4 ghz processor and "total 8 cores", but only 4 of those cores are real. Those other 4 are, to put it in layman terms, "make-believe." They only increase the load on the real cores. AMD Phenom II Black edition is six core at just a slightly slower 3.2 ghz (which can be solved with a little overclocking). Those 6 cores are completely real. In addition, the Phenom is actually a LOT cheaper than the i7 2600k.
people find a special say intel is cheaper,amd was also on special but they didnt bother to search.etcsome want to buy intel other want to buy amd,but if you buid a new machine,it will cost you less to build an amd/ati combo then to build a intel/ati combo!the only thing you have to watch for is make sure the component you buy are recommended by amd/ati.and this my friend is often the main problem.they buy a mobo for exemple but the mobo is just soso amd cant say it is a soso mobo,but when you check amd/ati forum you see it is a soso mobo etc so make sure ALL component going in the computer are great by amd/ati standard and you ll do great.dont sweat it after a while you ll see same brand keep popping from there, they pop up for a reason it isnt random luck or sponsorship lol.
AMD has actually come out multiple times to admit they are slower. But cheaper.
Cutting edge technology and speed has always been Intel. But you pay a price for it.
Save some money with AMD. Lose a little speed
It saves you like $50-60 to go with AMD. That seems so small when you are buying like a $1000-1200 machine. I think I would personally spend the extra $60 to get a processor that will last a tiny bit longer and be better now. Am i mis-judging that? Mobos are about the same price for both Intel and AMD, only difference is actual processor price which is piddles. AMD is a little cheaper, but not quite as good, Intel is a little more but a little better.
I have no allegiance to AMD/Intel, just calling it as I see it atm. Bulldozer is due out soon, but so far it appears to just match intel in terms of performance not beat it, but it will be more expensive than like an AMD 1100T or 1090T or whatever. Though, I suppose a Bulldozer mobo will be more future proof than the Core i5 2500k mobos due to sockets?
AMD is, simply put, BALLS TO THE WALL POWER. Intel may have 2600k with 3.4 ghz processor and "total 8 cores", but only 4 of those cores are real. Those other 4 are, to put it in layman terms, "make-believe." They only increase the load on the real cores. AMD Phenom II Black edition is six core at just a slightly slower 3.2 ghz (which can be solved with a little overclocking). Those 6 cores are completely real. In addition, the Phenom is actually a LOT cheaper than the i7 2600k. Basically, AMD is the winner.
AMD is, simply put, BALLS TO THE WALL POWER. Intel may have 2600k with 3.4 ghz processor and "total 8 cores", but only 4 of those cores are real. Those other 4 are, to put it in layman terms, "make-believe." They only increase the load on the real cores. AMD Phenom II Black edition is six core at just a slightly slower 3.2 ghz (which can be solved with a little overclocking). Those 6 cores are completely real. In addition, the Phenom is actually a LOT cheaper than the i7 2600k. Basically, AMD is the winner.
Where did you get your "Facts" kid? Someone has lied to you. Or you're just another claiming to know something?
For those who don't want to click the link and read:
i7 2600 - 3rd place at 23640 points
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T - 19th place at 16916 points
3rd place vs 19th place? And 1-18th are all intel BTW
ANNNND
To be honest, what does it matter how many cores you have? Most games have trouble using more than 1 properly. Let alone 6+ You're probalby better off getting a core2duo overclocked to 4-5 ghz if you can somehow manage that.
AMD is, simply put, BALLS TO THE WALL POWER. Intel may have 2600k with 3.4 ghz processor and "total 8 cores", but only 4 of those cores are real. Those other 4 are, to put it in layman terms, "make-believe." They only increase the load on the real cores. AMD Phenom II Black edition is six core at just a slightly slower 3.2 ghz (which can be solved with a little overclocking). Those 6 cores are completely real. In addition, the Phenom is actually a LOT cheaper than the i7 2600k. Basically, AMD is the winner.
Where did you get your "Facts" kid? Someone has lied to you. Or you're just another claiming to know something?
For those who don't want to click the link and read:
i7 2600 - 3rd place at 23640 points
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T - 19th place at 16916 points
3rd place vs 19th place? And 1-18th are all intel BTW
ANNNND
To be honest, what does it matter how many cores you have? Most games have trouble using more than 1 properly. Let alone 6+ You're probalby better off getting a core2duo overclocked to 4-5 ghz if you can somehow manage that.
3d mark vantage test for proc in gaming? are you serious?you do know that game use most the gpu and doesnt use a lot of cpu?i ll bite tho!amd cpu and intel cpu used to be relevent in the eq2 era when sony hopped cpu would be the future of gaming but it moved on cpu stalled and are pretty much not usefull and gpu are very usefull.so your exemple is bad.on average amd aND INTEL WILL DO THE SAME WORK prertty = yes if your game was enhenced for intel proc ? maybe intel would be worth it but the truth is on average game are made for console .so the proc is pretty much irrelevent!
3d mark vantage test for proc in gaming? are you serious?you do know that game use most the gpu and doesnt use a lot of cpu?i ll bite tho!amd cpu and intel cpu used to be relevent in the eq2 era when sony hopped cpu would be the future of gaming but it moved on cpu stalled and are pretty much not usefull and gpu are very usefull.so your exemple is bad.on average amd aND INTEL WILL DO THE SAME WORK prertty = yes if your game was enhenced for intel proc ? maybe intel would be worth it but the truth is on average game are made for console .so the proc is pretty much irrelevent!
Some games are still rather CPU heavy, like FF XIV. The GPU is generally a lot more important for gamers while CPU is mre used when you are compiling stuff but a great GPU needs a CPU that is at least acceptable, or performance will be affected.
I have a AMD 3,2Ghz x6 CPU myself. Acceptable but not great, I spent more money on the GPU though since I mainly is a gamer.
A great GPU still matters and helps, even if the GFX card is the number one priority of any gamer.
3d mark vantage test for proc in gaming? are you serious?you do know that game use most the gpu and doesnt use a lot of cpu?i ll bite tho!amd cpu and intel cpu used to be relevent in the eq2 era when sony hopped cpu would be the future of gaming but it moved on cpu stalled and are pretty much not usefull and gpu are very usefull.so your exemple is bad.on average amd aND INTEL WILL DO THE SAME WORK prertty = yes if your game was enhenced for intel proc ? maybe intel would be worth it but the truth is on average game are made for console .so the proc is pretty much irrelevent!
Some games are still rather CPU heavy, like FF XIV. The GPU is generally a lot more important for gamers while CPU is mre used when you are compiling stuff but a great GPU needs a CPU that is at least acceptable, or performance will be affected.
I have a AMD 3,2Ghz x6 CPU myself. Acceptable but not great, I spent more money on the GPU though since I mainly is a gamer.
A great GPU still matters and helps, even if the GFX card is the number one priority of any gamer.
aside from the fact that ANY RTS type game like starcraft2 or turn based game like civ5 are ALL CPU powered. gfx power is a rather small portion of the performance in those computational heavy games.
Now Intel has launched the i3-2100, and this 2011 version of a duocore beats the 955 both in price and performance. It also beats the 1100 Hexacore in games. So right now Intel is sitting on best buy both for budget and performance builds.
There are several problems with that argument. Let's unpack them one at a time.
First, a Core i3 2100 does beat a Phenom II X4 965 in single-threaded performance, by perhaps 20% or so. But the Phenom II X4 965 wins in programs that scale well to four cores, basically because four cores beat two if you can put them all to good use. Hyperthreading helps the Intel processor a little, but two cores plus hyperthreading is nowhere near as good as four real cores.
Today, you can look at games that don't scale past two cores and say, hey, the Core i3 2100 gets 100 frames per second and then Phenom II X4 965 gets 90. Intel wins, right? Well, not exactly. The difference between 100 frames per second and 90 doesn't matter.
What does matter is a game that you pick up three years from now that will get 40 frames per second on one processor and 30 on the other. The difference between 40 and 30 does matter. Which of the two processors will run that game better? I'd bet on the Phenom II X4 965. Game designers know that single-threaded performance has nearly topped out, and the way to get more processor performance is to take advantage of more cores. DirectX 11 is equipped to help game designers do exactly that, and graphically demanding games that launch three years from now probably aren't still going to be using DirectX 9.0c. Games scaling better to more cores is the way of the future, and the Phenom II X4 is ready for that future in ways that no dual core processor on the market ever can be.
Second, if you check New Egg right now, a Phenom II X4 965 is cheaper than a Core i3 2100 by $10. It's $115 for the former and $125 for the latter. So the "better performance for cheaper" argument simply isn't true.
Third, you don't buy a processor by itself. You also need a motherboard, and that takes a chipset. AMD and Intel are the only chipset providers for their respective processors, so they can make motherboards for one CPU vendor systematically more expensive than from the other. And Intel does. If you get an Intel P67 chipset motherboard, then expect to pay perhaps $20 more than for an AMD 970 chipset motherboard of otherwise comparable quality. If you get a Z68 chipset motherboard, the price premium is larger yet.
Now, you can circumvent this somewhat by getting an H67 chipset motherboard for the Intel processor. But then you run into the dreaded feature binning. Intel artificially disables various features on their lower end motherboards. On H67, Intel disables overclocking entirely, and cripples turbo boost, among other things. AMD doesn't do feature binning. If you get an AMD 970 chipset, the only thing different between that and the top of the line 990FX is the PCI Express controllers. 970 gets you a single x16 connection, 990X gives you the option of an x16 connection or breaking into two x8 connections, and 990FX gets you two x16 connections, either or both of which can be split into two x8 connections. For a single video card, that doesn't matter, so the 970 might as well be a high end chipset.
Fourth, AMD gets you a better upgrade path. If you buy a Socket AM3+ motherboards with a 970 chipset today, you're guaranteed that Zambezi processors with up to eight cores will work with that motherboard. It is highly probable that next year's Komodo processors with up to 10 cores will work with it. There's a realistic chance that future processors even after that will also drop right in, without having to replace the motherboard.
Intel doesn't give you that kind of upgrade path. Sure, you can get a Core i5 2500 instead. But if you tried to save money on the original purchase by taking an H67 motherboard, then it will be somewhat crippled. You'll probably be able to drop in an Ivy Bridge quad core next year, but with the turbo boost likely similarly crippled. If you shell out for a P67 or Z68 motherboard, then you don't face that problem, but it would sure be cheaper to buy a Core i5 2500 today than a cheaper processor today and a Core i5 2500 later. Will Ivy Bridge quad cores be much cheaper or much faster than the Core i5 2500? I somewhat doubt it.
Remember how above I said that games scaling to more cores is the way of the future? If you get the Phenom II X4 with a Socket AM3+ motherboard, you're guaranteed to be able to drop in an eight core processor soon, and probably more than that later. If I had to guess as to whether Intel will ever release a processor with more than four cores for the LGA 1155 socket, I'd say no. Intel segregates their lineup, with the high end processors in Socket LGA 1366 today, and soon LGA 2011. You can't put Sandy Bridge-E in an LGA 1155 socket. Even if Intel makes Haswell or some successor processors for LGA 1155 (which is far from guaranteed), it's likely that they'll restrict processors with more than four cores to the higher end socket.
-----
While Zambezi will have eight cores, that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll be eight slow cores. Sandy Bridge-E will also have eight cores, and those won't be any slower than Core i7-2600K cores, though they might not all be able to hit the maximum clock speed simultaneously.
Right now, all of AMD's processors are based heavily on the Athlon 64 that launched way back in 2003. AMD has been able to make a lot of tweaks to the architecture, of course. But there is a lot that they can't fix without scrapping the basic approach entirely. While the Athlon 64 was a great processor in its day, there was a lot that AMD didn't understand about where processors were headed when they were designing it.
For starters, AMD didn't realize that IPC was the real game. Up until that point, processors had mainly gotten faster by increasing clock speed. AMD reasonably figured that that would be the main source of performance increases in the future. AMD wasn't alone in this judgement; Intel bet heavy on clock speed with the Pentium 4. Then physics got in the way, and AMD basically said, thank you for demonstrating that you can't clock the processors any higher than that. The 3.8 GHz Pentium 4 that launched in 2004 is still the highest stock clocked desktop processor ever made. Now, part of why the Athlon 64 was so great over the next few years is that it handily beat the Pentium 4 and Pentium D in IPC.
But while Intel laid NetBurst to rest back in 2006 and has gotten huge IPC gains since then, AMD hasn't yet had the chance to scrap the architecture and design something with IPC in mind. Or perhaps rather, they have with Bobcat cores that offer netbooks with IPC in the same ballpark as the original Athlon 64. There are a lot of ways that they can make use of the higher power consumption of desktops to improve IPC that simply aren't available in netbooks and tablets. But that all goes out the window with Zambezi, as Bulldozer is its own new architecture built up from scratch with a heavy design focus on IPC.
Next, AMD didn't realize that future processors would largely be limited by power consumption, and not by how high they could clock without frying or crashing. Back when AMD made the Athlon 64, they didn't put too much effort into reducing power consumption. People didn't care if a processor used 30 W or 40 W. Pentium 4 processors pushing past 100 W was enough to make people say, hey, I think that's too much. Intel was able to rectify that problem with Conroe in 2006. But AMD, remember, is still leaning heavily on the old Athlon 64 architecture.
Today, AMD realizes that power consumption is a huge deal. Bobcat cores have been phenomenally successful at bringing power consumption down. Even Llano has done well at reducing power consumption, in spite of its Athlon 64 heritage. Bulldozer is designed from the ground up to try to get good performance with low power consumption. Now, there are trade-offs between performance and power consumption. Bobcat went more toward the low power consumption side of the scale, while Bulldozer will try more for the high performance side. But Bulldozer is still being designed to conserve power, as there are ways to reduce power consumption without much of a performance hit that the original Athlon 64 simply ignored.
Now, perhaps the problem isn't so much that AMD didn't realize that IPC and power efficiency were the future of processors, so much as that they didn't expect the Athlon 64's descendents to still be in service by the time that future arrived. It probably isn't an accident that the Athlon 64 completely destroyed NetBurst in both counts. But Bulldozer was originally supposed to arrive in 2009. Then the 45 nm version was cancelled, and the 32 nm version has been repeatedly delayed. But the launch is still coming very soon. Rumors say that the processors are already shipping for revenue, so sites like New Egg and OEMs like Dell and HP can buy them, but just can't sell them to you just yet.
Now, it's entirely possible that Zambezi will still manage to be awful. Maybe it just can't hit the intended clock speed targets. Maybe there is something broken that hurts IPC badly but won't be fixed until Komodo. But a lot of the constrains that prevented the Phenom II from being better will be gone, so Zambezi has a chance to be really good.
There's also one other important trick that Zambezi has up its sleeve to improve single-threaded performance. Bulldozer cores come in pairs, with two cores to a module. That module has 2 MB of L2 cache shared between the two cores. It has the floating point scheduler and some integer fetch and decode hardware shared between the cores. If you're running programs that scale well to eight cores, then all cores have to share some of those resources.
But what if you're running a single-threaded program? Then you have a lot of hardware bits that were meant to service two cores, sitting there available for one core to use all to itself. Instead of a module that combines two relatively weaker cores, you can run it as one supremely powerful core. Think that will improve performance? The question isn't whether it will, but how much.
uh...i think im in love with Quizzical...
"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play." Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
according to this,amd might use some page of trick from overclocker to better their odds!nothing fancy but enough to be on =footing against intel in term of performance.(personnaly i dont know why they bother ,and they dont stay innexepensive but then
maybe they ll use more then one page from the oc handbook!
Comments
Intel is simply smoking amd right now in terms of perfomance. There really can't be to much argueing that.
With that said if you're looking for a cpu you need to figure out what you're primarly doing. And then look for a cpu that best matches your needs and budget. Best way to do that is to look at the benchmark results yourself.
As there is way to much bias from most people. AMD is price/performance.well intel is the best at performance but you will find AMD cpus cheaper and at very good performance.
but then all this can change in 3 weeks when zambezi comes out:D then filpped around again when sandybridge-E comes out:D or when ivybridge comes out, etc...
this is really a never ending story.
the performance difference is not all that it's made out to be at all. most(all) cpu benchmarks are done at low resolution with almsot no graphics setting turned up/enabled. if you have to make the game look like 3dmark03 cpu test to show the difference then lol. truthfully, i have two pc's and i m not impressed by the 2500k at all.
i swapped in my gpu's from the AMD rig and the framerate increased by only 1 in some games and the biggest difference was about 20 FPS in a game that i was getting 268 fps in already on the AMD rig. Intel is better right now because for the price of a faster AMD you can get a intel chip which is better, not monumentally better as forum fanboys rave about but better still.
if you have AMD right now, you aren't missing anything.
Anand do vigerous testing and class the CPU's in a hierarchy, or more of a block of similar performing CPU's at gaming.
Use the link as referance, and see how how your budget will take you. AMD may be better at price, but they currently only have mid range CPU's in comparison to Intel's.
For now, AMD if your on a budget, Intel for gaming prowess.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-gaming-performance,3007-5.html
Core i5 13600KF, BeQuiet Pure Loop FX 360, 32gb DDR5-6000 XPG, WD SN850 NVMe ,PNY 3090 XLR8, Asus Prime Z790-A, Lian-Li O11 PCMR case (limited ed 1045/2000), 32" LG Ultragear 4k Monitor, Logitech G560 LightSync Sound, Razer Deathadder V2 and Razer Blackwidow V3 Keyboard
CPU gaming benchies are all done at lower settings than the customer is going to play it, in order to shift the load from GPU to CPU, but none of our computers are going to work that way when we play our games.
here's the whopping intel difference in games witht he same RAM?GPU at settings that gamers actually play at
http://img.inpai.com.cn/article/2011/2/17/c51e1af9-d4be-48c0-8dbf-d5fa6cf4ab1c.png
ridelynn!you are right and it will remain like that till ms or ps?? or wii go dx11
no 970 from amd,no x6 1100,no intel top dog?
The difference between the Intel and AMD is PRICE.
There is such of a small difference in speed and power between the that you would never see the difference in eather card.
Again the biggest difference in the cards is PRICE.
If you can tell the difference in thousands of a second then go INTEL and spend more money.
Most people I know can not see the difference at the thousands of a second level. So for me I will always go AMD I like there prices better. I can buy 2 top AMD chips for the price of 1 top INTEL chip.
Also INTEL has to pay for all of there commercials. You also are paying for the INTEL name. Both of these are raising the price of there chips. Think like when you buy a pair of NIKES shoes they are more expensive then the no name brand. Both shoes are mostly the same shoe. So why are you paying more for the NIKES? Its all of there advertising, and you are buying a Name. Reminds me of INTEL I cant remember the last time I saw an AMD commercial.
ya amd just call the engadget of the world and do a press release and their stuff sell themselves,why bother with ads lol.often they ll format their press release as an ad
so they get both advange and cost little!
I rather pay more than to have a piece of shit.. amd cpu's are too lousy as far as i experience. i got intel for a change. and i never trust amd agian. yeah amd is cheap but it has cheap performance compare to intel. why are some fools are trying hard to prove that it is faster? what a fool and stubborn. idk if amd 1st released 64bit or multi core etc.. but after intel release their products it really beats amd.
If your reading this please know I'm NOT an intel fanboy. I'm just stating that intel and AMD are for different uses.
For pure, raw power AMD have the upper hand. The highest clocking processor they have at stock speed at the moment is an phenom ii x4 955 at 3.9 ghz with 4 cores. The highest stock speed intel processor is the i7 extreme, which is around £870 more. Also the only 6 core processors are the incredibly expensive i7 upper end ones, but AMD have affordable x6 processors, which are still very good. (intel have xeon, but those are only really for servers)
Intel on the other hand will lose against AMD in raw power, but have special technology which give them the upper hand. They have hyper threading which can boost performance dramatically. Also they are better for longer periods of time, due to the fact they don't heat as much as AMD processors and they are more steady.
Think of AMD as a drag racer, which zooms at incredibly fast speeds in a short race and smash intel, but intel will take over in a race with lots of turns and long areas, because it's a rally car.
In conclusion intel currently have the upper hand with there sandy bridge architecture, but all in all they will both serve you fine and do a fantastic job. And AMDs new bulldozer processors will come out soon, and they might pummel intel into the ground or they might not. We'll just have to wait and see.
There are quite a few things wrong with that. First, a Phenom II X4 955 is 3.2 GHz. Next, it's not the top bin. The top bin of Deneb is a Phenom II X4 980, which is 3.7 GHz.
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/phenom-ii/Pages/phenom-ii-model-number-comparison.aspx
It's also important to note that clock speed isn't the only thing that matters. The Pentium 4 570J is the highest stock clocked desktop processor ever released, at 3.8 GHz.
http://ark.intel.com/products/27475/Intel-Pentium-4-Processor-570J-supporting-HT-Technology-(1M-Cache-3_80-GHz-800-MHz-FSB)
It also launched way back in 2004. As you might guess, processors have come a long, long way since then. Some architectures manage to do more per clock cycle than others. NetBurst was terrible at this. Better IPC is Intel's main advantage over AMD at the high end.
Hyperthreading does help a little if you have programs that scale well to many cores. But it doesn't help that much, and isn't nearly as nice as additional real cores. AMD could implement hyperthreading on its own processors, but sees it as a bad idea for technical reasons.
Honest truth: It may not matter to anyone reading this forum.
Intel chips are more expensive but are technically more powerful. I say technically because it all depends on what you're doing, how MANY things you're doing, for how long, and how often.
The other factor is, frankly, 99% of the PC market will never notice a difference in processors beyond a certain gap. Your computer is more likely to bottleneck a skadjillion more places (RAM and GPU most commonly for gamers) than at the CPU. Which means you could have a $300 Phenom or a $1000 Intel 6-core nightmare machine, and never see a performance difference in most normal gaming/computer use.
AMD is, simply put, BALLS TO THE WALL POWER. Intel may have 2600k with 3.4 ghz processor and "total 8 cores", but only 4 of those cores are real. Those other 4 are, to put it in layman terms, "make-believe." They only increase the load on the real cores. AMD Phenom II Black edition is six core at just a slightly slower 3.2 ghz (which can be solved with a little overclocking). Those 6 cores are completely real. In addition, the Phenom is actually a LOT cheaper than the i7 2600k.
Basically, AMD is the winner.
I find this thread funny, especially with this one right next to it:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/326029/page/4
Seems like more in that thread like Intel and more in this thread like AMD. xD
people find a special say intel is cheaper,amd was also on special but they didnt bother to search.etcsome want to buy intel other want to buy amd,but if you buid a new machine,it will cost you less to build an amd/ati combo then to build a intel/ati combo!the only thing you have to watch for is make sure the component you buy are recommended by amd/ati.and this my friend is often the main problem.they buy a mobo for exemple but the mobo is just soso amd cant say it is a soso mobo,but when you check amd/ati forum you see it is a soso mobo etc
so make sure ALL component going in the computer are great by amd/ati standard and you ll do great.dont sweat it after a while you ll see same brand keep popping from there, they pop up for a reason it isnt random luck or sponsorship lol.
Didn't read the threads... BUT
AMD has actually come out multiple times to admit they are slower. But cheaper.
Cutting edge technology and speed has always been Intel. But you pay a price for it.
Save some money with AMD. Lose a little speed
It saves you like $50-60 to go with AMD. That seems so small when you are buying like a $1000-1200 machine. I think I would personally spend the extra $60 to get a processor that will last a tiny bit longer and be better now. Am i mis-judging that? Mobos are about the same price for both Intel and AMD, only difference is actual processor price which is piddles. AMD is a little cheaper, but not quite as good, Intel is a little more but a little better.
I have no allegiance to AMD/Intel, just calling it as I see it atm. Bulldozer is due out soon, but so far it appears to just match intel in terms of performance not beat it, but it will be more expensive than like an AMD 1100T or 1090T or whatever. Though, I suppose a Bulldozer mobo will be more future proof than the Core i5 2500k mobos due to sockets?
AMD is, simply put, BALLS TO THE WALL POWER. Intel may have 2600k with 3.4 ghz processor and "total 8 cores", but only 4 of those cores are real. Those other 4 are, to put it in layman terms, "make-believe." They only increase the load on the real cores. AMD Phenom II Black edition is six core at just a slightly slower 3.2 ghz (which can be solved with a little overclocking). Those 6 cores are completely real. In addition, the Phenom is actually a LOT cheaper than the i7 2600k. Basically, AMD is the winner.
Where did you get your "Facts" kid? Someone has lied to you. Or you're just another claiming to know something?
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/3DMark-Vantage-High,2418.html
For those who don't want to click the link and read:
i7 2600 - 3rd place at 23640 points
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T - 19th place at 16916 points
3rd place vs 19th place? And 1-18th are all intel BTW
ANNNND
To be honest, what does it matter how many cores you have? Most games have trouble using more than 1 properly. Let alone 6+ You're probalby better off getting a core2duo overclocked to 4-5 ghz if you can somehow manage that.
3d mark vantage test for proc in gaming? are you serious?you do know that game use most the gpu and doesnt use a lot of cpu?i ll bite tho!amd cpu and intel cpu used to be relevent in the eq2 era when sony hopped cpu would be the future of gaming but it moved on cpu stalled and are pretty much not usefull and gpu are very usefull.so your exemple is bad.on average amd aND INTEL WILL DO THE SAME WORK prertty = yes if your game was enhenced for intel proc ? maybe intel would be worth it but the truth is on average game are made for console .so the proc is pretty much irrelevent!
Some games are still rather CPU heavy, like FF XIV. The GPU is generally a lot more important for gamers while CPU is mre used when you are compiling stuff but a great GPU needs a CPU that is at least acceptable, or performance will be affected.
I have a AMD 3,2Ghz x6 CPU myself. Acceptable but not great, I spent more money on the GPU though since I mainly is a gamer.
A great GPU still matters and helps, even if the GFX card is the number one priority of any gamer.
aside from the fact that ANY RTS type game like starcraft2 or turn based game like civ5 are ALL CPU powered. gfx power is a rather small portion of the performance in those computational heavy games.
uh...i think im in love with Quizzical...
"There are at least two kinds of games.
One could be called finite, the other infinite.
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/coolers/display/20110811072448_AMD_Considers_Equipping_FX_Chips_with_Liquid_Cooling_Solution.html
according to this,amd might use some page of trick from overclocker to better their odds!nothing fancy but enough to be on =footing against intel in term of performance.(personnaly i dont know why they bother ,and they dont stay innexepensive but then
maybe they ll use more then one page from the oc handbook!