Okay this topic is going to be again flamy one but lets keep it cool and try discuss... Hey put that club down!... ehm lets continue...

[Brief]Like many of you know currently Intel holds the fastest PC CPU market. Intel has already moved to 45nm processing and is planning already 32nm processing in year ?2009 end? or ?2010?. In otherhand Intel CPU's that are based on Core 2 Duo or Quad design are much expensive than Pentium dual cores or Celeron Dual cores. Now we even have Core i7 that is like 20-30% faster than Core 2 Quad running on same clock. Also these monsters have took something from Pentium 4, Hyper Threading, meaning one core can handle 2 threads. Meaning this baby can now run 8 threads! Intel's CPU's are overclocking pretty well with good air cooling so you can get 30-60% more power depending your cpu model and cooler.

AMD than otherhand has been saying they have have real quad cores, well actually that didn't matter at all, because Intel's "take two chips and clue them together" works well. AMD dual cores Athlon X2 processors are cheap but again they're pretty slow compared to C2D with same clock. Phenom X3 And X4 were promissing products but TLB bug at start cut the wings of this. Still slower than Intel's oldest Quad 6600. Now AMD is releasing something neat probably, Phenom II. This new CPU uses 45nm processing like Intel's current cpus. It should overclock pretty well and soon AMD will demostrate overclocking with LIQUID HELIUM!!! AMD proved earlier with LN2 it can be overclocked to 6.28 GHz. This product will be available in 2009/Q1. It can be put in AM2+ socket or AM3 socket.[/brief]

And let the battle begin!

Why do you want a battle ?
I only know one benchmark about the new Phenom II,
this one.
If they are at least able to outperform a C2D there might be worth to be considered, knowing that the core i7 are too expensive.

When it comes down to it, AMD is for the budget market, i'm an AMD fanboy, but wouldnt deny that intel is faster, as i use an E8500.

I was considering using an phenom black edition (the flagship model, then OC'd), where the cache would of played a nice part in some of the things i do (maybe even good for pcsx2?).
But intel is better for gaming, its just the way things are, still, im using a crossfireX board, and a AMD graphics card.

But if somebody asked me to make a computer that can run cod4 for under £200, it'd be with a dual core (AM2 4400+) and a 8500GT.(screen speakers or mouse and keyboard not included).
AMD chips are cheap, and for the most part, reliable. I've never had an AMD chip to fail on me, and now AMD are getting a better slice of the market, with thier new laptop chip, AMD laptops may prove to be the favorate.

AMD isnt an international name either, intel show the CPUs as adverts on TV, everyone knows the name. I never knew about AMD till i bought one.
Most people have an intel chip, power wasted, AMD is for your normal home computer, or for somebody on a tight budget. The AMD quads are good multitaskers, and are as good intel for all that bussiness side of things.

But intel are aiming for gamers, the load times will always be faster, and you can get a few more fps, for pcsx2, its important to have a intel chip. I dont know the details why, its just that way.

The thing that annoys me most about intel, is that you pay alot for a decent chip, then alot more for a motherboard. But the chips are all the same, underclocked versions of the flagship. The only diffrence is you can push the flagship further. But to have a Q6600 OC'd to 3.5Ghz with just a fan (an artic fan mind £10) is silly, but most people are too scared to OC and intel use that. True enough i bought a flagship, but so i can OC it once i get a cooling system (not water, big ass heat sink and fan).

But for the love of god think about it, do you need it to load that 5 seconds faster, do you need it to boot those 10 extra seconds, why not save that £100 (chip and board) and treat your girlfriend/wife out to dinner. Or buy yourself a few shares, both are better investments.


PS:the -main- reason i got an intel chip was crysis (it was worth it)

I have always been an Intel-guy, simply because they are more reliable and better allrounders as proven (to me) by my personal experience.
My first AMD CPU died on me just a year after I got it and it wasn't even overclocked, a 800MHz Duron. The Athlon XP to replace it did a little longer but the performance was terrible.
The third one was a Sempron which just died recently but it wasn't a bad CPU at all, it did a good job as my home fileserver for about 4 years.

As for my Intels, I still have some 486s and Pentium 1s (some Pro and/or MMX), about 6 P2 266MHz+ and some P4s and Celerons. Not a single Intel CPU I owned or ever have owned died on me, should tell you something about the reliability.

In terms of performance, again the Intels generally do a better job. My P4 2.8 Northwood (with HT) easily outperforms an Athlon XP 3.2k (the name that is, not clock) with an otherwise identical setup (apart from the mobo of course).
Then there's the price, which has been AMD's advantage in the past but with the Core2 and Centrino, Intel has managed to provide better value for money for every single application I can think of, effectively taking that advantage away from AMD.

And about the LN2-OCing, I hope you don't consider that a reason to buy, extreme overclocking is (and will be for some time) just for benching and the results vary considerably depending on a lot of factors and it's not just the CPU itself.

And finally, the 32nm process-thing: Yes it's nice and Intel appears to be ahead on it, which in fact they are not because AMD together with IBM, Toshiba and others have been working on 32 and even 22nm processes for quite some time now. Intel seem to be better at actually getting the stuff consumer-ready though, wonder what AMD are doing

This of course is just my opinion and I'd like everyone to see it as that, if I said anything you don't like, just ignore it

@azure6610
What I find funny is the number of people saying that AMD is fine,
and then just after for the reason X , they say they favored Intel.
I think people are just looking for the best value for money...

@morpha

Quote:My first AMD CPU died on me just a year after I got it and it wasn't even overclocked, a 800MHz Duron.

Well I didn't know that an AMD could die... but maybe it was just the old times.

(12-22-2008 02:56 AM)bigmehdi Wrote:  @azure6610
What I find funny is the number of people saying that AMD is fine,
and then just after for the reason X , they say they favored Intel.
I think people are just looking for the best value for money...

I favour both, but like i said, i'm an AMD fanboy, but afterall, Intel>AMD.
If they were equal, same price, same power ect ect, AMD is where i'd be at, but then there would be no point to it all.

@morpha
AMD should be focusing on the GFX card markets now, while bringing out new chips, cheaper than intel, but still with the lower performance, the chips will bring insteady cash, while with the recent success of their GFX cards bringing the money. I'd say Nvidia and ATI are neck and neck right now, and AMD still keep to lower prices (i got my 4870 for under £190 which is as powerfull but as cheap as the Gforce260 (maybe a lil better its on the boarderline really)).

(12-22-2008 03:30 AM)azure6610 Wrote:  @morpha
AMD should be focusing on the GFX card markets now, while bringing out new chips, cheaper than intel, but still with the lower performance, the chips will bring insteady cash, while with the recent success of their GFX cards bringing the money. I'd say Nvidia and ATI are neck and neck right now, and AMD still keep to lower prices (i got my 4870 for under £190 which is as powerfull but as cheap as the Gforce260 (maybe a lil better its on the boarderline really)).

I agree, but they seriously have to put some work into the drivers. I'm having serious issues with my 4870X2+4870 combo under XP64 (even without CF). I mean how can a driver that causes a relatively common system setup to BSOD on logon even pass ATI/AMD's QA? It's not the first time they mess up like that, something's gotta change. Drivers are not a good place to save money.

Well Azure I could explain why Intel processors have been faster since C2D came out. Times were different on AMD Athlon XP vs. Intel Pentium 4. Pentium 4 processors were CISC based meaning (Complex Instruction Set Computer). Cisc uses very complex technology to run even simple task thats why its very slow with basic use. AMD Athlon XP in otherhand used RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) where tasks are done with very simple pieces of code is pretty fast with normal use.

Okay then Intel releases Core 2 processors. These processors are RISC/CISC based where simple codes are divided to RISC operations and CISC operations are very complex code. This boosted up perfomance so much but AMD is doing this too but with different architecture they haven't yet managed to get same perfomance with same clocks.

Yup AMD is foor poor and Intel is for those who want the best =). AMD generate a bit too much heat and don't overclock so well.

(12-22-2008 04:22 AM)morpha Wrote:  I agree, but they seriously have to put some work into the drivers. I'm having serious issues with my 4870X2+4870 combo under XP64 (even without CF). I mean how can a driver that causes a relatively common system setup to BSOD on logon even pass ATI/AMD's QA? It's not the first time they mess up like that, something's gotta change. Drivers are not a good place to save money.

@morpha
SLi/CrossfireX is always gonna be dodgy imo and you got an X2, cant that outperform the crossfire option anyways?
Besides that, given time everything becomes better, the games that do use dual cards do run nicely, but some other things become muck. But i stuck with a single card: 1 because im not fussed about dual cards 2 my wallet can't streach that far.

The best thing about the AMD card option is that they run cooler (from my personal experiance) and it wont get as hot when you got 2 side by side (still will get hot without a decent airflow(know this stuff from personal experiance))
@at everyone?

The best part is, now AMD does have ATI, they could improve and the CPU-Graphics card realation, maybe some funky chip exclusive for the card?

Wether to combine the single 4870 and the X2 depends on what you use it for. For Age of Conan, which fills the the VRAM to the brim, the X2 alone works better with 2 x 1GB, with PCSX2 the third GPU makes more sense, especially with shader-intense edge detect AA.
The reason I have both cards is that I started with a 4850, needed more power and got the 4870 (X2 wasn't out back then) and sold the 4850, then got the X2 but couldn't get rid of the single 4870. 4 screens are nice though and a powerful second card does make sense for what I use it for (mainly MilkDrop on 2 screens that illuminate my room).