AMD Quad Core vs. Intel Core 2 Dual

[Pudgie]

From looking at the charts it is obvious that from a perf/price standpoint that the Intel Core 2 Duo is the better buy over the AMD Phenom X4.

For what it costs I can't logically see ANY reason to buy an AMD Phenom X4 period-except if you're sucked into the concept of the integrated Spider setup that will allow a person to run a "double Crossfire vid card setup".
 
Oh the marketing strategies weave the web & someone is going to be caught by the Spider....................... ............................. .......

[LePaul]

AMD is getting their rear ends handed to them since the Intel Core 2's hit.

As for video card preferences, depends on what you want to spend and who you've had good luck with.  For me, nVidia has done no harm while I've had ATI driver issues since forever.  Someday Ill forgive them

[Saurdaukar]

I have the choice of an AMD Phenom™ X4 9600 Quad Core for $240 or an Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E6600 for $229.  Which one is the better deal? 

I've heard to stay away from the AMD quad cores, could someone explain why?  At this point, I really can't see why not spend the extra $11 and get a quad core unless the Intel Core 2 Duo is the better of the two chips. 

The things men will spend money on to play their toys, which in this case is Crysis.


ack-ack

Im running Crysis on a Core 2 Duo 3.0Ghz with an 8800GT and 2 gigs of ram on the highest settings allowed by DX9 (XP) at 1400x900 and have never once had a slow down - plays beautifully (and is a stunningly beautiful game, at that). 

Modders are going to have a BALL with that engine.  It can create unbelievable environments.

If you want to run it at DX10 (Vistia), however, you will need a LOT more computing power.  The game will slow down an Intel quad core with a top of the line SLI setup.

As far as the comparison to AMD - the two are not equals in as far as current technology.  AMD has been behind for several months now and has some catching up to do.

[alskahawk]

 here is another hardware comparison site; http://www.yougamers.com/hardware/stats/3dmark06/priceandperformance/?mainnavi=true

[MrRiplEy[H]]

It's good to keep in mind that 3DMarks tell nothing about real world game performance, its just a synthetic benchmark which regularly get 'optimizations' on drivers. That basically means hardware vendors cheat the score on driverlevel.

Several tests have shown that 3DMark is not a valid measurement of actual gameplay experience. It's more of a hobby or way of earning bragging rights.

[Charge]

I use it to see that everything runs as expected and that the drivers do not cause any graphical glitches. A few times I have found a problem for bad game performance by using 3DMark and they were cause by bad drivers or driver installation or bad 3D settings. Re-ran the 3DM to see that all was OK.

It is also good to make a general comparation to similar systems to see that your (new) comp works OK.

I've never understood the "score race" in which some people make ridiculous investments just to get a good score in 3DMark. And that sometimes with settings and cooling methods that cannot be used in everyday use...

-C+

[SIK1]

I know folks have opinions, but in the face of objective data I would think people would shy away from an opinion which contridicts said data.

Sort of like saying, "I do not think fires do not burn wood!".

Or, I reject your reality and substitute my own.

[Getback]

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=1075&model2=877&chart=444

This chart compares the two.  E6600 wins most tests.

But why not get the E8400 for $219.99?

E8400 is 3.0ghz, 6mb cache, and a faster 1333mhz FSB.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037&Tpk=E8400

Uh, that chip has risen in price to $259. I bought mine at $211 on mwave because it was out of stock on NewEgg at that time. However, what an incredible chip. I couldn't have chosen any better.

[Fulmar]

Uh, that chip has risen in price to $259. I bought mine at $211 on mwave because it was out of stock on NewEgg at that time. However, what an incredible chip. I couldn't have chosen any better.

It's true, it has gone up since 2 months ago, but its only $50. 

[reeb]

if you get the E8400 make sure you mobo supports the 45nm tech otherwise go with the e6850. does anyone have any thoughts about the 790i mobo? is it worth the 350$?

[Ghosth]

Not everyone is that logical skuzzy.

[Fulmar]

Some of the downsides to the E8400 and having an older motherboard is that it will need a BIOS flash.  Like my Asus P5NE-SLI needs a flash to support it.  If looking at building a new system and you want to use the E8400, I'd look to a motherboard that supports it straight out of the box.  I can't say for sure if you bought an E8400 and an older motherboard that it would let you even boot to the point to flash it, meaning you'd need a 'recognizable' CPU to boot for a flash of the bios.  Correct me if I'm wrong on this.  I've never actually booted a computer with an unsupported CPU installed.

[Toad]

I clearly waited too long to buy an E8400; they are scarce as hen's teeth right now. Pricewatch only lists about 5 places advertising them and some of those are out of stock.

Wonder how long it will take production to catch up? I wonder what the best price/performance substitute is right now?

Thoughts?

[BaldEagl]

I just bought the Intel Conroe E6750 (2.66 Ghz).  Very good bang for the buck (and supposedly very over-clockable).  Waiting on one last delivery today to put then new machine together.  Check the performance charts and the price per performance chart at Tomshardware.

[Getback]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale.html

Skim this article. AMD gets trounced. I wish AMD would get there act together. Prices for the E8400 have skyrocketed.