AMD vs Intel

[curry1]

I have been looking at getting a newer computer and have been wondering about the differences between the Intel i7 4 and 6 core CPUs (not that I'm going to buy a $1000 980x) and the AMD Phenom II 4 and 6 core CPUs.  I have always bought Intel CPUs and they have worked great as far as I am concerned.  However, you get what you pay for and those AMD 6 core CPUs look too good to be true.  Is that what it is too good to be true and the AMD processors are crap or are they a good deal?  Because it seems as if I can get a i7-920 for $300 off of newegg.com and the AMD counterpart the for much cheaper.  Is it becuase of the L2 or L3 cache that seem to be much larger on the Intel chips across the board and that is why they are better or is Intel just charging more then the chip is worth (not that I know what the L1, L2, or L3 caches are).

[Getback]

As far as I know there is nothing that uses 6 cores and very little that uses 4 cores.

[cattb]

AMD and Intel are both viable products as far as I am concerned. I have read the six core AMD is just as fast in some cases as the upper end Intel processors.
In other cases the 6 core is not. It depends on what type of application software you plan to use.

I use a AMD quad core, for the most part the quad processor is more then I need. One thing I like is I can upgrade to the 6 core with ddr2, someday I may do that when I figure that I have need for that much processor.

There are many reviews with comparisons which will give you insight to your answer.

On one note Intel is triple channel where the AMD 6 core is dual channel.

[Spikes]

The AMD 6 core is nowhere near an 980X in performance...but that's why it's 750 bucks cheaper too.

I'd just go with an i7 930 or something around there...AMD 955 or 965 even.

[gyrene81]

If you're not doing any heavy video or graphics rendering, a fast quad core with DDR2 memory is more than you need. The performance differences between the Intel and AMD is a non-factor for the average home user, and for gaming the AMD's work very well. For the cost differences you could probably get yourself a really good video card and power supply with the money you can save by going with the AMD.

[curry1]

Thank you all for your insight  , and Getback REALLY where have you been?

[Spikes]

Thank you all for your insight  , and Getback REALLY where have you been?

He speaks the truth. Very few apps can utilize all 6 cores...more, but not that many more utilize 4 cores.

The L3 caches will help, but the Phenom's have L3 cache just not as much...IMO a difference would hardly be noticed.
What exactly will you be doing with this? Just AH? Surfing, heavy gaming, video rendering?

[Skuzzy]

For video rendering, Intel stomps AMD.  This is mostly due to AMD's poor implementation of the streaming data instructions.  There are only a handful of applications which make use of anything more than two cores.  Most all of them are video editing based.  

I have nothing against AMD, but I still do not like any of the chipset solutions available for them.  They still are the most problematic computer systems I deal with on a daily basis.  Given they have such a small percentage of the overall marketplace, it gives me even greater cause to avoid them.

In the real world, a faster clocked CPU, with fewer cores, will work better than a slower clocked CPU, with more cores.  Even when the clocks are the same, there is a point in which more cores simply do not get much in terms of performance due to all the bus arbitration and bus contention issues.

Notice, I keep using the phrasr, "in the real world".  I can craft all manner of benchmarks or load balanced solutions to show how wonderful a bazillion core CPU would be, but that would be just for marketing purposes as most real world software simply does not derive any, or much, benefit from multi-core CPU's.

[curry1]

Oh I didn't read Getback right i thought he said that there were hardly any 4 or 6 cores CPUs available.  Sorry.  However,  Skuzzy do you think that if I buy a AMD it will cause me problems and i should go with an Intel or doing AH and other games would just be fine with an AMD?

[Skuzzy]

All I can say is the lion-share of computer problems I deal with everyday have an AMD CPU in them.  I do not want that to sound like all AMD computers are problematic.  I do not think they are. 

However, I have to go with the odds.  Given what I know and my control set (the community), the odds are, an AMD computer will have more problems than an Intel based computer.

[curry1]

Ty Skuzzy you get what you pay for so I will pay for an Intel computer.

[skribetm]

Ty Skuzzy you get what you pay for so I will pay for an Intel computer.

just dont pay too much, even a $1000 intel processor can still be an expensive POS.

[guncrasher]

just dont pay too much, even a $1000 intel processor can still be an expensive POS.

awesome he knew something was wrong and yet he asked his friends to burn his system too.  That's what friends are for.  He wanted to push his processor more than anybody, he's got the money he can afford it.  Anything can be broken if not handled carefully, he didnt.  My light switches dont have a warning that says dont touch here and I dont think they're a pos.

semp

[skribetm]

if you read the thread, it happens even at stock settings.
the thing that triggers it is turning off 1-4 cores and enabling/disabling HTT.
not overclocking, or increasing voltages. for $1000, i expect better silicon quality from intel.

[Skuzzy]

That is actually a BIOS bug.  I have news for you.  An AMD CPU can be fried in a very similar manner, with a  custom BIOS, which allows things to be done which are not supposed to be allowed by the BIOS.

Anytime you allow a violation of the design specs of any chip, bad things will happen.

Read the Intel spec for the proper way to implement any of thier CPU's.  Read the AMD one too.  You would be surprised how easy it is to fry a CPU today.  Any CPU.