Going to get a new PC: AMD vs. Intel

[230G]

  As a follow up to my last thread ( http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,292580.0.html ), I'm going to order a new computer. I was wondering if there is any real differences in the AMD's and Intels performance-wise. It's my understanding that the AMD's run a little hotter. I have a hard time comparing AMD's to Intels because I don't know which of each brand is comparable to the other.
  Is there an optimal GHz for each brand, will a 2.6 suffice? Is there any advantage to a quad core over a dual core with either brand? Again, I'm on a budget!
   Thanks,
   230G

[Tigger29]

It seems that these days it's pretty much a toss up.

If you want ultimate performance, then yes Intel is going to be better, but you'll pay for it.  If you want the best 'bang for the buck' then AMD is probably your best bet.

As for as cores go, unless you use software that is specifically written to utilize more than two cores, or unless you have a LOT of windows open at once at any given time, then you're not likely going to notice any difference between the same speed dual and quad cores.  With that being said, Skuzzy has said repeatedly that AH won't take advantage of more than two cores.  Basically, it's typically 3D Design software, movie editing, etc. applications this would help with.

The heat difference doesn't seem to be such a big deal anymore.  Yeah, typically AMD's ran hotter (except for some of the old P4 chips... ouch), but these days it's all comparable.

So the question really comes down to... what do you plan on using the computer for, and how much do you want to spend?  Want to build it yourself, or are you afraid of a screwdriver?

[230G]

So the question really comes down to... what do you plan on using the computer for, and how much do you want to spend?  Want to build it yourself, or are you afraid of a screwdriver?

 The computer will be our Pay-the-bills, surf-the-net, general family computer. But I want it to be able to run AHII with no problems.

  My comp is 7 years old and I've replaced every component in it myself (except te MB), so I'm not afraid of a screwdriver (besides, I'm an electrician!) but I'd rather not build my own. I prefer the comfort know the OS has been installed and the system tested for a few days.

  So that leads to one more question: what GHz rating would give a safe level of performance with AHII?
  Thanks again!
   230G

 

[ebfd11]

Ok I have the AMD 1744 2.8,dual quadcore  on a MSI P45 platinum MB and I can run Aces High on my comp no bubbles no troubles. I am gonna upgrade for the near future but that's another topic. Heck ypu camn buy one online fairly cheap that will run AH smoothly that is fairly inexpensive. But to ya question bout processor speeed that is up to you.

[1701E]

CPU clock Speed is not a stand-alone determining factor.  A CPU rated for 4GHz could easily be worse then a 2GHz one.  You have to combine the Clock speed in with the brand/type of CPU when looking at CPUs.

Example:  An AMD Sempron 3.1GHz would perform way worse then an AMD Phenom II 2.6GHz.  However, if I only told you it was an AMD 3.1GHz vs 2.6GHz which would you go for?
On the other hand, an AMD Phenom II X2 3.2GHz vs Phenom II X2 2.2GHz, the 3.2GHz is a little faster but also likely hotter.

If you go AMD go for: Phenom II X2 or Athlon II X2 (Phenom is more powerful, but Athlon can hold its own).  Intel isn't something I keep up with so for that you'll have to wait for a more experienced person.

[cattb]

My Opinion if you go Intel I think I would go with the I5 series, if you go with AMD, go with the Phenom II. Amd has a built in memory controller and the Phenom 2 series will go with DDR3 and DDR2, the Athlon I believe will not go with DDR3, but will go DDR2.
If I were togo dual core, I would go 2.8 and up. The reason I say this is I played this game with a 2.8 AMD dual core and then I went to a tricore 2.4. I noticed a differrence and not for the better, though was slight. I overclocked the tricore to 2.8 and all seem back to normal. A tricore or quad core also will have a slower cycle time then a dual core.
I would also get at least a ATI 5770 or a nvidia 260. Someone posted about the fermi 460 and I did a little reading on it and the 460 looks like a good card  for the price. Don't get the 460 and the 465 confused, the 460 is suppose to be the better card.

[Ghastly]

The main thing that disqualifies AMD for me isn't AMD - it's that chipset support for the AMD solutions seems much more hit or miss than it does with Intel-based.  The $100 or so in max potential savings (at the sweet spot, less so at others) isn't worth the hassle of dealing with the increased likelihood of compatibility woes and general flakiness.

All IMHO, of course.

<S>

[Skuzzy]

If you want absolutely no issues running the game, then I would strongly suggest Intel.  Not because they have a better CPU, but because they have better motherboard chipset solutions than AMD does.

If you do any type of video/audio editing, at all, Intel simply stomps AMD.  It is not even a contest.