AMD or Intel

**Meqon-Nerd** · June 18, 2006, 08:44 AM

Okay ive seen these threads before but i cant find anyone of them. Im building a computer and i want to know if AMD Athlon's are better of Intels'?

Thanks in advance

**Holger Danske** · June 18, 2006, 08:53 AM

Intel is still the best..

**Frost, colonel** · June 18, 2006, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by Holger Danske

Intel is still the best..

Now that indeed is dabatable.

Meqon-Nerd,
For gaming performance and for value for money, many think AMD is better.
You didn't state what you intend using the PC for, ie:gaming only, or what your budget is.

IF you want the fastest then from preliminary reports it looks like, Intel with their Conroe Dual Core CPU's, out possibly in July, will finally take the lead away from AMD. Even if these reports are true, it's taken Intel a long time to potentially gain the lead.

If you are on a budget and are interested in overclocking, then I could suggest something like AMD's Opteron 144, it's a 1.8Gig(approax 3Gig Intel equivalent)CPU.
I just bought one for £80 new, these CPU's can often be overclocked easily to 2.6Gig on stock cooler(3.8Gig Intel) some reach over 3Gig. But I would add £20 for an Artic pro 64 cooler for OC's over 2.6Gig to be on the safe side. They are stunning value for money saving you hundreds of pounds!

**Meqon-Nerd** · June 18, 2006, 09:09 AM

..is there any particular reason that intel are better?

**Timmius** · June 18, 2006, 09:10 AM

Kinda pointless. Like comparing a Renault to Peugeot.
Basically, right now AMD is a bit better at games and intel a bit better at videocoding. But that's only now, and things will change again soon, as they always do.

**Lee1026** · June 18, 2006, 10:11 AM

Well, if you are on the cheap side, Intel offers some really tasty cheap dual cores. Also, the Yonahs are pretty good at OCing. But then again, AM2 gave semprons enough bandwidth to be treuely efffively. There may not be that big of a difference bewteen 939 and AM2, but the difference bewteen 754 and AM2 is huge.

**Sir Robin** · June 20, 2006, 05:22 PM

To get the best deal try to hold out a little longer.

The Intel Conroe chips are coming out in July and some sites are already offering pre-orders of the new Intel E6600's that are cheaper than the current AMD X2 4200+'s.

From the benchmarks I am seeing it looks like the E6600 outperforms the X2 4200+ buy a big margin.

P.S. These are exciting days to be a semi-geek.

**maartenfabre** · June 20, 2006, 05:39 PM

for the moment AMD indeed shines both in performance as price, but when Inter releases its new chips they are gonna cut prices heavily.

altho if you wanna overclock this might be the CPU to do it with
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/..._41_ghz_cores/

**Lee1026** · June 20, 2006, 06:49 PM

Repeat after me. Overclocking is not reliable. Overclocking is not reliable. Overclocking is not reliable.

**Sir Robin** · June 20, 2006, 06:58 PM

Yeah I will stick with no overclocking but even with OCing Intel is finally going to give AMD some serious competition.

**Lee1026** · June 20, 2006, 07:08 PM

OCed intel processors cost too much electicity. I heard that monthly electicity bills go up back a good 40 bucks a month with one those those babies installed.

**Meqon-Nerd** · June 20, 2006, 08:54 PM

can anyone justify that electicity bills go up by around $40?

**Locky** · June 21, 2006, 06:28 AM

AMD is better for gaming. And they're overclocker friendly. I got my 2100+ thourghbred running at a 2700+'s default clock speed.

**Shaun** · June 21, 2006, 10:09 AM

For gaming Id go for AMD, you can pick up a 4000+ X2 64bit for about £200, good value I say. Apparently AMDs perform better at games, but Intels perform better at application stuff, but im not sure.
But look around, Im sure most people here have AMDs, bacsue they are serious about gaming.

**Sir Robin** · June 21, 2006, 01:26 PM

For a while going AMD for gaming was the best bet.

Now with Conroe release coming in July that may no longer be the case.

Tweaktown Testing

I myself was going AMD with my new rig but now I am forcing myself to wait and see what the landscape is like in late July.

**Shaun** · June 21, 2006, 01:32 PM

Well when the conroe line comes out it will be very expensive, so its still best to stick with AMD, in july they will have some real bargains. And remember, a ood GPU is key to good graphics, so spend your money on that instead.

**Proximus** · June 21, 2006, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Shaun

Well when the conroe line comes out it will be very expensive,

Yeah?

Core E6700 - 2.67 GHz, 1066 MT/s FSB, 2 × 32 KB L1, 4 MB L2, Dual Core, TDP 65 W - $530 - Q3

Core E6600 - 2.40 GHz, 1066 MT/s FSB, 2 × 32 KB L1, 4 MB L2, Dual Core, TDP 65 W - $316 - Q3

Core E6400 - 2.13 GHz, 1066 MT/s FSB, 2 × 32 KB L1, 2 MB L2, Dual Core, TDP < 65 W - $224 - Q3

Core E6300 - 1.86 GHz, 1066 MT/s FSB, 2 × 32 KB L1, 2 MB L2, Dual Core, TDP < 65 W - $183 - Q3

**Sir Robin** · June 21, 2006, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Shaun

Well when the conroe line comes out it will be very expensive, so its still best to stick with AMD, in july they will have some real bargains. And remember, a ood GPU is key to good graphics, so spend your money on that instead.

I think the Conroe may become very expensive due to good old supply and demand but having an E6600 rivalling a X2 5000+ AM2 and still being cheaper than a X2 4200+ AM2 is a big deal in my book.

Either way with AMD's price cuts coming in late July and the Conroe priced competitively you really won't lose much either way if you wait until late July to purchase.

Edit: The only downfall here that I can see for going Conroe could be getting a motherboard that supports it. Since I am not building my own I am not to worried since I'll wait till Velocity Micro, Maingear, or PCC gives me the option. However if you are building your own check Hardocp, Tomshardware, and Tweaktown forums for the latest word on motherboards that can handle Conroe.