Intel vs. AMD

sammorris , we can always buy and send you a CPU to the UK to save you some money

 

Maybe for the novice, but most serious builders are going with the 6600. With the larger shared cache, it is the real winner when it comes to bang for the bucks. If you don't believe me, just check the reviews done by many of the major trades and online sites.

 

yes the E6600 would be my pick also with the 4MB cache

 

It is the pick of most people willing to invest an extra $100 for noticeably superioir performance. I guess people on strict budgets have to draw the line somewhere. I'd definitely pay the tiny pittance difference between the 6300 and 6400. For me though, $100 isn't going to prevent moving up to a much better performance level. If need be, I'd save longer. You won't be seeing me move up the the X or Q any time soon, unless I win the lottery. Once past the e6600, the return for the buck gets less.

 

actually the X6800 would be my pick but its pricey right now. the price should drop a bit in the spring when the AMD3s hit

 

Exactly the point, diminishing returns. Prices stabilized pretty quick as Intel improved supply to vendors. It will be interesting to see how pricing develops over the coming year. Most good buys have been on the previous generation CPUs. The real steal has turned out to be the Core 2 Duo. I still think Intel is keeping the price artificailly low trying to hurt AMD, even with having the better processor for the moment. Most builders were paying the premium prices for the AMDs only a few months ago. Now AMD has had to drastically cut prices to be able to compete.

 

LOL yes case in point i got the AMD Opteron 185 for 349.00 a few weeks ago !! when it was selling for about 749.00 last spring

 

We all know Intel isn't a group of philanthropists. So having proved it has the better processor, why has'nt Intel raised prices to reflect what AMD was demanding only months ago? As proven by AMD, a good segment of the market will pay the premium for the superior performance. AMD is too big for Intel to run out of the market, but Intel will punish AMD any time it can.

 

PacMan777,

It all amounts to whether you have the extra $100+. The 6400 overclocks better than the 6600 and the double cache benefits aren't that great. Mostly it depends what you are going to do with it. I'm not a gamer! For me, where my prime use would be encoding video and folding, the 6600's benefits would be very slight, and not worth the extra money. Oddly enough the reverse seems true when it comes to the D-940 with the 4MB cache, at least as far as folding goes. Why they react differently, I don't know.

Hey, If you can afford the 6800, get one by all means. The 6400 would at least double the performance of my OC'd D-940. Like I said the 6400 overclocks better than the 6600. That's enough to keep me happy for a good while. I also consulted a good friend who builds real high end rigs (in the $7,000 range) and even he likes my choice of CPU , MB and memory for my use. Considering I have a case, PS, CPU cooler and a DVD rom on hand and everything else needed will run me about the same as I sold the D-940 for ($750).

Having built over 200 computers in the last 26 years, I'm far from a novice. I go all the way back to the days where you did with jumpers what you do today with the bios set-up. Back then it was either "Learn or Burn"! There was no fail safe in the bios to save your butt!

The original question posted by Ace_2 was

I merely pointed out that for another $18 he could have a CPU that would clock with the big boys! Had he asked which was better for gaming between the 6400 and the 6600 my answer would have been the 6600. Even for gaming, the 6400 at an additional $18 would be well worth it over the cost of the 6300. Much more so than the additional $96 for the advantages of the 6600 over the 6400! Even Intel claims that it's thier most bang for the buck!
EDIT: Price change

Happy Computering,
theone

 

MichaelP1,
You don't have to wait until spring! The price just went down. For the 6400 it's now $222. For the 6600 it's $318! From Newegg!

Happy Computering,
theone

 

AM3 in the spring? I thought it was AM2+ in the summer, and AM3 in 2008? Maybe an upgrade is closer than I thought!

 

Sammorris,

Yup, but it just might involve a new MB and memory as it sure won't be a socket 939 and may even be DDR3!

I still think AMD is in the catbird seat. They made money on every socket 939 they sold having long since recovered thier development costs. Intel never made a profit on the Smithfields or the Preslers and the price of the Conroe is artificially low. I think in AMD's case they brought out the higher clocked AM2s in the 5000+ and 5200+ to sort of fill the gap a bit and to spark more interest in the AM2 platform. This was a smart move on AMD's part as again, it wasn't a major re-design but just an inexpensive upgrade.

Happy Computering,
theone

 

Like the 5400+, 5600+ and 6000+ will be?

 

Theonejrs
I was talking in general and I did mention the part about those stuck with a tight budget. PC World, Tomshardware, and Anandtech are just a few of the sources I was referring to. Since you mentioned something more specific, the 6400 being better at overclocking and being as good as the 6600 for real world usage, I'd like to see the sources where you got that info along with the links to that specific info, or post your results if you did your own benches for those systems. You are are the only person I've ever heard say that.

I've yet to see where a 6400 would OC as high as a 6600 and common sense dictates 4MB cache for two cores is better than 2 for real world work, especially where one processor can access more of the shared cache if it needs it and the memory is available. If it can't access more than the other, then it means the entire 4MB is being hit on by the 2 cores which translates to the larger cache outperforming 2MB by just size alone.

The technology has been discussed on many forums and the 6600 has always proven to be better. Why do you think Intel get's away with charging the extra $100 over the 2MB cache Core 2 Duo? (The 6600 is currently selling for about $318 US.) The next step above the 6600 is the 6700 for about $500+. Another $200 for a slightly faster CPU, with the same 4MB shared cache as the 6600. Gets back to diminishing returns. The larger cache and the faster native speed of the 6600 makes it the better choice. Add to that it OCs to a higher level than the 6400 and you see why those willing to spend an extra $100 gets the better package.

When you start getting larger price differences with the next model up with only a slight variation in speed, then it's time to get more serious about the selection. Note the difference and what one gets for it, from a 2MB cache 2.13GHz E6400 at $222, a 4MB cache 2.4GHz E6600 at $318, and the 4MB cache 2.66GHz E6700 at $510. An additional 2MB cache and about 0.3GHz speed for about $100 compared to the next step up costing about $200 more for only about 0.2GHz in clockspeed. A person gets a lot for that first $100 step up and no one I've seen says it isn't worth the money other than you. ... and we both mentioned the budget aspect.

 

I think he's referring to the percentage gain. I'm sure I've seen somewhere an E6400 that got to 3.3Ghz on air, whereas the highest air cooled E6600 I've seen is 3.6 (correct me if I'm wrong on these) which although that would make the E6600 faster when OCed by 300mhz versus the 266mhz difference at stock, at this level of overclock, the difference should be 400 (266+50%) so in fact the 6400 has caught up. That and the E6600 has gone up 50% versus 55% for the 6400. Realistically, the performance is better from the 6600, of course it is, but like Russ I'm not convinced the extra dollars are worth it if you're on a constricted budget. If there's $100 extra left for PC in the E6400 zone I'd be tempted to recommend more RAM than going up to the 6600.
On the cache issue, in theory 4MB should make a real difference, but if so, how come my 4200+ with 2x512KB performs close to the E6300 with 2x1MB when that's supposedly a better CPU as well?

 

I'm curious what your friend is putting in those cases to rate $7000. Paying big bucks for components doesn't equate to knowledge in building PCs. A Striker with X6800, OCZ or Corsair premium PSU, 4GB Dominator PC2 8888 with fans, Twin 150 Raptors and dual Seagates for storage, twin Plex optical drives, along with a ridiculously priced case and liquid cooling. That's buying the best instead of using any builder expertise. Not that I wouldn't love to own one, I just refuse to pay the price. That's still well shy of $7000 if my calculator isn't broke. It isn't used to working with such high figures. LOL

 

Sammorris,

I suspect! Look at it this way, people have been overclocking the hell out of the 64x2s for quite a while now with great success. I don't think it would take too much development at the core level to raise the playing field. AMD knows that the Conroe can't stay at current prices forever, while thier 64x2s can! If it wasn't for thier share of the Mobile market Intel might even be in real trouble. That and chipsets are the only place Intel is making any real money. Even the server market that Intel was so bent on making a dent in AMD's sales has been a bit of a flop. Intel has the better mousetrap in the Quad-Core but AMD can catch more mice for less money with the 4x4 as thier R&D was much cheaper to develop it.

Intel is kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they raise the price of the Conroes, they will lose more sales to AMD which will only increase AMD's profits even more. People will only pay for performance if it's worth it. Hard core gamers and enthusiasts will pay anything for the fastest but the consumer market, which is where most PC sales are made, won't! The real money won't be made for either company at Newegg or Tigerdirect, but at Wal-Mart and K-Mart because that's where the average Joe shops!

Happy Computering,
theone

 

Glad you didn't say as good. Plus doing benches with 512MB sticks of RAM gives faster access than with 1GB sticks. So, for bench racing 512(s) have the advantage. Any advantage starts getting lost in the real world where the extra RAM comes into play for memory intensive tasks. To do a good comparison, CPU tests should be run on the same test board using the same RAM. That way the only variable is the the CPU. To test RAM you use the same board and CPU with the different RAM. You can't mix and match and then compare because you can't tell what is making the difference.

I pointed out what one gets for the money on moving up from the 6400 to the 6700. Unless on the strictest budget, the choice should be a no brainer without the need for doing OC percentages. Just the stock advantages support the decision for the E6600, that is unless the builder is destitute. Then you're talking about a budget build instead of a performance build. From what we've all noted, the E6600 is the best bang for the buck, which theonejrs mentioned Intel said. As for the difference between a 6300 and the 6400, lay off the burgers for a couple days.

 

When did this come about? Intel has the better mouse trap in the dual core Conroes than the quad core. Tests have proven that. As for the AMD quad core, so far they've not stacked up and AMDs best dual cores still don't compare to the Conroes. Don't you think AMD would crank up their processors if it was that easy? Over 6 months later and it still hasn't happened.

I build with both AMD and Intels and don't favor one over the other except when one shows a marked superiority. Until Intel came out with the Core 2 Duo architecture, their processors were a failure compared to the AMD HT technology. What everyone was saying couldn't be done got done by Intel. Now AMD has to play catch up and in 6 months or so, they still haven't done it. Plus they were aware that Intel was getting ready to unload on them over a year in advance and they made fun of Intel instead of cranking up R&D at AMD. Obviously it isn't that easy for AMD to just crank up the technology they currently have. As for the lesser cost of development, that shows. They'll have to add a few more bucks before they get the lead back at AMD.

 

I'd hardly say destitute, the E6600 is still something of a high end CPU. I've recently outlined a build for a friend who is not destitute, but wants a reasonable low cost PC. I've recommended him the X2 because he doesnt need a lot of processing power for video work or folding, he just needs a PC that's faster than his Pentium M laptop (with integrated graphics, ugh), so I could set him up an X2 4200+ (although considering the price drop of the 3800 to £85, I may mention that, that means AMD's cheapest X2 is under 40% of the price of an E6600 here!), 2GB RAM, an X1900GT graphics card, a 250GB hard disk, Seasonic PSU, a big quiet case, a dedicated PCI sound card, a mouse, keyboard, 17" LCD monitor, and some 2.1 speakers for just over £700. That's a pretty competent PC capable of playing all the games you can throw at it for a fair while, and within his price range. Lots of custom builds are like this, but in the mainstream market, where the real sales are made, most people don't buy PCs as powerful as an E6600-based system, for that money you can build far better yourself or with a custom-build store, the "average joe" buys the cheaper system, and they're sold by the millions, and since AMD still have the better CPUs there, they're raking it in. I hear there's going to be a competent Core 2 Solo (or an equivalent name) released in the near future. We'll see what happens then!