Intel vs. AMD

Sammorriss
Thank you. I try to be civil and I like discussing computers with people with the same interest.

 

It's the approach I always try to take. Unfortunately it doesn't always work...

 

sorry people, i wasnt aiming my last post at anyone in perticular, more to remind us all that that off topic posts get threads closed and people banned.

i pesonaly dont think that there is much in the pc world that does not fall under the amd vs intel banner (or vis versa) i was just pointing out that some specific topics have their own threads, some other things deserve their own thread.

i like the info people share in this thread and dont want to see it closed again.

 

From the looks of it this is a broad topic thread. It's touched on just about all aspects of PCs, both Intel and AMD. I've seen comments on particular builds and then I've seen speculation on what may come in the future. Personally I don't see any harm in that or even being a fan of a particular product. It's when participants become combative in their support of their choice instead of relying on the facts that problems start to happen. Hopefully this thread will stick to PCs and leave out flaming. I've enjoyed this thread and it's gotten me interested in contributing. But like Kivory666, I didn't come here to argue. I'm not trying to put myself in Kivory666's league either. I'm no expert and I doubt if I come close to knowing enough to really help many people. Sad, because Kivory666 had something to offer the forum. I won't need a mod to stop things, I'll do the smart thing like Kivory666 did and just leave. It isn't worth the trouble.

Let's get back to talking PCs before the mods really have reason to shut the thread for being off topic.

 

I was reading a PC World article. Yeah, I got a scrip. LOL They were talking about the new quad cores and how good they are at multitasking with a number of memory and CPU intensive programs. I guess with 4 cores they should be. In the real world I wonder how many people are going to feel the need any time soon, especially with the high prices.

Does anyone have any links to reliable tests run on the new quad cores? I'm interested in finding something more than the Sandra benches. Sandra is a partial indicator of performance, but I don't see benches and torture tests telling us how a system is going to serve us in the real world. Many people tend to stay with stock settings or at least not go to competitive OC(ing) with their everyday PCs they want to work with.

 

Hi all and I am sure glad to be welcomed back! 2007 resolution.. be nice.
So here is my input on the new Intel quad core from what I have read. Compared to the core 2 duo, the quad core is supposed to be much faster in encoding, vidio, editing etc. As far as multitasking, It pretty much depends on the other task you are doing a far as what the chip can handle. I for example with my sig, can copy a dvd and go online, do my check book or any other reasonable task with out much lag time. no no's are playing a game etc. Not that I have not done it, butyou do get bouts of lag time in playing the game. Now with that being said I assume the core 2 duo can do the same and a bit more if not a lot faster,( assuming that the computer is built with mid to premium parts..oc'd or not). So here comes the Quad core.... you should be able to do all with little or no lag time(we all know that there will be some). for the $$$ for now I personally will go with the core 2 duo (leave the quads for the servers). Amd quads will be out soon and we can talk about that.

And I think there is plenty to debate.. yes debate. as Long as we debate and not attack. We all have facts and we all let our personel preferences differ in interpretations. But that what make this all a lil wiser.
This is my opinion only. I have no facts to post to back up my opinion.
To the mods, can we show oc'd benches and other results with different memery and vid cards to provide help to one another?

Thanks for your time and hope you all a great 2007

 

I wouldn't see that beeing a problem, plenty of benches have been posted in this thread before. With regard to the dual core/quad core issue, one of the noticeable multitasks you get from running a dual core is being able to talk on skype and game at the same time, without game lag or voice corruption. Quad cores can only enhance that effect, they will eventually be valuable, but until lots of applications can make use of one core, their price isn't justified by the little extra convenience they currently provide, so like you I'm sticking with dual cores for now, probably even my next upgrade.

 

Baltekmi,
Welcome back dude! Hope the Holidays were great. Did Santa Claus bring you any new goodies?

PacMan777,

I spotted this the other day. I would have posted the link but I thought everyone checks in on Tom's Hardware!
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/

I also found this at Anandteck.
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2897

Happy Computering,
theone

 

the quad-cores may have alot of bugs to work out before there worth buying

is heat a problem with them

 

Quads have already been released. Dell has one if you want to spend $2000. It's the Intel QX6700. AMD released their version, Barcelona. Problem is it's dual socket and it takes Vista Ultimate, Enterprise, or Business to recognize the second dual core. They're saying it's for megataskers. With Vista just coming online, I doubt any serious comparisons have been done. Intel's version works with both XP and Vista, so it has broader usability at this point.

As we've seen from the start, most dual cores will make single cores look like they're setting on jacks. As I mentioned earlier and Sammorriss just reconfirmed there's not really enough software out yet to make the quad cores shine. I was just wondering if anyone had seen any reliable reviews and not just sales promos by the manufacturers.

Here's an article I noticed not long.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2065924,00.asp
This one points out some of the ironies of the new AMD quad.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2065493,00.asp

At this point my take is that there's not enough software to need the QX6700, so I'd go with the E6600 to be reasonable. If you're willing to pay $110 for future proofing with the QX6700, it may eventually get the software it needs. But currently I've been hearing the X6800 does as well or better. I noticed seeing some benches on those, but forget where. That's why I asked if anyone had links for the new processors.

Now they're projecting an AMD 8x8 for release in 07...

 

It appears to be with the AMD. Take a look at the article I posted.

Theonejrs
I noticed the Dell. Since they got up and running after their initial problems, Dell has been pushing hard on sales of the Core 2 Duos, including the X6800 and new QX6700. The article on quads you listed is from September O6 and the QX6700 hadn't been released yet. That was one of Tomshardware "heads up" inserts.

 

lol wheres this ALL stop

 

Many of us do, but on occasion we'll miss an article. If you're like me you either don't have the time or end up in so many places you can't keep up with everything. It never hurts to post a link, maybe you'll be helping someone.

 

Good question. The performance enthusiasts want so see it keep going and then there's the school of thought that our 4 year old PCs are plenty good enough. It boils down to what you want to do with a PC. When they get it right, a user should be able to play the most demanding games, encode a video, while burning one, and have a conversation on skype all at the same time. The spinoff is that even lesser equipment usually benefits from technology advancement. So, either way, all of us should hope it keeps going.

Prices are ridiculously low. If everyone is paying attention, only a few years ago high end P3s were as expensive as high end systems we're seeing now. Systems built with processors like the E6600 are a bargain in comparison.

 

PacMan777,

It's interesting! The Quad-Cores excell at some things and absoultely stink at others. I suspect it's like Sam said about not much software support. I don't know that I would pay $2000 for any Dell!

I noticed that in a few comparisums (I won't say tests) there were no Quad-Core scores and in some there were 4.

I was kind of chuckling the other day when I followed that link to the 6300 HP Ace_2 posted. I just worked on one and it ain't worth the $999 price tag. The hard drive gave up the ghost and my customer went to Fry's and bought a new one, but couldn't install it. He's going to send back the drive for RMA but he didn't want to wait. No PCIe! Crappy memory and only 2 PCI expansion slots. GeForce 7500 Video that uses system memory up to 512 MB, Ugh!! It didn't run near as fast as some of the ones I've seen built by some friends on another forum. Not a very good representation of the Conroe. It did beat my D-940 by a whole 32 seconds copying a DVD with shrink in the high quality mode! LOL!! The design looks nice but poorly conceived. It draws air through the slots all over the front and collects a lot of dust that easily packs the dust in the slots every time you plug anything into them. Same with the USBs even though it's got a sliding door. Looked like a carpet inside them! Regular shots of canned air are a must. Dell had the same problem with the front USBs on the 3000 I had. I particularly loved all the labels telling you how much you could do with it, HP just forgot to tell you that it doesn't do any of them particularly well! LOL!! The Optical drives can use regular store bought drives but it will look like crap because the front of the ones from HP come with thier own bezel which is larger than normal so if you replaced them with good drives there would be this huge gap all around it!

Ace_2 could build a much better 6600 for that kind of money that would be better for gaming, video encoding, you name it, in every way! Even if he just put it together and ran it stock it would be a much better machine. It just isn't that difficult to do these days and there's a certain sense of accomplishment that you can't get from buying a "ready-made"! He could also count on a lot of help from the nice folks around here!

Happy Computering,
theone

 

Without question. LOL that Quad FX article brought back memories, I highly doubt there will be many sales of that platform, I pray AMD will make something competent in the Quad core market! Twice the heat of the Intel and significantly less performance??

 

they never will thats why we all read/post in places like this to get a common concensus on which is the best way to spend our money.

first it was the ghz war, now its the core war.

 

I just noticed this on Compterworld, it discusses the roadmaps for both Intel and AMD. I haven't had a chance to read all post here (too many!) but I hope this particular article has not been posted.

http://www.computerworld.com/action...rticleId=9006938&taxonomyId=64&intsrc=kc_feat

 

Well, I've finally had the chance to sit down and slap my build together. I have had absolutely no problems with the new board except for the CPU fan speed controller. I just went in and turned off the controller and it runs wide open with the stock cooler.

My System is as follows:

Pentium 4 541 3.2GHz
Gigabyte GA-965P-S3
2x512MB Corsair ValueSelect DDR2 667
Powercolor X800GTO 256MB
Samsung Combo Drive
120GB Seagate Barracuda SATA 3GB/s
Coolermaster Centurion 5 Case
Thermaltake 430W PSU

I'm starting to collect too many computers lol. But I have all three hooked up in my room and can have them on all at the same time. I got a cheapo eMachines LCD from my buddy at school for $60.

Sceptre Naga 17" LCD for my dual core
Dell 15" LCD for my Sempron
eMachines 16" LCD for my Pentium 4

I Keep them all on a crecent work bench that I have cut down to be comfortable to sit at. Spent some money and got some nice roll-out keyboard/mouse trays for them to mount under the bench. I have since then stopped needing my space heater in the winter.

The build went together very nicely and I found the Pentium 4 was just a bit slower "feeling" than my Sempron. Runs 35-40*C idle and about 50-58*C on load. I'm not too inclined to run any benchmarks but it was a good cheap build and I'm very happy with it. I think it was a very good discount find for $30. I might use it to replace the old Dell my mom is using.

I'm not going to OC because I feel it should just stay a "budget" build for the time being. If I ever get the urge to upgrade to Conroe I'll definitely strip out my dual core and transfer over to the Gigabyte board.

I have made more than enough purchases for now. I think I'll go into hibernation as far as upgrades go.

If anyone wants to know something about my builds, feel free to ask.

 

Estuansis,

Those temps are about what I was getting with the 3.0/800 I had. What CPU cooler are you using? The Arctic freezer 7 made about a 6C or so difference. My Presler runs cooler in this new case since I took out the side fan and cut down the side duct to fit. The problem seemed to be the airflow was blowing right across the Freezer 7 fan blade. Now you can feel a gentle breeze directed at the cooler and it works much better. It's idling at 33C right now at an ambient of 28C. Encoding, which I just finished was 50C Max! I know I'll catch a lot of static for this but I've had both the Zalman 9500LED and the Arctic Freezer 7 on this MB/CPU combo and I prefer the Arctic. it's always run cooler in either case than it did with the Zalman. Light years easier to clean as well!

Eventually I'm going to get one of those Jet engine looking Xclio cases as they are reported to cool real well with both the Prescotts and Preslers and aren't very loud with 2 slow turning 250mm fans. Looks a little wierd but it sort of grows on you and it looks bad-assed at night! Most folks that own one use the middle (600 rpm) setting with good results. I don't use Q-Fan or cool and quiet so I just let em roar. I tried it and don't like it. It's more annoying with the fan going up and down when it's loaded down. Temps run hotter overall as well!

Anyway, good luck with the new toy, and enjoy!

Happy Computering,
theone