Amd versus intel

[roddo]

Are amd processors worth the price savings compared to intel? Basically I'm asking is the drop in price also a huge drop in performance. While looking for a new box I've noticed a quad core amd is cheaper than a dual core intel.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

You're going to get a lot of anecdotal evidence for both sides of the story here. The short answer is, if you get good quality hardware to go with it, Intel vs AMD mostly doesn't matter. We've seen people post here with good success on both CPU vendor's products. The key is to stick with what you know or do enough research to find out what's the best setup for that particular processor. It sounds counterintuitive that you'd need to do this but there are certain combinations of hardware that are known to work pretty flawlessly unless you do something really screwball. Look around here at the basic setups folks use that have been doing it a while and you'll have a good baseline model to start with.

Good luck!

[Klock]

agreed, as long as you get good hardware brands dont matter so much.. e.g. amd vs intel, Ati vs Nvidia.. Really they are all comparable more or less.. sometimes one is cheaper, sometimes the other. I usually go intel/nvidia cause thats what i've used int he past a lot and i'm comfortable with it. If you aren't sure enough in your hardware skills get a prebuilt computer from a good company (not HP/Dell(alienware)/Compaq, they are all pretty bad for gaming systems)

[Bradster]

I go with Intel for one simple reason, when I see a CPU that is 3.8 Core 2 duo. I know exactly what i'm getting. When I see a chip called (example) AXDD223 I have no idea!

[-silencer-]

Since the release of the Core 2 Duo, I go Intel until something AMD makes blows me away. I like knowing that the CPU I'm buying isn't being pushed anywhere near its limit. I can take any Core2 CPU and overclock it to at least 3.2-3.4GHz without much trouble. A 2.4GHz Q6600 for $190-200 that will easily handle at least 3.2GHz is an easy choice for me - it's a 33% gain for free. Or, if you don't plan on overclocking, you have the piece of mind knowing your chip is cruising at the default speed instead of being pushed hard straight from the factory. AMD chips have been binned near their limit for awhile now and don't overclock at all what they used to.. the days of my AMD Opteron 140/144 being overclocking beasts are long gone.. the Phenoms are alright overclockers, but there seems to be far more variance in the chips - some will overclock well and some won't. *All* Core 2 chips I've OC'd have stayed on at least 3.2GHz (usually up from 2.4GHZ E6600/Q6600 chips) or 3.6GHz (for 3.0GHz E8400 chips).

[roddo]

I don't overclock, so that doesn't matter to me. I've had good luck with amd in the past, in fact I'm using an amd 2700 atm and able to 3 box with only 1g ram.

What I would use if i went amd: Asus mb, 8800 nvidia geforce 1gb extreme edition at 667mhz, and a 150gb wd raptor drive. The amd chip would be a 2.2 ghz quad core. Would be in a cooler master case with a 550w cooler master power supply, and a hd cooler also. Also would have 4gb corsair ddr2 800mhz ram. I'd also be getting a logitech g11 keyboard and mx518 gaming mouse.

If i went intel for the same price range I'd have core 2 2.66ghz processor, with a 74g wd raptor drive and everything else would be the same, and it would also cost slightly more.

[zanthor]

In my experience if you don't OC you will find similar performance at similar price points.

The BEST products that AMD has to offer right now (Phenom 9850 2.6ghz) performs slightly better than the Q6600 (2.4ghz) for a touch more... I personally have stuck with AMD because I have 3 pretty solid systems here, two used for gaming and a 3rd that I run my hand-me-down parts into for my DVR... if I switch platforms, I break the chain of handing down parts until I upgrade 3 times.

All said and done I expect that AMD will be pulling something significant out soon or we will be seeing a bad bit of news from their financials.