Intel Quad Core or AMD Phenom II

[SThompson86]

Hello, first off I am not really trying to start a brand battle, but I would just like some tips for my computer build.

I am building myself a system, and I am kind of stuck in deciding between these 2 processors. Ultimately I would love to have an i7, but I just do not have the funds to spend on that type of setup hence why I considered the Phenom II. The Intel Quad is a consideration because of all the whooplah surrounding AMD`s "inferiorness" to Intel. Personally, I do have anything against ADM. Against all the slop I have heard my teachers speak on AMD I have never had any problems with AMD in the past. Nonetheless, I am just hear looking for some advice.

Thanks

Shane

 

[jimmm33]

Unless you have a specific need for a feature (or chipset compatibility) in the Intel CPU, than go for the less expensive AMD.

It is my opinion that only benchmarks can tell the difference between two competing equivalent CPUs from AMD and Intel. A human would not even perceive a difference.

 

[SThompson86]

Yea I do not have anything "iNteL" Specific.

 

[sjlplat]

Hardware nowadays is so advanced that most software can't even utilize it. I'm still running Core 2 Quad 6700s in two of my rigs, and I have yet to find an application that brings them anywhere near full load. I do a lot of graphic design in Photoshop, and I'm typically running a good 80-100 processes at any given time. With that said, you don't need an i7 to run just about anything on the market. It's flash, and nothing more for a large majority of end-users.

 

[lgtechcomputers]

Unless you have a specific need for a feature (or chipset compatibility) in the Intel CPU, than go for the less expensive AMD.
.

+1 on that.

I recommend and use mostly AMD systems just because i think the quality is as good and prices are better. Average joe does not need a Core i7 that benchmarks better than a Phenom II.

 

[keeperofthecode]

I prefer i7 but only because I encode lots of video and stuff like that. Otherwise I'd be happy with an AMD.

 

[iisjman07]

I'd go with the Intel; I've always loved intel for a reason I've never known

 

[BryanVest]

I went with the Phenom II 965 black edition. Havent had any problems overclocked to 3.8 ghz I love it.

 

[0ldfart]

phenom 965/955 BE will give a core i7 a run for its money. Not quite as quick at stock but in terms of bang-for-buck its right up there.

I dont see the point in buying anything 775. Its a dead socket. All of intel's development is going to their core i series'

Dont know if you can even get a 775 mobo with usb 3.0 and sata 6g/s

AMD have said they will continue to support socket am3 for some time (whatever that means)

So yeah, the AMD would be the way to go if you want bang-for-buck. The 955BE is the sweet price point in their lineup. Add cooling to it and you can get it up close to 4ghz. Thats a fast CPU by any standards.

 

[Methical]

I bought a Phenom x4 955 Black Edition.

Lovin' it

Absolutely no need to overclock.

All I need now is to swap out my two IDE HDD's for SATA's and my two IDE DVD Writers for SATA's. And get my 5770, and an LCD screen; Xbox 360 Wireless Controller for PC and I'll be happy (maybe some wireless headphones for when family is home)

 

[SThompson86]

Well then, I believe I am going to stick to my guns and go with the AMD Phenom II. I just want tell my teacher ha jk.

I do not really care to overclock, but how hard was it to get that thing OC'd to 3.8ghz in terms of cooling - Proxyrepair?

 

[JAY]

I recently built my self a new system but i went with the cheaper athlon 620 x4, basically tha same as the phennom but less the level 3 cache. I use my machine for many different things from photoshop, video conversion running a VM and gaming. combined with my geforce 260 i can run Crysis warehead at the highest settings. Anyway i'm very happy with the set up!

 

[SThompson86]

I am not much of a PC gammer, but I know I would like to play MS-FSX, for I love flight sims. My computer I have now is just awful when it comes to fsx.

 

[kagman]

Nothing wrong with AMD. I built myself a nice triple core AMD system last year for a virtual server and it rocks. To be honest Intel and AMD have very good cpu's. If money is an issue then AMD is your best bet.

 

[lgtechcomputers]

Well then, I believe I am going to stick to my guns and go with the AMD Phenom II. I just want tell my teacher ha jk.

I do not really care to overclock, but how hard was it to get that thing OC'd to 3.8ghz in terms of cooling - Proxyrepair?

If you buy a black edition with the unlocked multiplier, then overclocking is pancakes. Just make sure you test the hell out of it to ensure it is a solid overclock.

 

[0ldfart]

If you buy a black edition with the unlocked multiplier, then overclocking is pancakes. Just make sure you test the hell out of it to ensure it is a solid overclock.

Not to mention a decent after-market cooler. They are a hot CPU @125w TDP.

 

[lgtechcomputers]

Not to mention a decent after-market cooler. They are a hot CPU @125w TDP.

Yeah that is a good point.

Here's a good one.

Xigmatek

 

[Blues]

That 125 is the max output they reach you often won't be hitting that still invest in good cooling some of the best coolers I have used for price and performance are Artic Cooling.

 

[GaPazz]

I agree with jimmm33, only a benchmark will be able to see a diffrence between the performance of an intel and a comparable AMD. I use both, have and AMD x2 2.2ghz test machine and an intel core2 duo @ 3ghz for my personal machine. I personally like intel but that is more sentiment then performance.

 

[0ldfart]

I agree with jimmm33, only a benchmark will be able to see a diffrence between the performance of an intel and a comparable AMD.

I think that really depends on what the machine is being used for.

For example, if you regularly transcode blu ray's (say you have 20 jobs to do in the course of a particular week), the faster cpu will get you wach output file several hours sooner. You're actually saving several days' work on the total task by having made the right CPU choice. The same can be said for a machine thats being used for rendering jobs. In some usage patterns, we're not talking about a 'synthetic benchmark difference' - its actual productivity that cpu choice effects. This can save a lot of work over the course of a calendar year, (depending on what the specific machine is tasked with)

Im not saying grandma doing her monthly email to the grandkids needs an overclocked i7 over an x2 240, just that cpu choice can be more important in human terms than boasting rights or clock scores. To just refer to benchmarks as 'ephemeral' in making a cpu choice is over-simplifying IMHO. Speed can matter a lot, if the machine is regularly required to make cpu intensive calculations in the average course of its workdays over time.