BEST CPU 2009+ INTEL OR AMD? (and your current cpu)

[Wavie]

well as post says you can vote more than once.

so one vote for 1/2 and one vote for a and b.

I have two current options:

Go intel i7 920 -

pros
better speed
more fps
can use sli or crossfire on new LGA 1366 motherboards (nvidia or ati)
DDR3

cons
expensive
cant afford update after 920



AMD Phenom II 920 Extreme Edition

pros
good speed and only a bit less than 920
Costs less
Can buy a new cpu for AM3 motherboard without replacing motherboard
Less to update to new CPU and can expect prices to go down faster than intels

cons
AM2+ board doesnt support DDR3 (i have no idea what the difference is between DDR2 and DD3... stat wise)
slightly worse than some of intels quads (the very expensive ones) and the i7
can only use ATI cards on amd boards (althought not much of a con tbh)

[Tri-ring]

My current system is powered by Athlon 64 X2 5400+ with 4G DDR2 6400 RAM and ATI 4650 Vid card.
M old system broke down suddenly and patched this one up without any prior knowledge of current specs. just looking at price.
It's pretty stable, I don't do gaming just vid editing and graphics.
The only down side is for some reason deconpression of ZIP files seems to be extreemly slow, not showing the icons for few seconds which I had never experienced before.

[cyberbeing]

I have a AMD X2 4800+ which I bought when it was first released back in 2005. When compared to the Pentium D, the AMD X2 was the clear winner at the time, and has held up quite well over time.

If I were building a computer for myself today, I wouldn't even consider buying a Phenom II. The performance just isn't there. If I couldn't afford at least the i7 920, I would rather choose not to build a computer, rather then buy a Phenom II which I see as already outdated.

Originally Posted by Wavie

cant afford update after 920

Can buy a new cpu for AM3 motherboard without replacing motherboard
Less to update to new CPU and can expect prices to go down faster than intels

If you buy the i7 920, you shouldn't have any need to upgrade the processor anytime soon. It will be considered very fast for quite awhile.

If you buy the Phenom II 920, there likely won't be anything worth upgrading to. I highly suspect AMD won't have anything that will perform better then the i7 920 (at an affordable price point) until 2011 when their next generation processor comes out, but chances are it may end up using a new socket. AMD is playing catch up, considering performance wise, they are about 1.5 generations behind Intel.

[sa547]

Having worked with both types of CPUs in a rental shop as a in-house technician, I tend to regard CPUs as being part of a system because other factors -- motherboard design, chipset, memory, disks, etc. -- affect overall performance rather than to be exclusively attributed to the CPU itself.

However, some unmodified (read: no extra fans or overclocking) AMD-based systems are able to survive in my workplace's higher humidity/temperature environment with little ventilation (literally a hole-in-a-wall operation) because of their better ability to dissipate heat.

[Vexx]

This is basically an incarnation of the old pointless "Ford" vs "Chevy" brand argument. Answer is going to depend on the series of chip as well as all the supporting mobo components, heatsink -- and what kind of workload and environment.

Just as a very rough rule of thumb I tend to use Intel for professional applications and AMD for home/gaming applications --- but that can change based on the cost vs datahandling analysis.

Right now there are a lot of "good cost effective cpus" in both lines and then each has "damned expensive" cpus to choose from.

After all, I can pay $1550 for a Core 2 Extreme QX9770 3.2GHz 12M 1600M 775 Retail... but I won't when I can buy a Phenom Quad Core 9950 2.6GHz 4x512KB Black Edition Retail for $192.... :P (no they aren't in the same bracket at all but unless I'm computing stellar structures down to the molecular level I don't really care).

[cyberbeing]

Originally Posted by Vexx

After all, I can pay $1550 for a Core 2 Extreme QX9770 3.2GHz 12M 1600M 775 Retail... but I won't when I can buy a Phenom Quad Core 9950 2.6GHz 4x512KB Black Edition Retail for $192.... :P

Yet when you can buy a Core i7 920 for $290 which will out perform and/or match the performance of the QX9770 in everything, the picture becomes a bit different.

Which is a better value, a $290 processor (i7 920) which performs better then a $1550 processor (QX9770), or a $192 processor (Phenom 9950) which performs like a $192 processor?

You can't deny that the i7 920 is a good price/performance value, but like Vexx mentioned, it really matters what you plan to do with the machine.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by cyberbeing

Yet when you can buy a Core i7 920 for $290 which will out perform and/or match the performance of the QX9770 in everything, the picture becomes a bit different.

Which is a better value, a $290 processor (i7 920) which performs better then a $1550 processor (QX9770), or a $192 processor (Phenom 9950) which performs like a $192 processor?

You might have more of a point if the damn X58 mainboards and DDR3 didn't cost so much.

(And since the OP lists SLI support on X58 as an advantage, I should probably warn him that not all X58 boards are SLI capable.)

Since I buy my hardware mainly for gaming, I'm not seeing i7 as being particularly worthwhile at this point. Anandtech's Far Cry 2 test is the only one I've seen where there's been a huge difference between i7 and Phenom II for gaming, and Tech Report's Far Cry 2 test doesn't have nearly the same differential.

[cyberbeing]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

Since I buy my hardware mainly for gaming, I'm not seeing i7 as being particularly worthwhile at this point.

That makes sense. If gaming is your primary concern, the Phenom II might not be a bad option. If on the other hand you buy your hardware primarily with workstation tasks in mind (like I do), and gaming secondary, the Core i7 is the clear winner.

[demonix]

Originally Posted by Wavie

cons
AM2+ board doesnt support DDR2 (i have no idea what the difference is between DDR2 and DD3... stat wise)

Actually they do (since AM2+ processors have DDR2-1066 support) it's socket AM3 motherboards that don't support DDR2.

[problemedchild]

You don't need to go above a 920 when you can easily overclock the 920 to a much higher speed.

You're also forgetting the Intel Penryn quad cores as well. They're currently fairly cheap to buy and are slightly faster than AMD's Phenom II clock for clock. The only draw back is that Socket 775 is more or less dead and you won't have any real upgrade path to take in the future.

FYI, unless you have a monitor that has a resolution of 1920x1200 or higher, I really wouldn't worry about SLI or Crossfire.

[bkg9990]

I have the Phenom X3 8450 along with a Gigabyte board and also an ATI card.

Im planning to upgrade for the Phenom II X3 720BE as its only 130-150$ pricetag.

It'll all comes down on the usage of the setup, I usually use mine in multitasking and its pretty fast on my level, I just overclocked it a bit for some performance boost.

[Claies]

<rant> Why can't people just write more efficient software instead of making other people throw money at more hardware? </rant>

Seriously, I don't care what I get as long as it fits a certain speed bracket for the right amount of money. I have an Intel E8400 in my PC right now and that can change real quick with the next box I get. :P

[IRJustman]

Originally Posted by Claies

<rant> Why can't people just write more efficient software instead of making other people throw money at more hardware? </rant>

Or better still, why can't people or a certain corporation write less-buggy software so it wouldn't have to hawk its own antivirus package it had to pull off the market due to antitrust concerns?

On my side of things, which processors support the AMD-V or Intel VT-x instructions? I am getting more heavily into virtualization and could use the support. Apparently, not all Core 2-series processors support it (my E4500 does not).

--Ian.

[martino]

Originally Posted by IRJustman

Apparently, not all Core 2-series processors support it (my E4500 does not).

--Ian.

Yeah, I had a hard time finding a laptop with VT-x that wouldn't cost me an arm and a leg since they don't appear to include it in lower models of some CPUs. I wonder why they do this...

The Wikipedia list of Intel Core 2 microprocessors usually has it noted down under the codename, and with a note "except [modelnumber]".

[IRJustman]

Originally Posted by martino

Yeah, I had a hard time finding a laptop with VT-x that wouldn't cost me an arm and a leg since they don't appear to include it in lower models of some CPUs. I wonder why they do this...

The Wikipedia list of Intel Core 2 microprocessors usually has it noted down under the codename, and with a note "except [modelnumber]".

In my case, since I was limited by what I could spend, I ended up buying an AMD-based Acer Extensa 4420 for just shy of $500 at Best Buy (and that's out-the-door, mind you!). I find out later, much to my delight, it has AMD-V support. So now I have the support I wanted to do virtualization while on the go.

I somehow suspect that Intel wants you to spend a fortune for that kind of support. But then again, its products aren't well-known for being inexpensive.

--Ian.