AMD vs. Intel for desk top PC

[mussel]

I am shopping for a new desktop, I always go with Intel but the AMD priceing is very compelling. The AMD Phenom II X6 6 core is much cheaper the equivalent Intel i7 6 core. Should I stick with Intel or go with AMD and put the saving into upgrading RAM? And how about the long term reliability, I never have any problem with Intel.

 

[deadly7]

Originally Posted by mussel

I am shopping for a new desktop, I always go with Intel but the AMD priceing is very compelling. The AMD Phenom II X6 6 core is much cheaper the equivalent Intel i7 6 core. Should I stick with Intel or go with AMD and put the saving into upgrading RAM? And how about the long term reliability, I never have any problem with Intel.

Most people won't need the full speed of either, and for the price difference between the i7 and the Phenoms I tend toward AMD. That, and I hate Intel. Either will last you the lifetime of your computer if you have a well-ventilated case, properly installed heatsink/cooler.

 

[Blackhood]

I too would opt for AMD, unless you're a heavy user the 6 cores wont do much good anyway. Youd be better off upping the RAM with the savings. I would even consider going for a Top-End Quad Core due to the tech being at its best after years of development rather than still in fledgling stages.

I still use dual core computers from 7 years ago that outperform quad cores simply because they were built from the best older tech rather than simply the newest options.

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by Blackhood

I too would opt for AMD, unless you're a heavy user the 6 cores wont do much good anyway. Youd be better off upping the RAM with the savings. I would even consider going for a Top-End Quad Core due to the tech being at its best after years of development rather than still in fledgling stages. I still use dual core computers from 7 years ago that outperform quad cores simply because they were built from the best older tech rather than simply the newest options.
no dual core from 7 years ago is going to be faster than the new quad cores, even if only 1 or 2 cores get used. There have been lots of improvements in CPUs since then and not just an increase in the number of cores. I don't see a compelling reason to go AMD unless strictly on price, but i think intel has them beat at just about every pricepoint except maybe the really low-end. Intel's really been dominating the last several years.

 

[Vaio]

Get the AMD quad core phenom II @ like 3.6 gigs or something. I think its the 965 or something.

It's only like 110 bucks or something and you get great performance.

 

[htrieu]

What will you be using it for?

By 6 core Intel i7, I assume you mean the Intel Core i7 980X? It isn't worth it, but that doesn't mean you should go AMD. If I were you, I'd get an Intel Core i5. The new Sandy Bridge processors just came out. It looks like the Core i5 2500K is the best balance of quality and price. Although it only has 4 cores, benchmarks show that it crushes almost all of AMD's offerings. AMD's 6 cores is just a marketing scheme.

Both AMD and Intel are equally reliable. Reliability isn't an issue with processors. RAM is so cheap now that you shouldn't have to sacrifice processor speed to get more RAM.

I hope that helps.. If you are planning to build your computer and need some tips, shoot me a PM. I do this for a living.

Originally Posted by mussel

I am shopping for a new desktop, I always go with Intel but the AMD priceing is very compelling. The AMD Phenom II X6 6 core is much cheaper the equivalent Intel i7 6 core. Should I stick with Intel or go with AMD and put the saving into upgrading RAM? And how about the long term reliability, I never have any problem with Intel.

 

[Libertyman]

I couldn't make a case for AMD, since I have always used Intel. But from my personal experience with Intel, I would say go with Intel. I think the only place where AMD can possibly beat Intel, is at the price level that's all.

 

[superbuddy]

i have used both systems i.e. AMD and Intel and as per my experience Intel is for better when we take all aspects into consideration. Yea price does matter but in the long run its for the performance as well. Go for Intel

 

[sleekblackroadster]

just built two new sandy bridge systems. a 2500k on an h67 mini board and a 2600k on p67.

intel all the way.

 

[xchen]

Intel all the way, too. Had a decent AMD processor in my last machine and I really would have been better served to drop $15-$20 more and gotten an intel chipset.

Oh well, you live and learn. My current machine (laptop) has an i3 I think.

 

[otc]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

no dual core from 7 years ago is going to be faster than the new quad cores, even if only 1 or 2 cores get used.

There were dual cores 7 years ago?

I am pretty sure that 7.25 years ago I was buying a brand new fancy clawhammer core athlon 64...

That chip can't hold a candle to anything that is being made today

 

[ImaPro]

Unless you are into hardcore gaming or HDVideo editing I would go AMD, its the best band for your buck. However if you have the cash go intel.

 

[Aaron01]

Originally Posted by Blackhood

I still use dual core computers from 7 years ago that outperform quad cores simply because they were built from the best older tech rather than simply the newest options.

What's the difference in memory? Less than 3 DIMMs and you probably won't be able to properly utilize the quad core