hello, I am looking to build 2 new game rigs for my 10 year old son and myself. I have been a big proponent for an AMD system, but would like some intelligent input on whether I should continue to use AMD or turn to the Intel side. I want to get the best gaming performance for games like Battlefield 1942, BF2, BF 2142, Call of Duty 4, and the up coming Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning. I am looking to build a system with dual video cards and a water cooled case from thermaltake. I am looking to spend about $1400 per PC. Please tell me you view on whether I should stay with AMD or go Intel and please give me facts as to why you pick either one. Thanks MOD Man
AMD's quad cores are way overpriced for the performance they give. Also, their dual cores are no where near as good as similarly priced Intel processors. I would recommend a Intel E8400.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/04/07/intel_core_2_duo_e8500_e8400_and_e8200/4 http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/04/23/amd_phenom_x3_8750/5 http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/04/11/amd_phenom_x4_9850_9750_and_9550_b3_cpus/7 there are some recient reviews done by bit-tech. you can see in all of them that the intel cpu's offer better performace. I put up the link to benchmark testing done in crysis but if you look through each review you will see that intel comes out on top every time. As for which exact cpu it would depend on your budget for the rest of the computer and how much you want to spend on the cpu itself. I'm running on a q6600 overclocked to 3.0ghz (from 2.4ghz) running with an ati 4850. corsair 620 power supply asus p5k deluxe mushkin 1066 ddr2 ram (2 1gb sticks) what are you thinking about getting for the rest of the system? something else to consider is what screen resolution are you planning on running? I have a 19inch at 1280x1024 so its no problem to max out details in games and still have them run fast. If you are going to game at low resolutions like I am then a dual video card setup is just a waste of money in my opinion.
ASUS P5Q $189.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131328 CORSAIR CMPSU-620HX $170.00 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139002&Tpk=corsair+620 GeForce GTX 280 $449.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150309 E8500 189.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115036 that right there comes out to 1,000 bucks. leaving you 400 for a case, any extra cooling, keyboard mouse(do you need them?) speakers, shippnig, tax, and that should be it. You might also want to consider a sound card which will set you back about 100 bucks for a good one. (dont get an x-fi from creative, goodbytes will tell you why if you want to know) I should point out that I did pick one video card when you said you wanted two. if you want two then start looking at cheaper cards like the 4870 or the 4850, or the 8800gt. Of course if you do insist on two video cards then I would suggest a different motherboard as well there are better ones than the one i picked for a dual card setup. (and the one i picked wont do a dual card setup with nvidia cards) Not to mention that there are limitless options for hardware combo's and what I picked here was mostly at random trying to stay under your budget. prices can easily be moved either way. If you haven't done so I would spend a few days reading some reviews that bit-tech (and other sites) have done to see what the options are. then come back and ask here if what you picked is a good choice and we can either confirm or suggest something different. point is that we dont really know what you are going to do with the pc, I know you said games but do you want to do video encoding for example? then get a quad core instead of a dual core. Anyway, I'm off to bed now.
chrisb2e9, Not trying to argue with you, but I do have a question regarding the Crysis benchmarks. I noticed that all of the FSB's were set to about the same, ranging between 1024Mhz and 1333Mhz. The AMD chips have the ability with the right motherboard to set the FSB to around 3200Mhz, won't this make a big difference in the performance in the chip as that fact triples the FSB and logically the performance is at least doubled. MOD Man
In recent reviews the Intel C2D/Q come out on top, I was an AMD person but decide theh faster Core2s were more for me, as you can see from most benchmarking (which I know isnt everything) Intel comes out on top, and generally for cost they are a superior investment, as said the E8400/8500 comes at a nice 3Ghz for about £100 ($160?), couple that with maybe 2 4850s if you want dual cards and away ya go the GTX 280 I think is a bit overpriced and apparently has some heat issues which might be fixed by the time you buying it, but for now for $1400 I say crossfire is a better option IMHO If they come down in price 2 4870s would be reall nice
sure the chip would run faster but you wont double the frame rates in a game. take a look at the AMD Phenom X3 8750 on this page http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/04/23/amd_phenom_x3_8750/5 just as an example. They ran it at two speeds, 3x3.0GHz 3.0GHz HTT and the stock setting of 3x2.4GHz 1.8GHz HTT. but they only got an increase of 5 fps. nothing to really write home about. Even with the overclock it still fell short of the stock intel cpu's. and the intel's overclock really well, i've had my q6600 up to 3.2ghz but my cooling isn't really good enough(just using air) to hold it there so i only have it at 3ghz. but considering how that is still a 600mhz increase i'm not complaining about it. If you want better performance in a game then a good video card is what you should really focus on. Cpu's do help of course but not as much as the GPU.
Ok, let me see if I have you right, The frame rate was only 12 FSP slower than the fastest CPU, so with the FSB pushed to it's max Motherboard setting and the right video card(s) (AMD with ATI as they are both made by the same company) may meet or even beat the top listed CPU on the list. I think you are trying to say without betraying your Intel loyalty, that AMD will do a great job as long as you get the right video card(s) and Motherboard setup. Here is the Motherboard, CPU, and RAM (3 Gb total) I was looking at working with. Lets add one more question to the mix here, Should I be looking at a standard 32-bit or 64-bit Vista OS and why? Mod Man
Id opt for AMD personally, but I'm a stubborn fanboy. The performance of the intel CPU's is superior these days.
Id say to go with 64 bit Vista if your going to have over 2 gigs of RAM. Driver support has increased and you'll get to use all your RAM so its a win win. Goodbytes is the one here who is the Vista supporter though; lets see if he chimes in.
I dont have intel loyalty I buy the best that there is. If amd had better cpu's then I would buy an amd cpu. If you want to talk about overclocking then lets be fair about it, if you want to overclock amd's then overclock the intel's at the same time. In the graph on that page the overclocked amd still fell short of the intel's stock cpu's. sure you may be able to push the amd cpu a bit more and have it pass the stock intel cpu's, but once you overclock the intel's as well the amd falls behind again. bottom line, if you want better performance get an intel. It sounds like you already have your mind made up anyway and are going to get an amd. Why come in here and ask for opinion and then tell someone that they have to back it up with fact? the internet is full of facts. try this one for starters: www.google.com
I have not made up my mind regarding the idea of and Intel over AMD. I just want to make sure I have as many of the facts as I can before I make my choice. and Yes I am leaning toeard the AMD, but I will go Intel if I can scientifically see that I can build a better Intel. Changing the FSB on the Motherboard to the max Mhz that the CPU can handle is not overclocking, but utilizing the function and form of the motherboard to the chip on it, a simple change of jumpers. I would like to say thank you for suggesting the idea of going 1GB on the video card, I have found that I can get a newer and what in the stats appear to be a better for about the same if not less than getting 2 512MB cards. MOD Man
I'm an AMD fan but whichever way you look at it at the moment the Intel CPU's are the better proposition. I'm about to put a new rig together based on the C2D with the 4850's, I think this combination offers the best 'bang for your buck'.
Ok, Since I was getting conflicting data here and was still confused as to why I should go Intel over AMD I took it upon myself to go right to the source and call AMD and Intel. Here are the results from those phone calls. I presented the same questions to both Karen at AMD and Ben at Intel and they are as follows: 1. Based on the fact that the intel Motherboards generally have a max FSB of 1033Mhz and a max RAM speed of 800Mhz and the AMD motherboards with an AM2+ chip has a resident FSB of 2600Mhz and a RAM speed of 1066Mhz will the increased motherboard speed off set the average 10 FPS lower benchmarks that used the 1033Mhz FSB and 800Mhz RAM speed on both the AMD and Intel Ben at Intel - "Logically YES" Karen at AMD - "Yes your math is correct, you will exceed that with an ATI video card too" 2. Why would I want a FPS of 45+ if standard video runs at only 30 FPS and HD video runs at 32 FPS and these are both set speeds with NO variables. Ben at Intel - "Don't Know" Karen at AMD - "Not sure why you would need that except for bragging rights that your benchmark is better that someone elses" 3. This one was only for Intel. Tell me why I should pick Intel over AMD based on the questions, Math, and answers to my other questions. Ben at Intel - "I can not give you and reason other than to look at the benchmarks and make the best choice for yourself" I think I have made my choice, based on these facts, I will let you make your own decision too. MOD Man
It's the only way to go; I've spent the past week deciding on the spec of my new system, lots of time pouring over reviews, asking for opinions and so on. But at the end of the day the decision was mine based on the criteria that were important to me, like you I hope I made the right one...
okay mod man, i joined this forum for various reasons, the first to reply to this very thread. Ive read quite alot of articles atm regarding CPU's and chipsets as im hopefully upgrading next sept, and pretty much across the board, intel have been on top regarding processors. i think (please correct if wrong) that when Bit-Tech bench there CPU's such as the ones chrisb2e9 linked you to, intel were ontop, DRAMATICALLY For price the preformance of a intel cpu is obviously a safer bet. Q :"2. Why would I want a FPS of 45+ if standard video runs at only 30 FPS and HD video runs at 32 FPS and these are both set speeds with NO variables." A :http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_5.html motion blur in TV and HDTV allows a lower FPS to run smoother as opposed to a hard edge game rendering. but, if im wrong, i would love for some AMD lover to prove that AMD Phenom out preforms a Intel Q6600.
what conflicting data? sounds to me like everyone is singing the same tune. Where do you get your numbers? My FSB is currently running at 1333 and I have had it at 1422. so max out at 1033? Where did you get that from? The board I linked to here even goes faster than 1033 at stock settings. The limiting factor on my setup was the fact that my cpu was getting too hot (notice I didn’t say that it was too hot, just getting close to it. I could of pushed it farther), and its based on an older hotter stepping. the newer ones can push farther than what mine is able to do. And I’m using a pretty weak cooling fan compared to what is out there so saying that most intel motherboards have a limit of 1033 is not a fact its fantasy. As for ram, mine is currently running at 1066, stock. Not 800, not overclocked. I have had it over 1100mhz too. Not to mention that comparing the FSB of an Intel to the HTT (its not called a fsb on amd boards by the way) doesn't make any sense considering that the two chips are based on a different architecture. They don’t run the same way. I’m not trying to be jerk here its just that you come in here demanding facts and then you post stuff like this and dont back up your information. If you want to go and buy an amd, which runs slower, then go ahead. you came here looking for facts even though you already had your mind made up. Although I would really like to know where you get your information from. And why would you call a sales rep? That’s just bizarre, their job is to sell, like a sales rep at future shop or best buy. They don’t actually have to know what they talking about. It doesn't.
I spent an awful lot of money trying to squeeze as much performance as is physically possible out of a Phenom 9850 - mind you I'm still in the process of trying the water cooled approach, check my signature for the worklog the parts I'm using are listed in my first post there. I'll tell you right now that for the same amount of cash I could have built a skulltrail system that would have SPANKED 20k in 3dmark... I was barely able to get 17k with 3x9800GTXssc's. This has provoked me to get GTX280ssc's but I know that my entire system is limited by the CPU... I made my choice, and I'm sticking with it. My goal is to try and get 20k in 3dmark... but to the best of my knowledge no Phenom has achieved this. I love AMD... I'll stick with AMD, but Intel is winning this war.
