Intel or AMD

[Die Auslese]

Alright I'm gonna ask the community on GPU-R here for a friend trying to ask a question, and I can't answer cuase he has some good points.

He put up 2 CPU's ones a Intel Duo E8400 (3.0GHZ), the other a AMD Phenom X4 9750 (2.4GHZ). The price the AMD is cheper by $40 than the Intel, as well as the AMD out performs the Intel Duo E8400. HOWEVER, he also wants to know which one runs cooler, and with less power, I figured the Intel since it 45nm tech-y. However the lower clock speed on the AMD generally means less voltage. I'm complety unsure, lastley. Which one is better at over clocking, basically which one can handle a 500mhz (typical for me and him) overclock better.

Anyone got the answers to these questions, so my friend here can join me on COD4 online.

[wyz135]

the intel E8400 will be better, it's faster than the AMD Phenom 9750 in most applications. I could be wrong.

[Radiator]

Performance-wise the quad should be faster , but I'm merely guessing that the Intel's CPU is cooler ... and as always , Intel CPUs are better overclockers .

[Sunny]

The intel E8400 should be way better. When gaming the intel CPU is gonna come out on top. It has mad overclocking room and should stay pretty cool.

What benchmarks are you basing the comparisons on which CPU is better?
If it has anything to do with rendering and 3dmark like stuff ofcourse the AMD is gonna win cause it has 4 cores to utilize. But other then that I don't think the AMD CPU should be anywhere as good in gaming.

The clock speed is lower on the AMD(@2.4Ghz) but nonetheless it still has 4 cores and is built on 65nm. So its probably gonna be hotter and use more voltage.

While the Intel has a higher clock speed but is only 2 cores and on a smaller size at 45nm. So you are gonna have less heat and im pretty sure less voltage.

[Die Auslese]

The intel E8400 should be way better. When gaming the intel CPU is gonna come out on top. It has mad overclocking room and should stay pretty cool.

What benchmarks are you basing the comparisons on which CPU is better?
If it has anything to do with rendering and 3dmark like stuff ofcourse the AMD is gonna win cause it has 4 cores to utilize. But other then that I don't think the AMD CPU should be anywhere as good in gaming.

The clock speed is lower on the AMD(@2.4Ghz) but nonetheless it still has 4 cores and is built on 65nm. So its probably gonna be hotter and use more voltage.

While the Intel has a higher clock speed but is only 2 cores and on a smaller size at 45nm. So you are gonna have less heat and im pretty sure less voltage.

I use what performace they get in certain games, it's not on anyone site, its more or less all over the place. I get a bunch of reviews for a certain CPU, and the performace based on the game, and make an average. The AMD comes out on top, only becuase of games that support 4 cores, I.E Crysis.

[Radiator]

Crysis has no idea what to do with a quad core CPU ... and at high/very high settings , the performance will be so damn low , that it wont be CPU limited anyway ... unless ofcourse , you've got a beast of a video card in your PC .

Most games do NOT support 4 cores .

[aliquidparadigm]

So, speaking from experience, owning now an e8400 and having owned--er, rather, still owning just not using--a Phenom processor, the e8400 will destroy the Phenom in most real-world applications. Unless he intends to do video processing or something related to editing multimedia, then the e8400 is the way to go. Everything is dual-core-ready, not a whole hell of a lot is quad-core-ready, and games are most certainly not.

Honestly, if he wants to build a nice little gaming system, get him an HD 4850 and an e8400.

AMD CPU stuff is cheap right now for a reason.

Using 3dmark06 as a reference [scores for all but the first are linked]: Phenom chip w/1x3870 = ~6600, w/2x3870 = ~9500 (http://service.futuremark.com/results/showSingleResult.action?resultId=6071787&resultType=14); e8400 w/1x3870 = ~11000 (http://service.futuremark.com/results/showSingleResult.action?resultId=6104435&resultType=14), w/2x3870 = ~17500 (http://service.futuremark.com/results/showSingleResult.action?resultId=6106011&resultType=14).

I'm very interested how the 4870 I just picked up will do in comparison. Don't worry, I'm not the type who always tries to keep up with the Jones'; both of my 3870s from Gigabyte shit out on me (fan died on one, the core from the other has become extremely unstable and won't run over 500mhz for more than a couple of minutes), so this was a purchase moreso out of need than anything else: I can't get by using this x1950xt that I've had laying around for 6+ months now. (c:

[Die Auslese]

So, speaking from experience, owning now an e8400 and having owned--er, rather, still owning just not using--a Phenom processor, the e8400 will destroy the Phenom in most real-world applications. Unless he intends to do video processing or something related to editing multimedia, then the e8400 is the way to go. Everything is dual-core-ready, not a whole hell of a lot is quad-core-ready, and games are most certainly not.

Honestly, if he wants to build a nice little gaming system, get him an HD 4850 and an e8400.

AMD CPU stuff is cheap right now for a reason.

Using 3dmark06 as a reference [scores for all but the first are linked]: Phenom chip w/1x3870 = ~6600, w/2x3870 = ~9500 (http://service.futuremark.com/results/showSingleResult.action?resultId=6071787&resultType=14); e8400 w/1x3870 = ~11000 (http://service.futuremark.com/results/showSingleResult.action?resultId=6104435&resultType=14), w/2x3870 = ~17500 (http://service.futuremark.com/results/showSingleResult.action?resultId=6106011&resultType=14).

I'm very interested how the 4870 I just picked up will do in comparison. Don't worry, I'm not the type who always tries to keep up with the Jones'; both of my 3870s from Gigabyte shit out on me (fan died on one, the core from the other has become extremely unstable and won't run over 500mhz for more than a couple of minutes), so this was a purchase moreso out of need than anything else: I can't get by using this x1950xt that I've had laying around for 6+ months now. (c:

Right I think he was gonna add a 9600GT since its cheap, and runs cooler than a HD 4850. I guess I will tell him the Duel core is the way to go. Alas a question arrises from your answer. Not to many things are supported by 4 cores, but what about in the future, would'nt the AMD be better for future applications, or rather by time that happens the AMD CPU would be out dated?

Oh and one other thing I'm all for building a medium rig, I have one I built for $1280 , roughly. I use it now, and what kept the cost down was canibilizing parts from my old PC. I love this machine, 1 GX2, and a Intel Q6600, both parts are overclocked HEAVILY!

[aVaLaNcHe]

I don't see games becoming multithreaded in the future unless developers create their own EAX version or EAX-free effects. (Environmental sound, makes sounds of a forest sound different then in a building. found on creative labs sound cards). I only see games utlizing 2 cores in the next few years anyway.

[Radiator]

So, speaking from experience, owning now an e8400 and having owned--er, rather, still owning just not using--a Phenom processor, the e8400 will destroy the Phenom in most real-world applications. Unless he intends to do video processing or something related to editing multimedia, then the e8400 is the way to go. Everything is dual-core-ready, not a whole hell of a lot is quad-core-ready, and games are most certainly not.

Honestly, if he wants to build a nice little gaming system, get him an HD 4850 and an e8400.

AMD CPU stuff is cheap right now for a reason.

Using 3dmark06 as a reference [scores for all but the first are linked]: Phenom chip w/1x3870 = ~6600, w/2x3870 = ~9500 (http://service.futuremark.com/results/showSingleResult.action?resultId=6071787&resultType=14); e8400 w/1x3870 = ~11000 (http://service.futuremark.com/results/showSingleResult.action?resultId=6104435&resultType=14), w/2x3870 = ~17500 (http://service.futuremark.com/results/showSingleResult.action?resultId=6106011&resultType=14).

I'm very interested how the 4870 I just picked up will do in comparison. Don't worry, I'm not the type who always tries to keep up with the Jones'; both of my 3870s from Gigabyte shit out on me (fan died on one, the core from the other has become extremely unstable and won't run over 500mhz for more than a couple of minutes), so this was a purchase moreso out of need than anything else: I can't get by using this x1950xt that I've had laying around for 6+ months now. (c:
Unlike the HD 2K and HD 3K series , the HD 4K series aren't 3Dmark06 beasts ... but they do rather well in Vantage... and they do very well in real world applications .
But 6600 vs 11k ? No wonder they call it CPUmark06 :rolleyes: .

[aliquidparadigm]

(1) HD 4K series aren't 3Dmark06 beasts (2) But 6600 vs 11k ? No wonder they call it CPUmark06 :rolleyes: .(1) Yet. One word, dude: drivers. (2) Well, that's unfair; I had the same type of performance issues in Crysis, both single and dual card. If you'll notice from the links provided, the CPU score for the 9400 (Phenom) was only 200 'marks' lower than on the e8400 setup. Crossfire doesn't give a shit about cores, only MHz.

[Radiator]

They aren't 3Dmark06 beasts , because that largely depends on CPUs ... The R6** cards were 3Dmark06 beasts but they didn't fare that well in games... while the G8* cards were a bit lower in 3dMark06 but they slaughtered their R6** card equivalents .
This time it's the other way around - the R770's aren't THAT good in 3Dmark06 , BUT they fare very well in games .

And I wouldn't use 3Dmark06 for benching new cards anyway , considering it's practically CPUmark06 ...
Vantage gives a far clearer picture of the GPU's performance .

[Die Auslese]

I just wanted to conclued this with, although dos'nt mean this fourm has to die, my friend got his new computer. At least the part's to which I have 2 weeks before I have to build a computer :(

We got, and for $948....
Case: Apevia X-Telstar S-Type $80
CPU: Intel E8400 3.0GHZ $180
GPU: Nvidia EVGA 9600GT $139
MOBO: Asus P5N-E nForce 650i $110
RAM: K-Byte PC6400 DDR2/800 Dual Channel Memory (1GB x2) $130
HDD: Western Digital - 320GB 7200RPM $99
EXTRA: Raidmax Maxcool Intel CPU Cooling Fan $40, 500W PSU $80, and 2x Sony 20X Double Layer Dual Format DVD+-R/+-RW + CD-R/RW Drive's $90.

Any Comments, on how that will run COD4?

[Radiator]

I would have gotten a HD 4850 instead of the 9600 GT , if I were you .
But it'll most certainly run CoD4 at the highest settings at lower resolutions .

[Die Auslese]

I would have gotten a HD 4850 instead of the 9600 GT , if I were you .
But it'll most certainly run CoD4 at the highest settings at lower resolutions .

4850 is roughly about $60-70 more, and runs about 10C hotter than the 9600GT. Were were aiming for a sup $1000 build, with tax, and shipping :mad: it turned out to be, about $1050 :mad: :mad:.
Oh, and were gonna OC that CPU to 3.6-3.8GHZ.

[aliquidparadigm]

Yeah, but, seriously, you're skimping to ridiculous degrees. That $60 can literally mean the difference between a game being playable or not... although, really, that's just Crysis. The 4850 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more future-proof than the 9600. So, sure, it's an additional $60 now, but it will be more than worth it in 2 years when you don't need to buy a new card yet.

edit: and you spent way too much on that RAM. Waaaaaayyyyyyy too much.

[Die Auslese]

Yeah, but, seriously, you're skimping to ridiculous degrees. That $60 can literally mean the difference between a game being playable or not... although, really, that's just Crysis. The 4850 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more future-proof than the 9600. So, sure, it's an additional $60 now, but it will be more than worth it in 2 years when you don't need to buy a new card yet.

edit: and you spent way too much on that RAM. Waaaaaayyyyyyy too much.

The RAM has a warrenty on it, if its ever broken or dameged within 8 years of uses, its replaced with the latest, and greatest thing, I.E DDR3. it's furture proof basically. And the 9600 may not be as good as the 4850, but my friend does'nt do extreme gaming like me, so long as it runs a game in medium. He's more about the game play (online at that) than anything else. Still I think he got an excellent computer for the money, I just really REALLY hate setting up BIOS.

[swedxza]

hmmm well i suppose 9750>9700 right? check this out :eek:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007
still i have some restrains regarding AMD's CPUs' temp

[-RK]

I just wanted to conclued this with, although dos'nt mean this fourm has to die, my friend got his new computer. At least the part's to which I have 2 weeks before I have to build a computer :(

We got, and for $948....
Case: Apevia X-Telstar S-Type $80
CPU: Intel E8400 3.0GHZ $180
GPU: Nvidia EVGA 9600GT $139
MOBO: Asus P5N-E nForce 650i $110
RAM: K-Byte PC6400 DDR2/800 Dual Channel Memory (1GB x2) $130
HDD: Western Digital - 320GB 7200RPM $99
EXTRA: Raidmax Maxcool Intel CPU Cooling Fan $40, 500W PSU $80, and 2x Sony 20X Double Layer Dual Format DVD+-R/+-RW + CD-R/RW Drive's $90.

Any Comments, on how that will run COD4?


That should kill COD4 dead.

I built a similar system and used cod4 for benchies on it. Lowest fps I saw on highest settings @1600x1200 hovered around 30 fps for a few seconds. mostly above 90. I didn't play all the way through or try multiplayer though, so...

Interesting thing, it cost just under $650 for me to build that system, where did you order those parts? I got an oc'd msi 9600 (the one with that pretty red dual slot cooler) for $20 less than that.

[Headfoot]

You got owned on RAM and Disc Drives, you paid way too much and could have upgraded to a 4850 with leftovers.

I've gotten 4 GB of DDR2 800 that can run 4-4-4-12 2T pretty easy or 5-5-5-15 1T. For $90.

I got a dual layer burner driver for $26 and a plain DVD reader driver for $18, both Lite-On. I've been using Lite-On since 2002-2003 ish and I have never had a single problem, unless you really need that SPDIF out on the drive.

Regardless, that machine should run everything pretty quick! :D

[mrstew]

Intel Core i7 is the CPU Power king at the moment

Then it's going to be the new Phenom II

But for best overclocking @ affordable prices
I would go for a Core2 E8 or E7 series they are brilliant and all will nearly hit 4GHz+

[Radiator]

Intel Core i7 is the CPU Power king at the moment


In gaming applications , it is not .

[-RK]

aye, the c2q9 and c2d8 series still hold it there.