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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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; e8400 w/1x3870 = ~11000, w/2x3870 = ~17500.

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]

Originally Posted by 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; e8400 w/1x3870 = ~11000, w/2x3870 = ~17500.

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]

Originally Posted by 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; e8400 w/1x3870 = ~11000, w/2x3870 = ~17500.

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 .