CPUs: Intel vs AMD - which is better?

[blackbeltninja]

Hey guys

I am in the market for a new computer, which I will probably build up as opposed to buy off the shelf so I can customise it fully.

I'm wondering, though, which of the two CPUs is a better choice. My gut says Intel, because I know that for years AMD were behind, but I heard that around the time the Pentium III launched that both brands were pretty much equal.

The reason I ask is that at current .za prices, a Core2 Duo (Wolfdale 3GHz chip with 6Mb cache) is about as much as an AMD quad (Phenom 9500+ 64 Bit, 2200mhz, L2 2Mb L3 2Mb OD Cache). Is it worth spending the extra 40% and springing for the Intel Quad instead of the AMD? Or should I stick with the Core2?

The machine will be used for data analysis (although this doesn't need anything high-spec) and graphic design work (which does) and internet and gaming. I suspect the Core2 will be sufficient and the Quad probably unnecessary, and I know it's impossible to future-proof beyond a certain point. I'd rather buy something very good (as opposed to market top-spec) and spend the extra on extras than max out my budget on the chip and only see a very slight benefit which results in a very slight increase in future-proofing.

As far as add-ons go, the motherboard I am intending to buy is suitable for P4, C2D and Quad chips (or their AMD equivalents), so that's not an issue; it has capability for DDR2 and -3 ram, apparently, so that does give capacity to upgrade later, to a point. I'm really just stuck on the chip.

Any info or opinions would be appreciated.

thanks
-d-

 

[_AJ_]

they are both good and if you go and compare chips at the same price the performance will be the same ie $200 Intel = $200 AMD

personally i would go with this AMD Phenom 9750 Quad Core (AM2) 2.4GHz to support AMD who are much smaller than intel

back when AMD had better chips than Intel (P4 and Intel D) they didn't get the anywhere near the sales of intel even though they were better which is disappointing

top of the line chips are rarely worth the extra money 40% more in price is probably only 3 or 4% in processor and would be better spent on a better graphics card and more ram

 

[thermodynamics]

My own opinion is with the INtel. Heat production is my main concern when I make processor decisions. Less heat=smaller fan=less noise.

In any case, I wouldn't go with a "premium" processor. Graphic design is certainly not "easy", but it's not necessarily all that taxing. Save your $$$ and go for say 2GB of RAM, and a big big HD.

 

[blackbeltninja]

Thanks guys. Yes, I realise it has been a month since you posted opinions and it has taken that long for me to come back in here!

-d-

 

[Negasta]

Intel by far.

Just look up some comparative benchmarks online and you will see why.

The 2.4GHz Quad core Intel far outperforms the 2.4 GHz AMD. The same is the case with every Intel CPU and the equivalent AMD CPU.

 

[D_Pipa]

omg youve posted 'Intel VS AMD'... how pointless! somedays Intel can be better, somedays AMD can be better. just random pick which one!

 

[Apollo]

I have a AMD Radeon Express 1250. It gets hot pretty easily, and the fan can get pretty loud. Go with Intel.

But both are very good.

 

[Negasta]

Follow the link below for comprehensive comparative benchmarks of current Intel and AMD CPU's

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

 

[zingerz]

ATM, if you're just using 'normal software' nothing too fancy i would go with dual core because most softwares are not equip to fully take adv of all 4 cores in the AMD, but then that leaves the question how long do you plan on having this computer. Also, another point would be which componets you are going to use some brands of motherboards/ram/vidcard are imfamous for running well with intel chips, but badly with AMD.

I suggest looking at tomshardware.com for facts/tips.