|
In the market for a new pc. (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Storyteller |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stephen Wiley
3.4ghz (that easily overclocks) quadcore looks like it stacks up to Intel easily when you take into account prices. Faster most of the time. |
But a lot of Intels overclock just as easy don't they? Which in turn renders this particular argument more or less useless.
Sure AMD is cheaper but I think Intel is still a better choice if you want to focus a bit more on the long run. |
|
|
| Stephen Wiley |
Forget the overclocking issue then.
Dollar for Dollar AMD Quad Cores usually outperform Intel. |
|
|
| Storyteller |
| Best bang for your buck :-) |
|
|
| Viber |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stephen Wiley
Forget the overclocking issue then.
Dollar for Dollar AMD Quad Cores usually outperform Intel. |
Yea, Phenom II x4 Quad Core 965 might be better than some Qxxxx Intel processors. |
|
|
| kitphillips |
It really depends on what you need. If all you need is fast clocks then AMD is OK, although the system will probably be louder than an equivalent intel. But if you want to stream large amounts of data (for media for example) then its better to grab an intel, since they have more memory bandwidth.
Intel is also the only choice for mobile applications because of the lower heat and power consumption and the way the cores scale better. |
|
|
| Nightshift |
this is cool but i noticed they dont have the AMD 6-core processors on there, only the quadcores |
|
|
| tehlord |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nightshift
this is cool but i noticed they dont have the AMD 6-core processors on there, only the quadcores |
I think that's a few months old now, but i'm still hoping they'll update the list soon! |
|
|
| kitphillips |
Even if they don't have the 6 cores, they don't have the 6 core intels either... Its a good way of just comparing the architectures of the two chips IMO. the first AMD to appear on the list was a 3.4 Ghz, and it came all the way back down near the previous generation of intels, the core2quads. In contrast, a 2.66 Ghz intel performs far better than the 3.4 Ghz AMD. Its 179 vs 215 seconds, which is pretty significant...
So yes, buying an AMD is cheaper, but you're buying the equivelent of the previous generation intel. Even if you buy their top of the line processor, you're still buying a product that underperforms. |
|
|
| tehlord |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
So yes, buying an AMD is cheaper, but you're buying the equivelent of the previous generation intel. Even if you buy their top of the line processor, you're still buying a product that underperforms. |
I'll go along with this for the purposes of a DAW machine.
If you're a gamer etc, things are different, but that ain't what we're talking about now is it! :p |
|
|
| Nightshift |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
Even if they don't have the 6 cores, they don't have the 6 core intels either... |
The Core i7 980x (fastest one listed) is a 6 core processor. |
|
|
| DjStephenWiley |
| dont put too much stock in the actual test. they were just exporting a WAV from a project. the real thing is a stress test when you got 30 tracks with multiple FX going. |
|
|
|
|
