Main > Everything Else
intel or amd lol
MonMotha:
The 2500k is probably faster for almost all consumer CPU-limited workloads.
The bulldozer arch is interesting. Honestly, that CPU is probably closer to 4 cores with "super hyperthreading". You can concoct some scientific/heavy compute workloads where that AMD CPU would probably be faster (maybe significantly), but that's basically never going to happen on a typical desktop.
The most compelling thing about the AMD CPU there is the integrated graphics. If you plan to use them, they'll utterly blow away the graphics integrated into the 2500k. You can actually run real 3D games on it, though don't expect performance like the high end graphics cards. The Intel stuff isn't really capable of that, though Ivy Bridge is somewhat improved (not relevant here as the 2500k is Sandy Bridge). These integrated graphics could save you from having to buy a mid-range graphics card, depending on your needs, which could save you another $75-100 or so, making it ~30% cheaper than the Intel arrangement with probably 80-90% of the performance (ignoring motherboard costs).
Tthe AMD CPU also has a lot more "features". Intel engages in some pretty heavy market segmentation. That 2500k, for example, is "unlocked", but it doesn't have VT-d. The AMD does support IOMMU (accomplishes the same thing), so you could do some rather advanced virtualization with it (e.g. PCI passthrough) that you just plain can't do on the Intel. It also has a somewhat newer instruction set, though again, almost no (current) consumer workloads will take advantage of them. You can also probably use ECC RAM on that CPU (but check first it you intend to, and motherboard support is spotty), which you definitely cannot on the Intel - gotta buy a Xeon for that.
trekking95:
Heard of the AMD overheating. So I have always used Intel and it works good.
MonMotha:
--- Quote from: trekking95 on July 08, 2012, 12:55:06 am ---Heard of the AMD overheating. So I have always used Intel and it works good.
--- End quote ---
If you're referring to the infamous Tom's Hardware video of the Athlon melting, that's...over a decade old, and the scenario was pretty unrealistic (catastrophic failure of the entire thermal solution). Modern (meaning less than a decade old) AMD processors have similar protections to Intel's.
TDP of AMD and Intel CPUs is comparable these days. Intel was typically MUCH higher during the P4 era. Keeping things cool has much more to do with your thermal solution (heatsink and case ventilation) than any part of the CPU itself. The stock coolers offered by both AMD and Intel are generally sufficient unless you're intending to overclock things by a fair bit or have crappy case airflow. If you buy a CPU without an included heatsink/fan, make sure you select a good one to use. This goes for either Intel or AMD.
SNAAKE:
so to skip buying a video card I just need a motherboard with video out for either one of the amd or intel cpu above? I ordered the m4 ssd drive because it was on sale. ordering other parts tomorrow. still didn't make up my mind.
learning toward the 8core.
lilshawn:
the AMD fx is going to be the better processor.
the FX has a passmark benchmark value of 8247
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8150+Eight-Core
the i5 has a value of 6739.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2500K+%40+3.30GHz
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version