intel or amd lol

[SNAAKE]

  its that time again

my bro needs a new computer. he doesnt play games. so it will be for multi tasking and some video editing(nothing crazy). I am on AMD phenom2 x6 and been very happy with it. it never breaks sweat and runs everything. getting a SSD drive too.

which one should I order?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115072
or
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103960

I know nothing uses 8 core now. and both of them are pretty identical. any inputs would be appreciated. ASAP doing it now before the hard drive sale is over also AM+ cpu isnt compatible with am3 socket motherboards??
 

[Samstag]

Sandy Bridge has some extra media capabilities that speed up video editing considerably over older intel processors.  I don't know if AMD has an equivalent function.

Video processing will definitely benefit from more cores.

[lilshawn]

just bought an FX quad core (FX-4150) for my desktop and i'm pretty impressed with it.


i would go with the FX-8140... it runs a little cooler than the 8150 (95 vs 125 watts) and you aren't loosing that much performance. (400 mhz)

unless you are putting a big ass cooler on there and have plenty of ventilation, then give'r!

[Malenko]

my i7 2600k r0x0rz your b0x0rz, or whatever the ---fudgesicle--- it is kids say these days.

[lilshawn]

also AM+ cpu isnt compatible with am3 socket motherboards??
 

chances are no. some am3 boards just needed a BIOS update to have FX compatibility. (basically increased current carrying capability on the socket pins for AM3+)

my old amd dual core AM3 board (although physically compatible... didn't have any bios updates for FX processors so i had to purchase another motherboard.)

[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]

Heard of the AMD overheating. So I have always used Intel and it works good.

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

[Thenasty]

I know you  have plenty of $$$$ Snake so, you want the best CPU
here it is 

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0376492

[SNAAKE]

I know you  have plenty of $$$$ Snake so, you want the best CPU
here it is  

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0376492

ran out of mod-money now I cant just randomly buy things lol

gotta WORK for it

[404]

i usually buy amd because i'm a cheapskate and i don't see why i would need to spend so much money in order to spend 90% of my time surfing the same web i can view with a cheaper rig.

[lilshawn]

I know you  have plenty of $$$$ Snake so, you want the best CPU
here it is 

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0376492

since you would like to spend money willy-nilly like, why not get the best??

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117272

[SNAAKE]

ok fine I am ordering this..
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117261

[trekking95]

Heard of the AMD overheating. So I have always used Intel and it works good.

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.

Never saw the video but I have been told they can overheat. Maybe that's old news now.

[lilshawn]

and yes, it's really old news. Most processors have protection of some sort to prevent catastrophic failure.

[SNAAKE]

lol that video is ancient

[lilshawn]

Remember to keep your server room nice and cold, too.  It "lowers the resistance" and your machines will "run better". 

Make sure and use high octane gas on your to work drive, too, because it "gives you more horse power."

do i attempt justify this....


hrrrmm.....


maybe....


no.

[MonMotha]

Wow, I'd forgotten how ridiculously slanted that video was...

The KT133 was getting fairly old by the time they did that test.  The original socket A AMD Athlons required the motherboard/chipset to implement thermal protection using a sensor underneath the CPU package.  The KT133, being a piece of crap, got it pretty wrong, and many motherboards omitted the feature entirely.  Most KT266 based designs seemed to have usable protection, though.  The next-gen AthlonXP had on-die sensing and shutdown, comparable to the P3.

The throttle-down behavior of the P4 was weird.  It was actually done because the things were so high power (for the time) that it was expected that many common designs might experience mild overheating, so the CPU was designed to automatically downclock if that happened.  This was especially true in laptops.  I have an old Compaq that seems to rely on this behavior.  It has a 2.4GHz process...for about 5 seconds until it gets too hot, then it downclocks substantially and is an absolute dog.  Props to Intel for making it work so well that it can handle catastrophic failure of the thermal solution, though.

What really gets me is the excessive blob of thermal paste used on the Athlon.  It seems like it was deliberately applied in order to make it look like the package was "melting" when it clearly was not.

I'm not really an AMD or Intel fan, though I will say I disliked the Pentium 4 due to its excessive heat output.  I tend to just use what works for my application.  My current laptop is a Core2Duo (T9900), my personal server is a little bookshelf Atom box (D510), my home office server uses an i5 2500k, and the server I recently built to go in the co-lo is an AMD Opteron 4280.  All have been very reliable thus far.

My previous system (doubled as a desktop and server) was an Athlon XP 2400+.  It saw continuous duty for about 8 years before it was retired due to instability that I think was related to bad caps on the motherboard (despite replaced many, but not all of them, during the system's lifespan).  It never overheated.  My system before that was a 1GHz P3 that's actually still in operation at my parent's place, though it's scheduled to be retired, soon.

The worst machine I've ever owned in terms of thermal performance was that P4 laptop I mentioned.  It was next to useless for anything other than peaky, casual desktop usage.  If you actually tried to do any work on it, it just overheated and slowed down to the point of being barely usable.

[lilshawn]

Wow, I'd forgotten how ridiculously slanted that video was...

The KT133 was getting fairly old by the time they did that test.  The original socket A AMD Athlons required the motherboard/chipset to implement thermal protection using a sensor underneath the CPU package.  The KT133, being a piece of crap, got it pretty wrong, and many motherboards omitted the feature entirely.  Most KT266 based designs seemed to have usable protection, though.  The next-gen AthlonXP had on-die sensing and shutdown, comparable to the P3.

The throttle-down behavior of the P4 was weird.  It was actually done because the things were so high power (for the time) that it was expected that many common designs might experience mild overheating, so the CPU was designed to automatically downclock if that happened.  This was especially true in laptops.  I have an old Compaq that seems to rely on this behavior.  It has a 2.4GHz process...for about 5 seconds until it gets too hot, then it downclocks substantially and is an absolute dog.  Props to Intel for making it work so well that it can handle catastrophic failure of the thermal solution, though.

What really gets me is the excessive blob of thermal paste used on the Athlon.  It seems like it was deliberately applied in order to make it look like the package was "melting" when it clearly was not.

I'm not really an AMD or Intel fan, though I will say I disliked the Pentium 4 due to its excessive heat output.  I tend to just use what works for my application.  My current laptop is a Core2Duo (T9900), my personal server is a little bookshelf Atom box (D510), my home office server uses an i5 2500k, and the server I recently built to go in the co-lo is an AMD Opteron 4280.  All have been very reliable thus far.

My previous system (doubled as a desktop and server) was an Athlon XP 2400+.  It saw continuous duty for about 8 years before it was retired due to instability that I think was related to bad caps on the motherboard (despite replaced many, but not all of them, during the system's lifespan).  It never overheated.  My system before that was a 1GHz P3 that's actually still in operation at my parent's place, though it's scheduled to be retired, soon.

The worst machine I've ever owned in terms of thermal performance was that P4 laptop I mentioned.  It was next to useless for anything other than peaky, casual desktop usage.  If you actually tried to do any work on it, it just overheated and slowed down to the point of being barely usable.

I have an old P4 i use as my work computer and have had it shutdown on me a few times due to overheating. (motherboard shutting everything down not crashing) but it does it because it's SUPPOSED to

Really it boils down to the motherboard sensing something is going sideways and hittin' the binders before ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- goes sideways. if they cheap out and (like you say) don't bother to place the sensor in the middle of the socket to monitor the CPU temps. Things can get real ugly really fast.

[SNAAKE]

after some research I went with the i5 2500. figured that was the best fit for my bro. got an m4 ssd too. that drive gets 7.9 which is pretty impressive. so far its pretty cool too. the intel is around 36-38 and my amd 6core phenom2 is like 50. dunno if thats normal. everything runs fine on my computer tho.

[SithMaster]

If it helps anyone I get all my computer advice from these helpful articles.  http://bofh.ntk.net/BOFH/

[kahlid74]

I've dabbled into the AMD/ATI world and ran across more issues than I had in the intel/Nvidia world so for now, I stick with Intel and Nvidia.

[ChadTower]

Unless you're doing the actual SETI processing (not the screen saver) the difference from one home use CPU to the next is pretty much zero.  Few people at home are ever going to squeeze out that last 3.4% of performance in a meaningful way. 

Look at two that are rated similarly, buy the one that is a better deal, and go make a sandwich.

[SNAAKE]

^ thats what I did. most intel boards had onboard video which is all my brother needed anyway. so far its blazing fast. handles everything fine for now. we'll get a video card for video editing in the future.

[ChadTower]

Sweet.  Was it a good sandwich?