Intel or AMD, that is the question

[pctech]

I've always been a fan of Intel CPUs and the core i7 line up does look impressive.

However at the moment I'm still looking at PC specs while I save up the pennies to get a new system built.

I have been looking at the AMD six core FX Black Edition CPUs as they do seem to be quite a bit cheaper than the i7.

And the difference in total system cost including a 3 year parts and labour warranty works out about 300 quid when looked at on Mesh (I understand the old owner has bought back the company)

I'm a casual PC gamer so although I want a fairly capable graphics card that does 3D well I'm not going top of the range this time because most of the time the machine is just going to be used for browsing and e-mail.

Anyone care to share opinions between the two CPU makes as TBH I took my eye off the ball regarding CPU developments over the past year or so as have been occupied with other stuff.

[gizmo71]

If you're playing stuff that is mostly graphics card bound, the AMDs offer great bang per buck. I went 6-core AMD for my current server for the same reason. If you're CPU bound (I am with iRacing), the Intel chips still offer the best absolute performance.

[D-Dan]

I agree with gizmo (and I say that as a long time AMD fan). Although AMDs Bulldozer system looks extremely good on paper, the reality hasn't matched the hype, and the current chipsets just don't exploit the platform to its' full potential. And Intel i7 will outperform even a top end consumer grade AMD CPU. Whether or not this will change in the future is purely a matter of conjecture. I would have expected AMD to have fixed the chipset if they were going to by now, since the problems have been known for quite some time.

Having said that, the difference for the end user is likely to only really become apparent in benchmark tests, which rarely reflect real world usage anyway, and the truth is unless you are personally extremely sensitive to the speed of your processor you would probably not notice. I still believe that AMD provides the best bang for your buck, all things considered. It's not just the CPU cost that you have to consider, but motherboards supporting Intel chips are somewhat more expensive than AMD motherboards, too.

[.Griff.]

Intel by a mile. AMD's latest effort, Bulldozer, was pretty much a PR disaster which never lived up to the hype and AMD have pretty much been playing catch up over the last six years.

As for Intel Sandybridge prices are dropping now with the imminent release of Ivybridge so they offer a cost saving if you're inclined in that direction. It's probably also worth noting that socket 1155 is being discontinued soon with the release of socket 1150 and Haswell processors next Spring. Just something else to factor into your plans.

[Gary]

I'm using a Sandy Bridge i7 2600s and its a fantastic processor, the newer Ivy Bridge CPU's have about 10-15% increase in performance but most people would never notice that tbh and the Sandy bridge CPU's can be overclocked to 4Ghz easily still using air cooling, they are a good bet still unless you want the integrated graphics power of the new Ivy bridge CPU's, and if you have a desktop that's not a worry as you will have a gfx card anyway. You could get a Sandy bridge 2600k at a good price and build a very sweet system right now.

[Technical Ben]

I've got an AMD, but then again mine is last generation, so it was doing well. From what I hear, AMD are not keeping up with Intel. But still, if you want cheap and cherful net browser, then there is nothing wrong with an AMD system. But if your doing others stuff (movie encoding or some gaming) then you might be able to get a more powerful Intel i3/5 for the same price as an AMD equivalent. The i7s might be a lot more expensive though. But I've not checked recent prices.

[Gary]

I've got an AMD, but then again mine is last generation, so it was doing well. From what I hear, AMD are not keeping up with Intel. But still, if you want cheap and cherful net browser, then there is nothing wrong with an AMD system. But if your doing others stuff (movie encoding or some gaming) then you might be able to get a more powerful Intel i3/5 for the same price as an AMD equivalent. The i7s might be a lot more expensive though. But I've not checked recent prices.

The i7 2600 is about £216 on Amazon, you must be able to get them cheaper from places like fleabay.

[Technical Ben]

I aim for £80-£120 on my parts. Always have, probably always will. Never pay more than that for any single part, except maybe the GFX at £150.
So I'd end up getting a top end i5?
I'd only recommend going the extra cores for movie encoding. Really nothing, that's nothing uses more than 4.

[Gary]

I aim for £80-£120 on my parts. Always have, probably always will. Never pay more than that for any single part, except maybe the GFX at £150.
So I'd end up getting a top end i5?
I'd only recommend going the extra cores for movie encoding. Really nothing, that's nothing uses more than 4.

i7 is still 4 cores but has turbo boost up to  3.8GHz Hyperthreading and 8M Cache, for future proofing as much as you ever can its a good bet I think.

[Technical Ben]

For the money yes, but as said, if your budget is less.
I thought the i7s went up to 6 cores now with 12 virtual (via HTing)?

[Niall]

I've been a long time fan of AMD since moving from my P3 CPU. AMD are vastly cheaper, sadly after bulldozer, there's a reason for it. Still, intel are horrendously expensive at £800 for the top CPU. The price difference means I will never move over unless I come into some money! Essentially you're starting again so I would have to buy motherboard, ram and CPU. Not cheap. I'm still using the last generation hex core AMD and I have yet to find anything that makes it struggle.