Which CPU brand do you choose? Version 3

Which CPU Manufacturer leads in 08'?

  • AMD

    Votes: 8 15.4%

  • Intel

    Votes: 39 75.0%

  • Use the best tool for the job

    Votes: 5 9.6%
  • Total voters
    52
Mitch?

Mitch?

banned
fortyways said:
I have a question for those who are saying AMD processors are good for budget builds:

How do you respond to the fact that Intel's Celeron Dual-Core and Pentium Dual-Core lines outperform, cost less, use less energy, and create less heat than comparable AMD processors?

It would seem to me that the only conceivable reason to buy an AMD processor is to support them in an effort to avoid an Intel monopoly.
Click to expand...

no. no. no.
AMD 5000+ (BE or not) is 65w 2.6ghz and very oc'able.
Intel E2200 is 65w 2.2ghz and also oc'able.
Pair either up with a board of similar specs and AMD comes out ahead, the quality of motherboard/price ratio is way in AMD's favor. Especially if your going for an upgrade, as most AM2 boards are now AM2+, naturally at a good price, compared with loads of Intel chipsets that can't handle 45nm.
 
F

fortyways

banned
Steelshivan said:
A great reason to go AMD in a budget build is if you aren't an overclocker. Stock for stock AMD beats the above processors at the different price points. Also it is considerably easier to find a reliable, good enough AMD mobo for cheaper than the same for Intel.

Kind of off-topic, but I would never in my worst nightmare buy a Celeron. Would you?
Click to expand...

Mr. Johanssen said:
no. no. no.
AMD 5000+ (BE or not) is 65w 2.6ghz and very oc'able.
Intel E2200 is 65w 2.2ghz and also oc'able.
Pair either up with a board of similar specs and AMD comes out ahead, the quality of motherboard/price ratio is way in AMD's favor. Especially if your going for an upgrade, as most AM2 boards are now AM2+, naturally at a good price, compared with loads of Intel chipsets that can't handle 45nm.
Click to expand...


Clock for clock, which I believe you meant to say when you said "stock for stock," any Intel Core processor (including the newish Celerons) beats any AMD.

I just bought an E1200 for $40 the other day. Perhaps you haven't heard, but Celerons don't use Netburst anymore. It's an underclocked Core 2 with smaller cache.

I paired it with a $57 Gigabyte G31 board (supports 45nm, not that I'd ever need to upgrade to it before the new socket type is out anyway), and the system flies. I was able to undervolt the processor to 1.0V since core processors are so efficient, and now it idles at room temperature and doesn't break 45C on load with the stock cooler (which never spins up above 1000RPM). Alternatively, I could overclock it about 3GHz with no voltage increase, but the needs of the computer don't call for that.
 
S

Steelshivan

New Member
No, I did mean "stock for stock" as in not overclocked vs not overclocked...since...that's what my post had to do with.

Clock for clock I agree that those Intels beat the AMD's. Only problem is they are clocked lower, sometimes considerably so depending on which ones you are looking at. Stock for stock I will take the AMD anyday.

Edit: I would never buy a Celeron, for the name alone.
 
hermeslyre

hermeslyre

VIP Member
fortyways said:
I just bought an E1200 for $40 the other day. Perhaps you haven't heard, but Celerons don't use Netburst anymore. It's an underclocked Core 2 with smaller cache.
Click to expand...

There you go. Celeron is nothing but a name, that they've garnered a bad reputation in the past should give little reason to overlook them today, all things considered.

Intel is dominating AMD in all areas, better everything and at every price point. Admitting this doesn't make someone partial or biased, but truthful. Therefore someone of my nature chooses whatever is best for the job, If IBM's new chip is all that, call me a supporter.
 
Mitch?

Mitch?

banned
fortyways said:
Clock for clock, which I believe you meant to say when you said "stock for stock," any Intel Core processor (including the newish Celerons) beats any AMD.

I just bought an E1200 for $40 the other day. Perhaps you haven't heard, but Celerons don't use Netburst anymore. It's an underclocked Core 2 with smaller cache.

I paired it with a $57 Gigabyte G31 board (supports 45nm, not that I'd ever need to upgrade to it before the new socket type is out anyway), and the system flies. I was able to undervolt the processor to 1.0V since core processors are so efficient, and now it idles at room temperature and doesn't break 45C on load with the stock cooler (which never spins up above 1000RPM). Alternatively, I could overclock it about 3GHz with no voltage increase, but the needs of the computer don't call for that.
Click to expand...

for low power the celerons are ok, but your flaunting oc potential on 57 USD gigabyte g31 board which is the lowest of the g3x series chipset and has (at least from what i've gathered) rather poor oc ratings.
For a scant 3 dollars more you can pick up a BIOSTAR A740G M2+ 740G board, which has integrated HD2100 video, and support for AM2+, ddr1066, and built in DVI port.
 
F

fortyways

banned
Mr. Johanssen said:
for low power the celerons are ok, but your flaunting oc potential on 57 USD gigabyte g31 board which is the lowest of the g3x series chipset and has (at least from what i've gathered) rather poor oc ratings.
For a scant 3 dollars more you can pick up a BIOSTAR A740G M2+ 740G board, which has integrated HD2100 video, and support for AM2+, ddr1066, and built in DVI port.
Click to expand...

The point that you're missing is that the Celeron is an underclocked Core 2.

Its stock FSB is 200Mhz, its multiplier 8x. If I were to raise the FSB to only 333MHz (the Gigabyte board officially supports FSB 1333), I'm already at 2.66GHz.

So perhaps I did exaggerate about 3GHz, maybe I was assuming the multiplier was 9x. I do know for a fact, however, that I could reach 2.66GHz without any issue or voltage increase.

Also, eww, Biostar.
 
Last edited:
F

fortyways

banned
Bob Jeffery said:
this thread has become a food fight :D. I was just saying, in my oppinion, for $87us u can get a 2.8ghz amd
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103235 or a 2.4 intel for $89us
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx Item=N82E16819116070
yes,intel may win,but there is the oclock factor,and motherboards....
Click to expand...

Your link is broken, but I'm going to assume it goes to the E2200. It's almost as if you believe the clock speed is the deciding factor in which one is faster (the Intel is faster), but I know nobody on a computer forum would ever believe such a foolish thing so I won't explain why that's wrong.
 
G25r8cer

G25r8cer

Active Member
fortyways said:
I have a question for those who are saying AMD processors are good for budget builds:

How do you respond to the fact that Intel's Celeron Dual-Core and Pentium Dual-Core lines outperform, cost less, use less energy, and create less heat than comparable AMD processors?

It would seem to me that the only conceivable reason to buy an AMD processor is to support them in an effort to avoid an Intel monopoly.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that we care about your opinion?? We go for AMD because of price and nothing else. Not all of us are rich you know. Wow are you an Intel fanboy!!
 
F

fortyways

banned
g25racer said:
Do you really think that we care about your opinion?? We go for AMD because of price and nothing else. Not all of us are rich you know. Wow are you an Intel fanboy!!
Click to expand...

Were you aware that my E2160 costs less than your 5200+? And performs better (not that that matters to me)? Were you also aware that I expressed no opinions in the quote you posted to let me know about your indifference (although, in responding to it at all, you prove otherwise)?

Go away, men are speaking.

Bob Jeffery said:
I said the intel was faster, but some people aren't rich :)
Click to expand...

And yet:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...2+50001157+40000343+1050729314&name=Dual-Core
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116064
 
Last edited:
Ethan3.14159

Ethan3.14159

Active Member
fortyways said:
Were you aware that my E2160 costs less than your 5200+? And performs better (not that that matters to me)? Were you also aware that I expressed no opinions in the quote you posted to let me know about your indifference (although, in responding to it at all, you prove otherwise)?

Go away, men are speaking.



And yet:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...2+50001157+40000343+1050729314&name=Dual-Core
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116064
Click to expand...

yeah in what wonderland does a pentium e2160 outperform a 5200+, in pcwizard 08 benchmarks my 5000+ i only slightly behind the e6600 which is almost twice the price. you cant rant until your blue in the face your not going to change anyones opinion just like im not going to change yours.

the pentium allendales are old and slower than athlon x2's of the similar price but then again you probably cant read this with your head so far up your ass. people like amd because of price/performance or a general distaste for intel.
 
Bob Jeffery

Bob Jeffery

New Member
fortyways said:
Were you aware that my E2160 costs less than your 5200+? And performs better (not that that matters to me)? Were you also aware that I expressed no opinions in the quote you posted to let me know about your indifference (although, in responding to it at all, you prove otherwise)?

Go away, men are speaking.



And yet:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...2+50001157+40000343+1050729314&name=Dual-Core
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116064
Click to expand...
The motherboards are cheaper and easier to get....
 
Ramodkk

Ramodkk

VIP Member
Lol, chill out man (to Ethan), the E2xxx can overclock to very high speeds which usually beat even the 6000 series from AMD
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top