Comparing AMD & Intel

D

doug1987

New Member
I am about to buy a new computer, spending about £500 (no monitor, k/b etc), and don't know what proccessors are comparable, in terms of price and performance.

Is it fair to compare Phenom and Core 2 Proccessors etc...... Past experience has told me that AMD are better value for money, which ones are best. Is a quad core proccessor that says 2.2ghz equivalent to 8.8ghz? I have a Centrino Duo 1.6ghz laptop. Is that 2x 1.6ghz or 2x 800mhz....?

I use the computer for PhotoShop and CAD work, the internet etc, not really games.

Thanks :)
 
Get Intel without a doubt. 500 is a tight budget for a good all around computer but it's a GREAT start.

P.S. 1.6ghz Dual Core is 2x 1.6ghz.
 
get quad core, as fast as you can afford. put 2gb or more memory into it, and buy a low grade workstation video card for it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814195064 would do just fine

if you can't afford quad core then dual core is just fine too, but get the video card, you'll notice a difference imo.. for those applications.

i dont want to take sides, but intel does have better performance per clock in most applications, but AMD is still a good company and their processors are very excellent. intel overclocks their processors a lot and most people really dont give AMD enough credit for what they do. i mean for one, they just bought ATI and they're spending a lot of their time on graphics processors too... on another hand they have hypertransport on their side still, which is excellent for quad core which gets bottlenecked by intels fsb at lower speeds..

with how unstable the processor market has been lately AMD could pull ahead just by throwing 16 cores into a processor. god knows intels "front side bus" couldn't handle that. then again DDR3 couldn't either so who knows.
 
Last edited:
fade2green514 said:
get quad core, as fast as you can afford. put 2gb or more memory into it, and buy a low grade workstation video card for it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814195064 would do just fine

if you can't afford quad core then dual core is just fine too, but get the video card, you'll notice a difference imo.. for those applications.

i dont want to take sides, but intel does have better performance per clock in most applications, but AMD is still a good company and their processors are very excellent. intel overclocks their processors a lot and most people really dont give AMD enough credit for what they do. i mean for one, they just bought ATI and they're spending a lot of their time on graphics processors too... on another hand they have hypertransport on their side still, which is excellent for quad core which gets bottlenecked by intels fsb at lower speeds..

with how unstable the processor market has been lately AMD could pull ahead just by throwing 16 cores into a processor. god knows intels "front side bus" couldn't handle that. then again DDR3 couldn't either so who knows.
Click to expand...

I like the fact that you show both pros and cons of both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top