Intel Core i's vs. AMD

[Xxpereraxx]

I've got amd bulldozer 6 core over clocked to 4.0ghz and it's great runs very fast and great performance in games there is also a patch for windows 7 to help with support for the bulldozer

[arindred]

What you want to consider as well is that AMD is bowing out of the processor race, so Intel will be the exclusive maker of processors. Thus for the long haul down the road if you are thinking of making a computer for the ages to keep upgrading, an Intel processor and motherboard is what you need.

[jamesL]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...mark,3099.html


The $1200 build with the
AMD FX-6100
3.3 - 3.9 GHz, 8 MB L3 Cache

and TWO Radeon HD 6950 1 GB


gets completely stomped by

the $600 build with the

Intel Core i5-2400
3.1 - 3.4 GHz, 6 MB L3 Cache

and a single Radeon HD 6870 1 GB

Looking at your responses, it seems that the tables have turned since a few years ago and Intel is the prime gaming CPU maker now. What about for non-gaming uses then? I do work with Autodesk 3DS Max (very processor-intensive, but only uses a single core so far), and some video encoding with Adobe Premier/Media Encoder/After Effects (very processor-intensive; uses all four of my cores), besides gaming. Are the Intels still the best choice for that, or is AMD overall a better choice for that? Or what would AMDs better serve as, PC wise? Servers?

Intel Core i5-2400
3.10 GHz Quad-Core

or higher is always the way to go

[Tilitoon]

I've got amd bulldozer 6 core over clocked to 4.0ghz and it's great runs very fast and I can run games there is also a patch for windows 7 to help with support for the bulldozer which gives a 1% improvement.

Fixed.


Even the i5 clocked at 3.3Ghz will be faster than an FX at 3.6Ghz in games.

[Buu]

Looking at your responses, it seems that the tables have turned since a few years ago and Intel is the prime gaming CPU maker now. What about for non-gaming uses then? I do work with Autodesk 3DS Max (very processor-intensive, but only uses a single core so far), and some video encoding with Adobe Premier/Media Encoder/After Effects (very processor-intensive; uses all four of my cores), besides gaming. Are the Intels still the best choice for that, or is AMD overall a better choice for that? Or what would AMDs better serve as, PC wise? Servers?

For that question, I'd ask for help at tomshardware.com. While there might be a few users here who know the answer, there's a larger pool there.

[Dyz]

The best advice at the moment, if you dont know much about how cpu's actually work, is that Intel Chips are currently king at just about everything, and AMD is the budget chip. If you can afford a couple extra bucks, the Intel chips in comparison to their AMD counterparts are the better bang for the buck at every tier.

[Diab]

Thanks all for the advice and information. I'm a die-hard AMD fan and it's very hard letting them go. I would even possibly get a lower-class processor for the same price just to stick with AMD, just for brand loyalty.


However...

What you want to consider as well is that AMD is bowing out of the processor race, so Intel will be the exclusive maker of processors. Thus for the long haul down the road if you are thinking of making a computer for the ages to keep upgrading, an Intel processor and motherboard is what you need.

I think this is the greatest determining factor for me in this thread. I always spend a little extra to get top-of-the-line products that will last me for years to come, future-proofing in every way possible. It's how I have a 3-4 year old PC that can still run pretty much everything very well. So if AMD is really bowing out of the enthusiast/gamer-class processor race, I guess I will have to lean towards switching to Intel my next upgrade.

At least I can still keep buying their Radeons.

[Tilitoon]

Yea it sucks that they are getting stomped by Intel, competition is always good for the consumers. I'd love to support AMD too (I've done it in the past when they actually had good CPUs (Athlon 64 vs Intel Pentium 4 for example)... but today the game is very different.

[Kuma Hobby]

Looking at your responses, it seems that the tables have turned since a few years ago and Intel is the prime gaming CPU maker now. What about for non-gaming uses then? I do work with Autodesk 3DS Max (very processor-intensive, but only uses a single core so far), and some video encoding with Adobe Premier/Media Encoder/After Effects (very processor-intensive; uses all four of my cores), besides gaming. Are the Intels still the best choice for that, or is AMD overall a better choice for that? Or what would AMDs better serve as, PC wise? Servers?

intel has always been a better CPU maker. AMD is more of a cheaper alternative.

If you look at the market share, intel has 90% of the CPU chipset market.

[Davidus]

gaming benchmark. even the phenom ii x4 is better for gaming
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100_6.html#sect0