[iTouch]

Hey,

I have a very good AMD CPU but people are telling me that if i want to upgrade I should move the Intel. Now its been a few years since I last used Intel's, No particular reason just because there more reliable for me so im happy with it and kept it.

Which processors do you think is the best for its performance, stability, reliability and on its overall performance?

[Joshuashawharvey]

It really depends on what you use your computer for, and your preference.

I've had both Intel and AMD CPU's, and in my opinion, most of the time, the Intel CPU's i've used have always come up trumps.

I used to prefer AMD CPU's many years ago, but then I purchased an Intel Celeron D 2.4GHz nearly 4 years ago. I compared this to my mates AMD Athlon XP 3000+ which was one of AMD's best processors at the time, and my low-spec Intel CPU was on par in all synthetic benchmarks I ran. The AMD did feel smoother in real-world performance, but that was down to the fact that my mates AMD had 1GB of RAM and my computer only had 256MB.
He then purchased an AMD Athlon 64, and it was absolutely terrible. His old Athlon XP outperformed it by a mile.

I now have an Intel Core2Quad Q6600, and my mate has an AMD Phenom 9850, and I can wholeheartedly say that my CPU feels much smoother and outperforms my mates AMD counterpart in almost all synthetic benchmarks. The only part my mates AMD outperforms my Intel is in memory speeds, even though he has slower RAM than mine, his still outperforms. This is only due to the Hypertransport on the AMD in favour of the FSB on the Intel.

[samjohnson]

No doubt about it that Intels are far better than AMDs right now. I myself have a AMD and can't complain in the least bit. But if you want the best out there then Intels are the way to go.

*edit* Josh posted right before me and I didn't see it.

Hes right though, it does depend on what you want your computer for. But still Intel is the best in the biz.

[iTouch]

Well with my PC i use it for, Surfing the web, music making, downloading, code editing and listening to music, watching films, playing games (not a serious gamer). Thats really it.

Im quite happy with my AMD but for a better computer is Intel the best?

[Blackmirror]

Whats the difference between the 2 ??

[Joshuashawharvey]

Considering what you would use your computer for, I think either a Core2Duo, or an Athlon X2 would be suitable. Just choose your preference and your price range then you will find the right CPU for you

[iTouch]

Thats why im using the AMD Phenom X4 9950 2.6GHz Black Edition Socket AM2+

So if i was to upgrade which do you think would be the best to upgrade to?

[Joshuashawharvey]

Originally Posted by Blackmirror

Whats the difference between the 2 ??

Well (apparently) AMD are a year behind on technology of Intel. Intel have 45nm CPU's available and have done for some time now, AMD are yet to release 45nm CPU's.

AMD use something called HyperTransport, which is an integrated memory contoller in the CPU, resulting in overall better RAM performance than FSB used on Intel chipsets. Though Intel are now using their own method of HyperTansport in their new processors called QuickPath

Intel always have higher clock speeds than AMD, usually because AMD are unable to stretch anymore performance out of certain process technologies probably due to financial restrictions.

Usually, I find that AMD have higher TDP's than their Intel counterparts, resulting in their processors being hotter and more energy consuming. Though AMD often release Energy Efficient CPU's to counteract that.

AMD CPU's are usually cheaper, but that is beginning to not be the case anymore. You will find that some of the Intel CPU's that are on par/outperform their AMD counterparts are cheaper.

That's my view on differences anyway

[Blackmirror]

Many thanks
I ws curious

[Joshuashawharvey]

Originally Posted by iTouch

Thats why im using the AMD Phenom X4 9950 2.6GHz Black Edition Socket AM2+

So if i was to upgrade which do you think would be the best to upgrade to?

To be honest, I don't see the need to upgrade if that's the CPU you have. That is AMD's top CPU, and is on par with the Q6600 in performance so I read. If you wanted more performance you would need to purchase an Intel Core2Quad Q9450 2.66GHz or above, which would set you back around £250 or more

[iTouch]

Thanks.

Im thinking of buying a server CPU

[Daveskater]

I usually prefer AMD CPU's, mostly because of the price difference. Josh says that now the Intel counterparts are about the same price, but with the budget that I built my PC on, every penny counted

I'm still happy with my CPU though, partially because I was originally going to get a 4400+, and had to get a 4800+ in the end because the shop stopped selling the 4400, but it also happened to be cheaper Plus, coming from a 2GHz Athlon XP-M, it's a big difference

What I think makes quite a big difference is that Intel use larger L2 Cache's. Most of their rage have a good couple of MB, on Josh's CPU it is probably 8, but on your CPU it is probably 4, which will make a difference having that extra MB per core. I'm not quite sure why they put less cache on their processors, but they do.

[dudeking]

I used to be hardcore into AMD lol, I wouldn't even touch a PC that was intel. But tbh now intel is too far ahead for AMD to ever catch up as I see it. The Phenom's are very poor compared to the Core 2 Quad's. I would recommend intel to any one at the moment.

[Joshuashawharvey]

I agree Eddie. Well, I wouldn't say the Phenoms were very poor, because i've used a couple of them myself, but they are slightly disappointing, especially considering the age difference between the Q6600 and AMD's latest processors. They seem to be on par or only slighly outdo their 1 year + 3 months old Intel counterpart.

Originally Posted by Daveskater

What I think makes quite a big difference is that Intel use larger L2 Cache's. Most of their rage have a good couple of MB, on Josh's CPU it is probably 8, but on your CPU it is probably 4, which will make a difference having that extra MB per core. I'm not quite sure why they put less cache on their processors, but they do.

That's a really good point you made there mate. I'm not entirely sure myself. Well in their latest processors they've used the shared L3 cache which apparently gives is a little more boost in performance as opposed to just L2 cache. They also use HyperTransport which counteracts the lower L2 cache and slower clock speeds. Probably to do with some finiancial restrictions aswell.

Look at Intels new Core i7 processors. They only have 256KB L2 cache per core, but a shared 8MB L3 cache, which is less cache than the 12MB in their current processors. Because Intel are now reusing their own method of Hyper Threading called QuickPath.

There probably isn't a need for so much cache with an integrated memory controller.

Another difference that occurred to me. AMD used to use a speed index rather than give out a specific clock speed, as the processor is meant to be of similar effective speeds to their intel counterparts. i.e an Athlon XP 3000+ is supposedly the equivalent to a Pentium 4 3.0GHz, but only really has a 2.1GHz clock speed. This has confused a lot of people, and many still don't understand it.

[Daveskater]

I don't really understand why they do that, it's a bit misleading when you see a box on the shelf that says 3000+ so you think "oh yeah, that'll be 3GHz then" but it's actually way less than that. If it was something like 2.8GHz then it wouldn't matter so much, but when it's nearly a whole GHz less than what it looks like, it's a bit more of a big deal.

[Joshuashawharvey]

Yeah I know what you mean mate. They use the index to indicate it's effective speed rather than it's real speed. If you look at a Pentium 4 at 3.0GHz then you see an Athlon XP 2.1GHz, it's going to look less appealing to the customer, so what AMD have done is shown the effective speed equivalent of it's Intel counterpart so it looks more appealing to the customer.

[dudeking]

I said that one the basis I have only used the older models, you know the 9800 before it was the 9850. Which were pretty poor as you had to basically limit there potential to stop lockups.

[Joshuashawharvey]

Yeah I know what you mean mate. You're talking about the TLB erratum in the 9500 and 9600 models when they were first released, which caused crashes when running virtualisation software. They fixed this with a disable virtualisation option in the BIOS, which, as a result, limited the performance. Months later they brought out B3 steppings of the processors known as the 9550 and 9650 with fixed TLB. Now they all have 50 on the end of the models to represent the fixed TLB.
This put many customers off and they lost faith in AMD. Something like that hadn't happened since the FDIV Foating Point bug in the original Intel Pentium in the early '90's

[Adam951]

Processor Competitive Comparison - AMD Phenom? Processors[url="http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_15331_15332%5E15346,00.html"]

[Joshuashawharvey]

That's slightly outdated.

Intel now has X58 (LGA 1366) infrastructure

Process Technology for Intel is now 45nm

FSB upto 1600MHz, not the 1333MHz stated on the comparison, and now recently 6.2GT/s because of QuickPath in the new processors.

There is now an integrated memory controller in the Core i7 which supports 3xDDR3 1333/1600 MHz.

Chipset now includes X48 and X58

Max TDP for AMD is 140w, and for Intel it's 136w