Current view: Intel vs AMD

[jdh79]

I have been an AMD processor buyer for years (I don't remember the last Intel processor I owned, was probably a 486). However, the Core 2 Duos are just annihilating even the highest end Athlon X2's across the board.

Also, Intel has massively dropped their prices this week. The E6600 is down to $232, and that outperforms every Athlon, even the 6000+, and the E6320 and E6420 are $176 and $173. The 6000+ is listed as more expensive than the E6600. I am just wondering if your statement that AMD processors are faster and a better buy than Intel needs to be revised.

The other issue, is that I find AMD-based chipsets to be somewhat dodgy in terms of stability. I have suffered through plenty of VIA, SiS, ALi, ULi and Nvidia chipset related problems over the years. Since switching to a Core2Duo on an Intel chipset, the stability difference has been amazing. I don't know if Intel chipsets are more stable because they are more common so every software/hardware manufacturer makes sure their product works with them or because Intel just makes better chipsets.

[Rob]

You may have a point, here. If you've found any good reference links then posting those would be appreciated.

[jdh79]

Here is a link with one of many reviews showing the e6600 crushing even the Athlon FX-62 pretty much across the board.

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=2097

[Rob]

The link doesn't match up the Intel E6600 to the Athlon X2 6000+, but I found some other comparisons that did. These two processors are comparable, but overall the E6600 is the better performer, in some cases by as much as 10 percent. With the E6600 priced below the Athlon X2 6000+, I'd say Intel has become the better buy. I'll see about making an update to the site. I may need to start including components from both lines in my recommendations because price changes can now swing things one way or the other quickly.

[jdh79]

And the other factor is with the Barcelona core processors launching in the next few months, AMD is probably going to ditch AM2, while LGA775 at least already supports quad core for if they come down in price. Therefore, with the factors of competitive price, better performance, and better upgradability, I don't see why any reason to go with AMD right now.

[Rob]

Very interesting. So what motherboards do you like for the E6600?

[jdh79]

Hi Rob,

I would reccommend going with a board with the Intel P965 chipset especially if you don't need SLI. The Nvidia and ATI chipsets have shown marginally higher performance in benchmarks, however I would use Intel because it is so much more stable. I realize AMD-based chipsets have come a long way but even with socket 939 chipsets, I still have had plenty of bizarre issues and incompatibilities that have gone away with an Intel chipset.

Here are some of the boards I would go for for a basic, non-SLI build.

MSI P965 Neo-F LGA 775 Intel P965 Express ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail 84.99
ASUS P5B LGA 775 Intel P965 Express ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail 119.99
GIGABYTE GA-965P-DS3 LGA 775 Intel P965 Express ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail 129.99

[Gen.Manapua]

I was thinking of building the (next) SuperPC. This conversation may make me build one with an Intel Core2. Which Intel chip would equivalent to the AMD 5200+. Besides the motherboard, could I build your (next) SuperPC with all the same components?

[jdh79]

Well, the e6600 clearly outperforms the 6000+.

The 5200+ is listed at $169 on NewEgg, and the price comparable Core 2 Duo is the e6300 at $167. However, I would strongly recommend paying the extra $23 and going to the e6420, because you would get signifigantly better performance. The clock speed is 2.13 GHz vs 1.86, and the e6420 also has double the L2 cache. I think either the e6420 or the e6600 if you want to pay $40 more are the sweet spots.

Other than the motherboard recommendation, the rest of Robb's recommendations should hold true, because the C2D uses the same DDR2 RAM and other components as AMD systems.