Intel or AMD?

[pputer]

I'm leaning towards an Intel-based computer with E6600 cpu (Core2Duo) but I recently read some posts regarding AMD's future motherboards and processors.

Is Intel still the best performance/cost choice? I think it is based on the computer I want to build which will be a HTPC. Intel's Core 2 Duo cpu can stay cooler and use less power. Is AMD a decent choice if you choose one of the sockets/motherboards that can upgrade to Barcelona or are the socket/motherboards not offered yet (as far as downloading goes). I like to support AMD mostly out of the competition basis (as Intel would overcharge if it was the only supplier). However, with AMD's recent purchase of ATI, I am not too fond of that arrangement. I prefer using Nvidia (video cards) because I like to have at least one Linux distro on my drive partition as Nvidia provides better Linux support so far.

Right now, I wanted to buy a budget-oriented computer and it doesn't have to necessarily be fully upgradeable to the best hardware but it would be nice if it was a good performance machine. I thought my options would be as follows:

1) budget machine - best performance/cost scenario. If I need better performance, I can re-invest in the newer stuff at a later date. Thus, I could consider both AMD and Intel.

2) Machine build with anticipation of future upgrades - therefore, I would need to research further, the hardware developments and upgrade options involved. AMD might be the better choice, then, but only when regarding price?

Comments?

[miahallen]

Comments?

Products currently availible:

Core2Duo (C2D) is more powerful at equal clock speeds, i.e. E6600>X2 4600+ but they are not equally priced. For the price, the E4300 and X2 4600+ are about even ($120), and perform about equally. The biggest performance difference only comes into play when OCing.

The E4300 will easily OC 50%, and in some cases has been know to overclock 100% or more...yes that is 3.6GHZ compared to stock speed of 1.8GHz.

The X2 4600+ will easily OC 20% and will sometimes go as high as 30%....but nowhere near the headroom of the C2D.

If you are not interested in OCing, it's a pretty even playing field. I would have to correct you on one point though...the X2 CPUs are very energy efficient, in some tests, much better than the C2D. See this recent artical from THG

Future products:

Things could change a lot over the next year or so...but it's hard to say who will come out on top. Intel definitely has the upper hand right now, and while they are free to work on developing and refining, etc...AMD is hard at work playing catch up.

Agena is the desktop version of the Barcelona core, and it will be AM2 compatible(although it will be limited to 1GHz HT speeds), but it's designed to run with 3-3.6GHz HT speeds on the AM2+ socket. AMD claims it's new platform will be faster than Intels current offereing at equal clock speeds, the problem is that most people expect Intel's new chips to be released at much higher clock speeds than AMD...see below.

Intel is already preparing the answer to Barcelona/Agena with it's new 45nm process via the Penryn Core. It has been showing great promise, and is already running at very high clock speeds(much higher than the Agena is expected to run). There is a small gamble with Intel, they have not been quite as forthcoming with upgradeablilty. Rummor is "some" socket 775 systems will accept the Penryn with a BIOS update, but nothing official concerning backwards compatability has yet been released except to say that they will be pin compatible with the current 775 socket. So, it's a bit of a gamble to say that you could buy a C2D based system now, and expect to drop in a Penryn later.

My choice:

If I was you, I'd take the gamble and get a new system based on the C2D. I say this primarily, because I would recommend a OC, and because the Penryn looks vastly more promising than the Agena.

On the other hand, if you like to support the underdog, especially now while they are down (AMD), I'd stand behind you. Intel has a huge market share, and I'd be tempted to go AMD just to help them stay afloat....WE NEED AMD!. If AMD dies, Intel with have a monopoly, and we'll all loose.

So, good luck with your build, and I hope this information was helpfull to you.

[jojo4u]

If you care about idle power consumption, AMD ist the way to go. Otherwise just look out for the features. I would not care about upgrading since it's a gamble and quite useless to put a new CPU on a aging platform (esp. with integrated graphics).

[croddie]

Jojo4u, do you know what's the cause of higher intel idle consumption? Not the processor presumably - at least you posted about a very low power one recently the 4300. Is it the chipset? Maybe the new Intel P35 chipset will improve things as it's on a smaller process? Or am I way out here?

[pputer]

But, if you are using a computer as a HTPC and/or you're constantly ripping DVDs or transcoding/encoding, the computer wouldn't be considered at idle?

[jojo4u]

Jojo4u, do you know what's the cause of higher intel idle consumption? Not the processor presumably - at least you posted about a very low power one recently the 4300. Is it the chipset?

Yes, it are the chipsets. The CPU used to have a share of this but with the new power-efficient generation of C2Ds the difference should become lower, but I still see AMD in the lead. I would not count on the P3x chipsets since since the 965 series was a letdown in this regard. You would be fine with a Abit iL-90MV, though. See here.

[jaganath]

But, if you are using a computer as a HTPC and/or you're constantly ripping DVDs or transcoding/encoding, the computer wouldn't be considered at idle?

basically, the power consumption of A64 X2 and C2D is now so close as makes no difference; AMD better at idle, C2D better at load. C2D has better performance but costs more, A64 X2 cheap but lower performance. so look at your budget and decide which suits your goals for this HTPC.

[Max Slowik]

HTPCs aren't about overclocking, and furthermore, they're not really about processor performance. They're about encode/transcode performance, and overall performance/watt.

AMD wins out there, at the low end, and while idling. Also, with a 690 chipset you're looking at a dual-core PC that will draw 150 watts under a heavy load.

Remember that your video capture card will handle most of your encoding overhead, your video card will handle most of your transcode/decode overhead, and onboard audio is exceedingly good nowadays.

Seriously, all you need is an X2 3600. In fact, you'd be surprised to find that even single-core processors are good enough for HTPCs.

And if you're not going HD, the onboard video of the 690 is probably plenty.

Spend that money on a spiffy case.

[~El~Jefe~]

amd. motherboards are awesome and 50%-70% less cost for much more features and cooler running boards.

kinda hard to look at anything else unless youre an oc'ing gamer type who believes in the c2d is the gamers chip myth.

I bet 100% that you can overclock your video on board with no negative effects. Yes, that is a strange idea but some boards it is possible.