question about AMD vs. Intel

Namelessv1 · 23rd December 2007, 22:52

I'm planning on building a new rig on a budget, but I don't know whether to go with an AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ or an Intel Core 2 Duo E4500. The AMD is clocked at 2.8 GHz while the Intel, which is ~$100 more with appropriate mobo, is only clocked at 2.2 GHz.

Is the Intel worth the extra money, or should I just go with the AMD? I'm not planning on overclocking.

I've tried googling for comparisons, but all I got was a bunch of "Intel is better than AMD" responses, or vice versa. I also checked Tom's Hardware CPU chart, but it doesn't list the E4500.

General Geoff · 24th December 2007, 09:33

For your particular price point, the AMD is the better deal. Unless you're spending enough money to get performance past the best AMD chips, AMD will be faster for less money.

Edit; also, I'd look into getting an Athlon 64 X2 5200+ Brisbane core proc; while it has a slightly lower clock speed (2.7ghz vs 2.8), it has a newer/smaller manufacturing process (65nm vs 90) and thus will run cooler, consume less energy, and most likely be just as fast as the higher clocked (but older) chip, for all practical purposes.

Rocker · 24th December 2007, 10:01

get an even cheaper core2 (2xxx series) and overclock the shit out of it.

Canon · 24th December 2007, 11:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Namelessv1
I'm not planning on overclocking.

k_rock923 · 24th December 2007, 14:32

I believe Rocker can read. . .

EfaustuS9 · 25th December 2007, 05:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Rocker
get an even cheaper core2 (2xxx series) and overclock the shit out of it.

You could try the Athlon x64 Black Edition which has a factory unlocked multiplier giving you some great bang for the buck. You can pick it up on the cheap at New Egg.With a factory unlocked multiplier you may want to reconsider overclocking as you will not have to mess with the bus speed to get more out of the CPU and thereby save the rest of your system the stress that overclocking by the fsb creates.

23rd December 2007, 22:52	#1
Namelessv1 Forum King Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 4,757	question about AMD vs. Intel I'm planning on building a new rig on a budget, but I don't know whether to go with an AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ or an Intel Core 2 Duo E4500. The AMD is clocked at 2.8 GHz while the Intel, which is ~$100 more with appropriate mobo, is only clocked at 2.2 GHz. Is the Intel worth the extra money, or should I just go with the AMD? I'm not planning on overclocking. I've tried googling for comparisons, but all I got was a bunch of "Intel is better than AMD" responses, or vice versa. I also checked Tom's Hardware CPU chart, but it doesn't list the E4500.

24th December 2007, 14:32	#5
k_rock923 \m/ (Forum King) Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: /bin/bash Posts: 7,850	I believe Rocker can read. . . Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

24th December 2007, 09:33	#2
General Geoff Major Dude Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania Posts: 1,254	For your particular price point, the AMD is the better deal. Unless you're spending enough money to get performance past the best AMD chips, AMD will be faster for less money. Edit; also, I'd look into getting an Athlon 64 X2 5200+ Brisbane core proc; while it has a slightly lower clock speed (2.7ghz vs 2.8), it has a newer/smaller manufacturing process (65nm vs 90) and thus will run cooler, consume less energy, and most likely be just as fast as the higher clocked (but older) chip, for all practical purposes.

24th December 2007, 10:01	#3
Rocker Hiding in plain sight (mod) Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 9,910	get an even cheaper core2 (2xxx series) and overclock the shit out of it.