Why did you chose Intel over AMD?

[translatingthename]

Hello,

I am doing research for a new build and thought I would come here to get some opinions. I could not help but notice that Intel's Quad-core processors are a lot more popular than AMD's, but I am not sure I understand exactly why.

Specifically, I was wondering about the Phenom X4 9850 BE processor (available on newegg here for $195). I looked around and it seems like the direct competition to this chip from Intel is the Q6600, which is about $190 on newegg.

To me it seems like the 9850 BE is about just as good if not a little better than the Q6600 in terms of specs and stock performance. I noticed through reading newegg reviews, however, that some people favor the Q6600 because it overclocks a lot better (9850 does not seem to overclock well at all really).

I also thought that maybe it could have something to do with the motherboard/platform being used. Then I researched different motherboards and it doesn't seem like the 790FX series (AM2+) is so bad...

So what do you guys think? I need some good advise and would like to know why you chose Intel's quad-core over the AMD Phenom X4 processors?

EDIT: lastly, if AMD's Phenom X4 processors are competitive with the Intel ones, then why might the Intel ones be selling so much more than the Phenom?

Thanks! :smile:

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

The reason why intel sells more is because intel is alot more well known and has the better reputation to the general public. The local computer store wont sell amd btw because he says they always break, which ofcourse is rubbish.

Just look at what offers the most performance for what you want. I bought a athlong x2500+ years ago because it was damn cheap (including the mainbords, the awsome nf7-s didnt cost a thing compared to intel ones) and overclocked like crazy (it did 2.5ghz on air, running at 3200+ since day 1 without a problem) and I bought a64 because it also was faster and cheaper than what intel had (around my pricepoint atleast). Now when I bought a quadcore intel some time ago I did that because it was alot faster than what AMD had and for my HTPC I did the opposite again and bought amd because it offerd relative fast power at low price and low energy consumption + the mainbord with onboard gfx are just alot cheaper than what intel has for the same performance and functions.

So just look what performs best for the money you have to spend.

 

[Davros]

when i bought a q6600 there were no amd quad cores

 

[pjbliverpool]

AMD's fastest is competitive with Intels slowest. If your only interested in Intels slowest or slower (cheaper), then AMD is a valid choice.

However for only a little more money you can get an Intel CPU thats quite a bit faster and which is unmatched by AMD's line up.

The fact is that today, most people would choose Penryn over Conroe and AMD isn't performance competitive with Penryn.

 

[tabs]

I chose Intel because at the time they were:
Faster at stock speeds for the same money.
Overclocked massively better.
The ability to use a solid Intel chipset.

The AMD option had literally nothing going for it, for me. It's a shame because I really enjoyed the 939 days and preaching 'AMD' to the ignorant Intel masses.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Higher performance per clock + higher clocks = faster all-around.

Also, the overclocking potential is much greater on current Intel parts.

 

[I.S.T.]

Personally, I chose Intel because I knew I could get a lot more performance out of an OC than I could with AMD this time. Things might be different five years from now on that front. I also was not impressed with the chipsets available for AMD's CPUs at the time, and I still am not.

 

[Albuquerque]

Specifically, I was wondering about the Phenom X4 9850 BE processor (available on newegg here for $195). I looked around and it seems like the direct competition to this chip from Intel is the Q6600, which is about $190 on newegg.

Depends on how you want to determine "competition". At similar price levels? You're right. At similar availability, the Phenom is competing with Intel's 45nm Quads, the 9xxx series.

To me it seems like the 9850 BE is about just as good if not a little better than the Q6600 in terms of specs and stock performance. I noticed through reading newegg reviews, however, that some people favor the Q6600 because it overclocks a lot better (9850 does not seem to overclock well at all really).

The 9850 also consumes more power and (consequently) puts out more heat.

I also thought that maybe it could have something to do with the motherboard/platform being used. Then I researched different motherboards and it doesn't seem like the 790FX series (AM2+) is so bad...

It's not too bad.

EDIT: lastly, if AMD's Phenom X4 processors are competitive with the Intel ones, then why might the Intel ones be selling so much more than the Phenom?

As someone already mentioned, the highest-end Phenom X4 is the only processor that is competitive with the lowest-end Intel quad. So if you want more performance than the highest-end AMD, you can spend a bit extra and get quite a bit more performance, with less power consumption and less heat.

As for your original thread title? My reason is overclocking. When I can push a 2.66Ghz Q9450 to boot at 3.6Ghz on absolutely bone-stock voltage across the board (no "auto" setting, but truly bone-stock volts) then I have a winner. When I can push a 3.0Ghz E8400 all the way to 4.4Ghz daily on a very reasonable ~1.40 volts, then I have a winner.

When someone has to cuss and swear at a Phenom to get it "all the way" to 3.3Ghz at 1.55v, that doesn't seem like a great bargain.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

As been said, it just depends on what you want. But AMD has some very sensable stuff for sale. If you want pure speed its not AMD you want to buy at the moment but how many people really have the need for quadcore cpu's? If you look at amd's x2 4450e for example, uses only 45 watts tops, is extremely silent even with the stock fan and will cost you only 50 euro's. Combine that with a 780g chipset and you have something which intel cant beat as far as performance for that price goes. But its very useable for normal work or as a htpc server just not for the high-end.

AMD still has some very good stuff out, just not if you want the fastest of the fastest.

 

[Albuquerque]

I will say this (to echo tongue_of_colicab's remarks) -- if I were building a computer for my mother today, it would consist of all AMD parts. AMD has lots of cost-effective solutions for machines that will see "normal user" tasks like surfing, word processing, balancing the checkbook, playing an MP3 collection and viewing / archiving photos.

Everything she does would fit perfectly into the capabilities of an AMD x2 setup. My father as well, even though he's a bit more of a multitasker than my mom is...

 

[ShaidarHaran]

I'll (third) the opinion that AMD offers excellent value at the entry levels and mid-range of the market. They just can't compete at the high-end, where most enthusiasts buy parts.

 

[RussSchultz]

If I were building a computer for my mother, i'd buy a dell and not deal with 'building a computer'.

 

[Sxotty]

I chose Intel because at the time they were:
Faster at stock speeds for the same money.
Overclocked massively better.
The ability to use a solid Intel chipset.

The AMD option had literally nothing going for it, for me. It's a shame because I really enjoyed the 939 days and preaching 'AMD' to the ignorant Intel masses.

So I quoted b/c it is true for me, BUT

I have had nothing but headaches and trouble with my "solid" Intel chipset. It is as bad as the only VIA board I had from the bad old days.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

So I quoted b/c it is true for me, BUT

I have had nothing but headaches and trouble with my "solid" Intel chipset. It is as bad as the only VIA board I had from the bad old days.

Which board did you buy? Cheap board + good chipset still = crap.

I had problems with my first P35 board that were no fault of the board (and certainly not the chipset). I tried to get by with a cheap case when I built this rig and it ended up biting me in the butt. The case I bought was so cheap it didn't even have proper mounting holes, so the board saw a lot of tension strain over its few short months of service. I ended up swapping for another P35 board and everything is hunky-dory now. Overclocking with 3 and 4 series chipsets is a breeze, too.

 

[Mize]

Same reason everyone was buying AMD a few years back: better bang for the buck. Simple as that. If AMD had a proccy that whupped up on intel's they'd be back in the lead with the enthusiast crowd in a matter of weeks.

 

[Freak'n Big Panda]

well the mainstream has always bought intel by and large because they just don't know better/don't care and now everyone is buying intel just because they have the better chips.

But for 99% of the population athlon x2s offer plenty of performance for a very competitive price. The only real pull for intel at the low end is over clocking which doesn't effect the said group anyways. In short newbs should be buying AMD but they aren't because they're newbs and intel is the only company in their brains.

 

[Neb]

I say perfomance vs watt ratio aswell as overall perfomance. Also the SB600 bridge on the mobos felt a bit weak in comparision tot he Intel ones.

 

[Mize]

Absolutely. My entire office (I own the company) is AMD 64s and x2s since they're way more than adequate for office tasks (including Inventor) and a better value by initial $ and power.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

In short newbs should be buying AMD but they aren't because they're newbs and intel is the only company in their brains.

Or rather, in their stores. I dont think they mind the name as much as some years ago but the main problem for AMD is that hardly anybody sells their chips. You got hp and dell, in which case you already have the far majority of pc sold to company's (atleast in my country) and a big part of the consumer market and they pretty much only do Intel.

 

[LunchBox]

I was an avid AMD processor user until the Phenoms came out...

I built a bunch of Intel-based PCs for my friends or family because they prefer Intel...

The reason I personally switched to Intel was for power/performance...

AMD made a killing (or should I say they were seriously nipping at Intel's heals) on the Athlon64s and the X2s until Intel came out with the Core2s and Quads...

After that whole TLB fiasco... people shied away from AMD even though they've fixed it, after the 9x50 Phenoms came out.

From the last few builds I've made for people, I've noticed that they are starting to be more energy conscious these days (not me ) q6600 is 95W tdp versus 125W on the 9850 and that played a major role in their decision too... even though, arguably, Intel Mobo sucks more juice than AMD's so total system wattage should average about the same, maybe even lower...

Bottom line is, if you are not planning on OC-ing go for whichever processor you'd like. But if you are planning on tweaking your Mhz, then go for Intel.