<p>If you are going to DIY a set of computer, which CPU will you choose, AMD or Intel?</p>
<p>AMD’s better for a low end processor (i.e. less than ~$100), whereas Intel is better for a high end processor.</p>
<p>dual core FTW</p>
<p>for now, Intel does everything better than AMD.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They both make dual core processors…</p>
<p>I’d go with Intel for now. Things are looking bad for AMD. As in bankruptcy in the next year bad.</p>
<p>If you look at the processors on the lower end, you’ll actually find that AMD will get you more for your money. For example, on Newegg, in the $50-$75 range, almost all the dual core processors from AMD are above 2 GHz ( [Newegg.com</a> - Computer Parts, PC Components, Laptop Computers, Digital Cameras and more!](<a href=“http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2+50001028+40000343+4026&name=%2450+-+%2475]Newegg.com”>http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2+50001028+40000343+4026&name=%2450+-+%2475) ), whereas Intel has a lot of single core processors in that price range, and those that are dual core are usually below 2 GHz ( [Newegg.com</a> - Computer Parts, PC Components, Laptop Computers, Digital Cameras and more!](<a href=“http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2+50001157+40000343+4026&name=%2450+-+%2475]Newegg.com”>http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2+50001157+40000343+4026&name=%2450+-+%2475) ). Not that clock speed alone is a good indication of quality, but for a rough estimate, it does work.</p>
<p>It all depends on what kind of computer you’re building. If you want a commodity PC for web browsing, email, music, and/or office applications, then an AMD processor in this price range will be enough. However, if you want to build a gaming PC, run Vista, edit video, or perform other computationally heavy tasks, then a Intel Core 2 Duo in a higher price range is definitely necessary. I’d stay away from the quad cores though, since they are currently only useful in a select few cases which usually do not apply to the average user. That will change though as applications begin to be optimized for multi-core processors.</p>
<p>^ clock speed isn’t everything. AMD proved that with the Athlon line.</p>
<p>if you don’t do anything resource-intensive, just get a single-core. RAM and OS tweaks will make the computer run faster, along with hard drive speed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yea…IDC which one…as long as it’s dual core…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Idk about that - while you are correct that the Athlons (and later the Core 2’s and Core 2 Duo’s) showed that a lower clock speed didn’t matter compared to having multiple cores, more cores could make a significant difference in performance when multiple applications are active. Also, when I used the clock speed in comparison, it was to compare dual core AMD to dual core Intel, so the number of cores can be eliminated from the picture.</p>
<p>There’s only so much you can do on the software side to optimize the hardware. For example, running Linux on a single core processor would probably be slower than Windows on a dual core processor, even though Linux is composed of much better software.</p>
<p>Go for dual core no matter how resource intensive things you will be doing. i’m using a 6 year old single core 2.5 GHz processor and even when I’m just running itunes and firefox it can run slowly. Get the extra power of a dual core, but then it doesn’t need as high of GHz.</p>
<p>As for AMD v Intel, I’d go for intel if possible. They are generally more stable and higher quality. AMD are fine though, if you want to save money you can get an AMD quad core for the price of a higher end Intel dual-core, something to think about ;)</p>
<p>INTEL FOR THE WIN!</p>
<p>Intel is currently doing much better than AMD. If i were you and had money, i would go for penryn. </p>
<p>You would have that problem of it getting outdated(faster), comparatively.</p>
<p>If I were building under $1,000 for a light use desktop? AMD for sure, AMDs low range has a much better bang for the buck.</p>
<p>If I were doing $1000+? Intel for sure. The Core 2 Duos are far superior to AMDs higher end offerings.</p>
<p>It’s sad, because the Athalon 64 totally kicked the Pentium 4 around for years. AMD is going through tough times right now. They are having difficulty competing with intel due to sheer size.</p>
<p>There’s something to be said for rewarding the best, but helping the little guy is important too. The Pentium 4 sucked. For years. The reason why intel came back and designed great chips (Core and Core 2 Duo) is because AMD trashed them. Thanks to contracts with large computer manufacturers, it took a while for AMD to gain traction, but even Dell (intel for many years) started building AMD PCs and not burying them on the back page.</p>
<p>So, if you’re going for a high performance rig, go Intel. But if you are making a low to mid range desktop, buy AMD. AMD is better at the lower end and they are the reason why Intel buried the Pentium 4 and gave us the Core 2 Duo. If Intel continues to sell like they have, they may lack a competitor soon…that’ll stagnate the market and drive up prices.</p>
<p>Intel (10 char)</p>
<p>Very recent computer magazine discussion (Maximum PC May issue I think it was) of the issue- Intel. Faster than AMD at this time. It is worth the price difference.</p>
<p>Intel is winning the war. Their processors provide better performance clock for clock and better performance per watt. So lower power consumption and better performance. Intel is on a steeper technology curve. Later this year, they will introduce Nehalem which features an Integrated Memory Controller. AMD used the IMC to beat Intel during the Pentium 4 days. Intel has much better performance without the IMC. With the IMC, they should be able to crush AMD on performance. They will be adding IPC (instructions per clock) improvements too such as more fusion of instructions. Intel is selling Atom processors for Mobile Internet Devices (MIDs) and those should be interesting products.</p>
<p>Intel has been adding instructions and improving performance for their vector instructions. Modern x86 processors have vector engines in them to accelerate multimedia operations and other operations. Most software doesn’t take advantage of the vector engines but software that does can see big performance improvements. AMD is getting left behind in the dust on vector instructions.</p>
<p>Intel of course, no debate.</p>
<p>Intel Core2 E6750 ( [Newegg.com</a> - Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 Conroe 2.66GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor - CPUs / Processors](<a href=“http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115029]Newegg.com”>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115029) ). It is THE BEST mid range CPU and is an excellent value also. I have one in my computer that I built about 3.5 months ago and it idles around room temp with no extra cooling.</p>
<p>Another option would be to hold off for a few months and wait until Intel releases their new 45nm core 2’s which feature some impressive technology, but you’ll pay a premium for the first month or 2 before they slash the prices like always.</p>
<p>in the lower price range AMD is best (performance/$$$). just check out the benchmarks. its’ mainly because AMD knew they couldn’t sell anything without huge price cuts. there is no question that intel hugely outperforms AMD right now. Peryn is the way to go unless you have a tight budget.</p>
<p>If you want to DIY with intel, wait until mid-2009 when 8-core CPUs come out.</p>
<p>This is what I am doing. Right now I am using a Lenovo laptop that really sucks.</p>
<p>AMD: cheaper, better graphics
Intel: better performance, more compatible with Linux</p>
<p>Linux doesn’t fare well with x64 (AMD) processors. i386(intel) work better even if the intel one is 64 bit</p>
<p>I would go intel all the way</p>