Poll: Calling all PC veterans: AMD vs. Intel

[MercurySteam]

Okay so here's the basic lowdown. Sometime next year I plan to build a computer for myself. I'm calling it a gaming rig, but really I just need it to be a powerful SoB. I can't figure out whether to go AMD or Intel. It's a fight between the AMD Phenom II X6 1055T [http://products.amd.com/en-gb/DesktopCPUDetail.aspx?id=641] and the Intel Core i5 760 [http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=48496]. Here's what I know so far:

The 1055T is:
Great for multitasking
Runs best on programs that can utilize the multiple threads and cores
6 cores and 6 threads
The AM3 socket will outlast the LGA 1156 Socket

The i5 760 is:
Apparently superior for gaming
Can run many programs faster than the 1055T
More power efficiency, especially when OCing
Runs games better
4 cores 4 threads (NO hyperthreading)

Summary
I'm leaning towards the AMD despite the fact that the i5 can outperform the 1055T in many ways (and I need to keep the cost down). The software needs to catch up with the hardware before we see great performance in games being run with more than 2 cores. But I'll probably be spending more time converting videos/ creating videos/ multitasking. I don't write code or anything but I figure once I OC the 1055T to around 4.0 GHz, I won't worry about the difference between it and the i5 760 when gaming. And from what I've heard, gamers that OC the 1055T see superb performance in games despite the 760 taking the lead on the benchmark. Plus I don't plan on replacing the processor for a good three or so years so the AM3 socket is more comforting than the already aging LGA 1156.

I'm probably already deadset on the 1055T, but I need others to tell me if my info is any good, plus some feedback would be nice.

 

[Corpse XxX]

Not based on own experiences cause im not an expert.. But lately people with the "know how" skills says Intel is much better than AMD nowadays..

I run an i7 920, is very good..

EDIT: They also tell me not to buy ATI RADEON screen card, Geforce is much more stabile and better..

*hopes people ain't bullshitting me*

 

[mikecoulter]

The Intel i5 760 is a fantastic processor. If you look at benchmarks you'd find it beats that AMD quite often despite having two less physical cores.

 

[Vrach]

Well depends really. Are you gonna overclock it or leave it as is? If you're overclocking (and obviously know what you're doing with it), I'd say go with AMD's hexacore. Otherwise, I'd suggest Intel as it's gonna kick it's arse.

Also are you using it for gaming? Trust me, 4 cores are used, but 6 just aren't. For gaming, Intel would win at the moment.

I had the same considerations as you and decided to go for the quad core at the moment. You don't necessarily have to go with Intel either, AMD has some decent quad cores as well, go for a 955 Black Edition, overclock it to 4 GHz and enjoy the show for a LOT less money.

Hexacores are a way away from being fully used and by the time they are, you're likely to see both better and cheaper ones on the market.

 

[teh_Canape]

AMD is better and more varied and it works awesome on multitasking

but I always had Intel, so yeah

my vote goes for Mac ^-^

 

[MercurySteam]

With 6 cores and the popular AM3 socket the 1055T seems more futureproof. For all I know I could keep the same processor for five years. Once games support more cores, the 1055T will come into it's own. And if I want more power then I'll buy a half-decent cooler and crank it up to 4+GHz

 

[Wutaiflea]

I'm no expert but I've always had plenty of joy with AMD. That said, I built my PC some years ago now, so it's hardly up to date.

When I built my PC (aiming for a reasonably priced, top-end but not super-amazing gaming PC) I tried to take a cross-section of reviews on different products, particularly how they performed with each other. I'd say that's a good way to go.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I had the same considerations as you and decided to go for the quad core at the moment. You don't necessarily have to go with Intel either, AMD has some decent quad cores as well, go for a 955 Black Edition, overclock it to 4 GHz and enjoy the show for a LOT less money.

Yeah, Phenom II X4 BEs are a good investment at the moment and the 955BE hits that sweet spot balancing price and serious OCing ability. Hell, if you really want to go budget conscious the Athlon II X4s aren't that shabby either. Not so good for OCing but cheap as fuck.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

EDIT: They also tell me not to buy ATI RADEON screen card, Geforce is much more stabile and better..

*hopes people ain't bullshitting me*

They're not bullshitting so much as talking out their arses.

Current generation high end nVidia cards do have some performance advantages over their ATI (I guess they're AMD now) equivalents but that comes at the price of them running hot and being power hogs.

On the other hand, ATI/AMD cards seem to handle tesselation much better... which doesn't mean much now but should tesselation become more widely used in games it could mean a lot.

 

[MercurySteam]

EDIT: They also tell me not to buy ATI RADEON screen card, Geforce is much more stabile and better..

*hopes people ain't bullshitting me*

They're not bullshitting so much as talking out their arses.

Current generation high end nVidia cards do have some performance advantages over their ATI (I guess they're AMD now) equivalents but that comes at the price of them running hot and being power hogs.

On the other hand, ATI/AMD cards seem to handle tesselation much better... which doesn't mean much now but should tesselation become more widely used in games it could mean a lot.

From what I've seen the Gainward GeForce GTS 450 Golden Sample [http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=15531] is a badass contender and utilizes DX11 fairly well for a decent price. But I guess I'm an nVidia *****.

Gotta love PhysX, though.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well I was always rooting for the underdog so AMD it is, altho they are always only barely holding their head above water, it astounds me they can compete at all when they are usually one year behind on production development.

Anyway, if you are looking for the top end got money up the wazu stuff then Intel is the way to go, and if you intend to make a sensible purchase you should have a good look at the AMD selection.

But do consider that multi threading is still badly supported in games, and always check the prices at the time you are buying, no point deciding now, new models come and prices change.

 

[Delusibeta]

I will now do what I usually do when asked to compare desktop CPUs and graphics cards and point you in the direction of Tom's Hardware [http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-core-i3-athlon-ii-x4,2791-6.html]. The website's a bit wonky right now, but I think they recommend the specific i5 higher than the specific Phenom II X6. Certainly, they're in the region of the old Core 2 Extremes of old. Both processors should take anything you can throw at them, but if you're looking for maximum kick-arserry, then Tom's Hardware grades the i5 higher.

They also recommend not bothering with any CPU above $200, because of diminishing returns beyond that point.

 

[Mechsoap]

AMD is certainly cheaper and could use the money, im not a big mind on processors though.

 

[Comma-Kazie]

I hold no particular bias for one or the other; however, I built my current machine around a dual-core AMD setup since I was on a budget and it's worked quite well for me.

 

[Comma-Kazie]

EDIT: Damn my connection, I double-posted by accident. My apologies.

 

[Valiance]

Not to be completely off-topic but the Phenom II 965 Black Edition actually out-performs both of those CPUs in most games. Most games right now aren't optimized for 4 cores, let alone 6. Hell, I still play games that don't even use TWO cores.

What I'm trying to say is that the AM3 socket is probably the best investment, and you can just use a quad-core processor for now.

edit: Wow, I had this tab open for so long without getting around to it, post 4 beat me out.

Well, I'll just confirm what was said by Vrach.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

I'd suggest going with the cheaper option with better access to in-place upgrades should you wish to replace the CPU at some point in the future - you have to weigh the performance gains you might get from selecting Intel with the price and aging socket, and in my scales that wouldn't be worth it.

 

[antidonkey]

Well, this age old battle is back to the way it used to be. Intel current makes better and faster CPUs but it carries a price premium. However, AMD is pretty close and insanely cheap. Cheap enough that it's worth the bing in performance. Plus you probably won't notice that much difference.


So, if money isn't an issue....go Intel.
If you want or need to save some cash....then AMD.

 

[Bad Jim]

One nice thing about Intel chips is that from P4 onwards they operate at reduced clock speed rather than simply melting if you don't put the heat sink on right.

 

[MercurySteam]

One nice thing about Intel chips is that from P4 onwards they operate at reduced clock speed rather than simply melting if you don't put the heat sink on right.

I guess that counts as a feature, but it's not something many people will be willing to put to the test.