Poll: Calling all PC veterans: AMD vs. Intel

[Kevonovitch]

if it's not the i7 or the i9, don't go intel, amd phenom II x4 and up.

 

[Fluse]

To put it simply, if your not planning on buying it right now, stop worrying about it! by the time you get arround to buying it (if its in say 3-4 months?) then none of the information you get now is worth a crap, things change much to fast.

Especialy since Intel shouldn't be to far off releaseing the 22nm Sandy brdige based Core i7-2600 which will probably the one to buy in Q1-2 2011

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The difference between them is minimal really. Unless you're kicking Crysis on full detail, there's hardly a noticeable difference. The only one I remember is the AMD gets hotter, but the Intel is slightly slower - and these are negligible.

 

[MercurySteam]

I did used to go with Nvidia, but ATI have seriously thrashed Nvidia in the Gddr department. Don't know if Nvidia are still using the old Gddr3, but ATI have been on Gddr5 for ages now.

Don't know what you're talking about. nVidia GeForce GTS 450 and up all use GDDR5. ATI have roughly a dozen GDDR5 cards and nVidia has seven as of now. Though I can't see how someone would give up on one brand because the other has a few more cards with newer RAM than the other one does.

 

[MercurySteam]

To put it simply, if your not planning on buying it right now, stop worrying about it! by the time you get arround to buying it (if its in say 3-4 months?) then none of the information you get now is worth a crap, things change much to fast.

Especialy since Intel shouldn't be to far off releaseing the 22nm Sandy brdige based Core i7-2600 which will probably the one to buy in Q1-2 2011

Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer are both way out of my payscale. I don't need the newest and fastest nor can I afford them. $200 is my limit.

 

[zfactor]

I have the i7-920... For obvious reasons.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

quad core AMD. 6 cores is useless and intel are overpriced pieces of crap.

 

[invader sloth]

I just built a pc I use for music production and gaming with an X6, and even without overclocking, it's been plenty powerful enough to handle everything I've thrown at it...(mostly combinations of Native Instruments, FL9, and Cubase)

 

[MercurySteam]

Get whichever one is cheaper as a platform. Neither chip is going to limit games at all, neither chip is going to be any better than the other. Games are trapped on the PS3 and 360 CPUs, as such they aren't going to tax anything much newer than a Q9500 or so. Hell my Socket 939 dual core can still play anything out there, though admittedly not at max settings.

I know what you mean. I'm running with Conroe, the first generation of the Core 2 Duos. Back when I was using Vista SC2 lagged like hell and even with Win7 there is some stuttering during pre-mission briefings. I'm not going to be gaming in the same way I would on my 360, but I need it to run smoothly for a few years. AMD is more futureproof, and I don't plan on replacing my processor every two years.

 

[FlashHero]

quad core AMD. 6 cores is useless and intel are overpriced pieces of crap.

More cores isn't useless for what he said he needed...which is video editing...rendering a video takes about 4 hours for 5 mins of length on my quad core AMD...and most video software such as Sony Vegas can use alot of cores all maxed out.
EDIT: But yeah for gaming it don't matter much.

To OP: My recommendation is the AMD CPU you wanted as it fits those needs you listed.