- Status
Liverpool_fan
Sami Hyypiä, LFC legend
What are your requirements and budget constraints?
Gowt1ham
Gowt1ham
I am tied.
920 and 940 are not exactly cheap. If their prices fall at least 2k it could be a deal. But their combination of proccy + MB is FAR FARbetter than intel combination. (Intel mobo are damn costly and featureless, I hate Intel for giving nothing for such High Cost)
Here is the comparison of the amd vs intel proccy and all benchmarks u can imagine of.
*www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/benchmarks,31.html
The proccy they used frm AMD is Phenom 1.
phenom 2 perform max 15% better than Phenom 1 and use less power.
Intel is better in perfomance, AMD is better in Value.
920 and 940 are not exactly cheap. If their prices fall at least 2k it could be a deal. But their combination of proccy + MB is FAR FARbetter than intel combination. (Intel mobo are damn costly and featureless, I hate Intel for giving nothing for such High Cost)
Here is the comparison of the amd vs intel proccy and all benchmarks u can imagine of.
*www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/benchmarks,31.html
The proccy they used frm AMD is Phenom 1.
phenom 2 perform max 15% better than Phenom 1 and use less power.
Intel is better in perfomance, AMD is better in Value.
Intel for sheer computing power. AMD for VFM.
Even in the past when AMD was faster and cheaper, many users chose Intel simply because Intel was the more prominent brand; that is, they'd seen and heard more of Intel.
Since the introduction of Core 2, Intel took the lead in raw power, but is generally more expensive. As others have said, the choice depends on your budget constraints and performance target.
For example, compare the Intel i7 920 and AMD Phenom II X4 920. Broadly speaking, the Intel 920 is faster by about 20%, but costs several thousand rupees more. Moreover, a matching motherboard based on the X58 chipset is still quite expensive and uses the faster but more expensive DDR3 RAM. The total difference in system price can be quite high.
Personally speaking, since I'm neither a rich hard-core gamer nor a video editing professional, it doesn't make sense for me to spend that extra 10-20k to gain a few fps in gaming or a couple of minutes while rendering a large movie file. I consider the money better spent on a gfx card, more RAM, hard disk, external storage, etc. etc.
But that's just me. Others will have their own priorities and values.
Even in the past when AMD was faster and cheaper, many users chose Intel simply because Intel was the more prominent brand; that is, they'd seen and heard more of Intel.
Since the introduction of Core 2, Intel took the lead in raw power, but is generally more expensive. As others have said, the choice depends on your budget constraints and performance target.
For example, compare the Intel i7 920 and AMD Phenom II X4 920. Broadly speaking, the Intel 920 is faster by about 20%, but costs several thousand rupees more. Moreover, a matching motherboard based on the X58 chipset is still quite expensive and uses the faster but more expensive DDR3 RAM. The total difference in system price can be quite high.
Personally speaking, since I'm neither a rich hard-core gamer nor a video editing professional, it doesn't make sense for me to spend that extra 10-20k to gain a few fps in gaming or a couple of minutes while rendering a large movie file. I consider the money better spent on a gfx card, more RAM, hard disk, external storage, etc. etc.
But that's just me. Others will have their own priorities and values.
Sathish
Debian Gnu/Linux User
i think most of the performance issues wont only depend on cpu and wont make difference in real time use.. excluding high profile audio-video editing and some specific games.. so cost is much importance . it is good idea to stick with AMD and invest to other components.
deadkiss 009
I like to FIFA
The threadsetter is too sleepy.
- Status