AMD Phenom X4 or Intel Core 2 Quad

[leik oh em jeez!]

He was asking which quad core is preferred, so I'm saying that he has no use for a quad core, and a dual core would be better at this time.

And what the f*ck kind of system do you plan on putting a quad core in for under $1000? The CPU would be a third of the cost.

Edited March 13, 2009 by leik oh em jeez!

[Vicetopia]

And what the f*ck kind of system do you plan on putting a quad core in for under $1000?

Encoding box.

[leik oh em jeez!]

So are you saying it's more likely that he's thinking of building an encoding box than a gaming rig?

[Vicetopia]

 

So are you saying it's more likely that he's thinking of building an encoding box than a gaming rig?

Who are you talking about?

You asked what system under $1000 would need a Quad, I answered you.

 

[leik oh em jeez!]

Shut the f*ck up, all you want to do is argue.

[Vicetopia]

Shut the f*ck up, all you want to do is argue.

What exactly am I arguing about?

[leik oh em jeez!]

Why the f*ck are you posting?

My point is that there is no reason for a quad core, what's yours?

[Vicetopia]

 

Why the f*ck are you posting?

My point is that there is no reason for a quad core, what's yours?

Why are you posting?

This thread is about Intel quad vs AMD quad. It has nothing to do with dual cores. There's nothing about gaming here, and there are plenty of systems that do benefit from quads.

[Ronnyboy]

AMD's are cheaper, and they offer around the same performance. I love them.

[Sixdust]

Why the f*ck are you posting?

My point is that there is no reason for a quad core, what's yours?

Just leave and stop hijacking the topic. There are plenty of people on this forum with JOBS that require the abilities of a quad core computer or even an octo core computer. I do my share of photo editing, gaming and video stuff. I make money with it. I wish I had a quad core to get that extra umpgh in the stuff I do. I am pretty sure Otter uses this type of stuff for his line of work, Pico uses/needs it for 3ds Max rendering and drawing and there are plenty of people on here that need it. Stop being selfish already.

[SyphonPayne]

 

Why the f*ck are you posting?

My point is that there is no reason for a quad core, what's yours?

Gtfo.

 

Just because YOU don't want/can't afford a Quad doesn't mean everyone's gonna just stop looking at quads, in a quad vs quad topic, and think "Oh a random troll says there is NO reason for a quad, so to hell with it let's just look at dual-core processors."

[copperwire93]

 

AMD's are cheaper, and they offer around the same performance. I love them.

Really? Then I spent a good money on Phenom. I don't know the performance in Intel Quad. I don't use Intel after my Celeron D. But I should spend my money on Intel again to know about their new performance. Many peoples said Intel better than AMD But I still loves AMD, maybe I'm starting to be the fanboys!

Edited March 13, 2009 by copperwire93

[Pico]

Notice how the closest AMD to the Q6600 is 10 seconds slower? Same clock speed as well.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-cha...-Max-9,369.html

[Vicetopia]

 

Notice how the closest AMD to the Q6600 is 10 seconds slower? Same clock speed as well.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-cha...-Max-9,369.html

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492

 

Notice how the Phenom II 920 beats the Q6600 almost always?

Notice how it costs less than the Q6600?

 

The 920 competes directly with the Q9400; a price difference of about $40 between the two.

The 940 competes directly with the Q9550; a price difference of about $60 between the two.

 

Edited March 13, 2009 by Vicetopia

[copperwire93]

Alright, you guys just made me confused either I should buy Intel or AMD next time Which one is better now?

[Saggy]

 

Alright, you guys just made me confused either I should buy Intel or AMD next time Which one is better now?

Personally I think it depends on two things

 

1) Performance

2) Longevity

 

I think that the AMD line-up of chips will be better for longevity, in the sense that the system that you bought using an AM2+ can be used for the new AM3 series, as opposed to having to buy a new motherboard for the i7.

 

Intel wins in performance, but to what practical extent? I think gamers are the people that really need to pinch out the 15-20 extra frames per second, when you talk about things like video or audio encoding, that type of performance difference is negligible when you look at the price comparison, especially when you realize that then upgrading your AMD chip is very cheap because they're making their sockets backward compatible. That's assuming your motherboard vendor will make a BIOS patch though.

 

I'm saving up some money to get a Phenom II. I could probably use the same amount of money to get a decent Intel board and C2D, but somehow I feel the strong upgrade path in the Phenom is a good enough sacrifice for the performance, but I don't do a lot of gaming, I mostly encode things and watch media so it's not that crucial to squeeze out every FPS I can. If you want to do that, I think you should still go Intel.

 

 

I don't know a terrible amount about architecture, but since we're on the subject of Quad cores, why do I keep hearing that Phenoms and Phenom IIs are the only real quad cores and that the Intel quards are just two dual cores slapped together? What's the real difference?

 

Edit

 

Oh, and I'm very happy with my Phenom X4 9950. I bought a DFI 790GX motherboard to go along with it, which is I guess one of the best chipsets you can get to utilize this CPU. In any case, x264 encoding is extremely fast, I can do 2-pass encoding of a two hour film in about three hours, and the temperatures seems to stay extremely low ( though that could just be that my case has great airflow).

Edited March 13, 2009 by SagaciousKJB

[leik oh em jeez!]

Why the f*ck are you posting?

My point is that there is no reason for a quad core, what's yours?

Gtfo.

 

Just because YOU don't want/can't afford a Quad doesn't mean everyone's gonna just stop looking at quads, in a quad vs quad topic, and think "Oh a random troll says there is NO reason for a quad, so to hell with it let's just look at dual-core processors."

No, my point is that not everyone CAN afford a quad core, and the way things are going now, people are goin out and building copmuters on a budjet, sacrificing graphics or hard drive space, because they think they need a quad core. My point is that dual cores can allow you to build a better system for less, and are not ready to be completely phased-out by quad cores, even in high-end systems. I hate to see people waste money on something they don't need and won't be able to take full advantage of. I have nothing against quad cores, it's just that dual cores (Talking Intel here, haven't really looked at AMDs.) offer a much better price/performance ratio.

 

@SagaciousKJB: The Intel Core 2 Quads are just two C2D's slapped together, but it's still a quad core and has all of the advantages of one.