~$150 for processor

[Randy Savage]

AMD quad core vs. Intel Core 2 Duo...?

Basic computing, surfing web, good amount of movie d/l's, converting videos (usually divx to dvd and vice versa), nothing too serious.

Which should I go with? Gonna be building it and buying from Newegg...had these two in mind:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103472

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115059

[MOT]

tough choice. Both are very nice. Any idea what other options you would be running say what mobo and video card? Me personally, i'd probably go w/ the AMD. Both are probably overkill for what you need them for.

[Toasted1]

From what I understand C2D is still giving the most bang for the buck. When I did this a little over a year ago I found the Toms Hardware comparison chart for the benchmarks and C2D beat every AMD hands down.

I think mine is a C2D 6750, I am heading out but I will see if I can find a comparison chart for you somewhere, also it would be worth it to register at Toms Hardware or another PC hardware type forum to get the best answers.

I did and got a lot of help with my final decisions when placing my newegg order. I think mine came out to about $900 with everything including case, PS, CPU, MB, RAM and HDD. Only thing I already had was a DVD burner.

[MOT]

my suggestion was based on personal preference.

[pl8er]

You really didn't name anything off that would utilize quad and the Intel is a better performer overall.

Looking at the two of these, the big stand out point is power consumption. AMD is much higher at 125W compared to the Intel at 65W.

Of course the argument can easily be made that there are 2 extra cores on the AMD offering. You won't really use them, the two on the Intel are faster and many programs will utilize two processors. So two faster cores running with less power demands wins in my book.

[maddskillzz]

Tom's Hardware FTW!! you can compare the two cpu's you are looking at and based on what you use it for and you can tell which is the best bang for the buck

[MOT]

You really didn't name anything off that would utilize quad and the Intel is a better performer overall.

Looking at the two of these, the big stand out point is power consumption. AMD is much higher at 125W compared to the Intel at 65W.

Of course the argument can easily be made that there are 2 extra cores on the AMD offering. You won't really use them, the two on the Intel are faster and many programs will utilize two processors. So two faster cores running with less power demands wins in my book.

good point.

[jesus]

You should bump your budget a little bit. The i7 920 is sick and overclocks like crazy.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115202

[MOT]

What I never seem to understand is why do people always assume everyone overclocks their PC? or that the average Joe has any idea how to do this?

[Captain Ahab]

My PC clock used to underclock sometimes. It'd just quit counting.

I'd have to double click and it'd overclock itself back to normal.

[bigtoyota479]

Looking at the two of these, the big stand out point is power consumption. AMD is much higher at 125W compared to the Intel at 65W.



Erm, that's not how many watts they pull from the PSU. That's how many watts of heat they put out, and will help you pick the proper heatsink fan combo for it.

Sure, the AMD proc will pull more wattage due to two extra cores. But it doesn't pull 125 watts. It actually only draws about 80 watts of power from the PSU.


The AMD quad is actually faster than all Intel dual cores at most things. That's a Phenom II, not the original Phenom. The AMD is roughly on par with my Q8200, and cheaper to boot. As you can see here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-940,2114-17.html, the Phenom II clocks right in with the Q6600, and beats the Intel dual cores in a lot of tests.

In this case, at this price, the AMD wins. 150 bucks for that quad core? Just do it!

[jesus]

What I never seem to understand is why do people always assume everyone overclocks their PC? or that the average Joe has any idea how to do this?

i7's automatically overclock themselves by 1 multiplier. It's called Turbo Mode and it's a default on most MB's.

[bigtoyota479]

Oh, for anyone else wanting to CPU shop in the future, this list is the shit when it comes to benchmarks.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core2+Duo+E7600+%40+3.06GHz

[Sex Cells]

Erm, that's not how many watts they pull from the PSU. That's how many watts of heat they put out, and will help you pick the proper heatsink fan combo for it.

Sure, the AMD proc will pull more wattage due to two extra cores. But it doesn't pull 125 watts. It actually only draws about 80 watts of power from the PSU.


The AMD quad is actually faster than all Intel dual cores at most things. That's a Phenom II, not the original Phenom. The AMD is roughly on par with my Q8200, and cheaper to boot. As you can see here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-940,2114-17.html, the Phenom II clocks right in with the Q6600, and beats the Intel dual cores in a lot of tests.

In this case, at this price, the AMD wins. 150 bucks for that quad core? Just do it!

watts are a measure of energy via. heat. i'm not sure what the actual measurement is, but i can tell you 125 watts is 125 watts, as 80 watts is 80 watts, its generated soley by the source itself, in this case the processor not the heatsink.

What they put out is what they pull out of the wall. It's energy.

[pl8er]

watts are a measure of energy via. heat. i'm not sure what the actual measurement is, but i can tell you 125 watts is 125 watts, as 80 watts is 80 watts, its generated soley by the source itself, in this case the processor not the heatsink.

What they put out is what they pull out of the wall. It's energy.

Thank you. I really didn't want to get into another argument about technology.

I mean sayings "well the cpu pulls 125 watts but the power supply is only taking 80" :loco:

Bah, I have so many things to compare that to but I'll just leave it. Go with bigtoyota's advice, you don't need a quad core and its only 125 watts on the cpu but magically the thermal load doesn't matter as the psu is only giving it 80, so that has to be better.

Yeah, and you sound like one of your primary concerns was OC, so there we go.....

Of course an unlocked black series would make WAY more sense.

[pl8er]

I do agree that the i7 architecture is amazing though. I could care less about the OC potential, just the true design of it. Very efficient.

Wait until the 22nm stuff comes out though *drool* Double-gate transistors built on SOI substrates - known as finFETs - complete with III-V materials and gates built around nanowires. That link BT has up is really a great resource, I've been there a few times but something about sitting with people from AMAT that really gets you an idea of what is coming out down the road really makes it sink in a tad more ;)

[MOT]

Thank you. I really didn't want to get into another argument about technology.

I mean sayings "well the cpu pulls 125 watts but the power supply is only taking 80" :loco:

Bah, I have so many things to compare that to but I'll just leave it. Go with bigtoyota's advice, you don't need a quad core and its only 125 watts on the cpu but magically the thermal load doesn't matter as the psu is only giving it 80, so that has to be better.

Yeah, and you sound like one of your primary concerns was OC, so there we go.....

Of course an unlocked black series would make WAY more sense.

where did he say anything about overclocking?

[pl8er]

You should bump your budget a little bit. The i7 920 is sick and overclocks like crazy.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115202

This is what I was talking about.

[pl8er]

Thinking about this more...does this mean that when I buy hard drives or video cards I shouldn't really pay attention to the power consumption? Afterall, it is just the amount of heat it is creating and not the draw from the PSU.

[IamDeMan]

My PC clock used to underclock sometimes. It'd just quit counting.

I'd have to double click and it'd overclock itself back to normal.

LMMFAO!

[Captain Ahab]

Bout time someone found it funny.

:)

[Toasted1]

I don't get it :wat:

[Captain Ahab]

My computer clock in the taskbar...

Sometimes it'd just stop going and be stuck at say, 12:05 when it was 12:15. I could double click it, bring up the calendar, and it'd go to 12:15 like it was supposed to be.

[bigtoyota479]

Thinking about this more...does this mean that when I buy hard drives or video cards I shouldn't really pay attention to the power consumption? Afterall, it is just the amount of heat it is creating and not the draw from the PSU.

There is a difference. It only drew 80 watts of power from the wall in the test I saw. 125 watts TDP is the maximum thermal design power it was rated for, and it didn't even draw that at 100% load. The rating they give with that proc is for heat dissipation.

Definition of thermal design power for those that are curious:

The thermal design power (TDP), sometimes called thermal design point, represents the maximum amount of power the cooling system in a computer is required to dissipate. For example, a laptop's CPU cooling system may be designed for a 20 watt TDP, which means that it can dissipate up to 20 watts of heat without exceeding the maximum junction temperature for the computer chip. It can do this using an active cooling method such as a fan or any of the three passive cooling methods, convection, thermal radiation or conduction. Typically, a combination of methods are used. The TDP is typically not the most power the chip could ever draw, but rather the maximum power that it would draw when running real applications. This ensures the computer will be able to handle essentially all applications without exceeding its thermal envelope, or requiring a cooling system for the maximum theoretical power, which would cost more and achieve no benefit.

Since safety margins and the definition of what constitutes a real application vary between manufacturers, TDP values between different manufacturers cannot be accurately compared. While a processor with a TDP of 100 W will almost certainly use more power at full load than a processor with a 10 W TDP, it may or may not use more power than a processor from a different manufacturer that has a 90 W TDP. Additionally, TDPs are often specified for families of processors, with the low-end models usually using significantly less power than those at the high end of the family.

[bigtoyota479]

Yeah, yeah, I know, watts are watts. That doesn't mean the rating they gave that proc was wrong though.

[pl8er]

Yeah, yeah, I know, watts are watts. That doesn't mean the rating they gave that proc was wrong though.

All I'm saying is a standard is a standard. I'm thinking we read the exact same review and if so the AMD got like 79.7 or something around there under idle (which don't get me wrong is fan-fucking-tastic for being a quad, beats intel in many places with the chipset and features).