amd vs intel

[hoofhearted4]

so these two CPUs seem awfully close in capabilities (to me anyways, im just learning computers so idrk) but why is the intel one soo much more expensive. what makes it worth getting over AMD?

 

 

AMD Phenom II

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103913&cm_re=amd_phenom-_-19-103-913-_-Product

 

Intel i7-2600k Sandy Bridge

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115070

Edited June 10, 2011 by hoofhearted4

[Vecna6667]

Intel - generally are faster. A 3.0 GHz intel processor will usually beat a 3.0GHz AMD processor just about any time. An AMD will usually have clock up about .2 or more GHz in order to just keep up. With turbo boost in the mix, that number goes up even further.

 

AMD - cheaper clock for clock. The strongest AMD processors cost less than most of Intel's mid-range processors. Though an Intel Core i5-2500k(at $215) will beat out an AMD Phenom II X 6(at $200) in just about anything that doesn't scale up to 6 threads. If you need a fast processor, Intel wins, but AMD is still good for those that need to keep their costs down and tends to be good with overclocking.

 

Edit: After see that you are looking at the i7-2600k for the intel cpu, the Phenom II cannot keep up at all. The $325 quad-core cpu can matchup to Intel's $1000 hexa-core cpu's (that is how much of a difference there is performancewise.) Add hyper threading and the i7-2600k is a virtual octa-core processor.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Vecna6667

[Nysba]

http://tweakers.net/reviews/1934/5/intel-core-i7-2600k-en-i5-2500k-benchmarks-desktop-benchmarks.html

 

That link there shows performances in programs like Sony Vegas and then gaming benchmarks and stuff. The 2600k is clearly better.

 

Even the 2500k seems to perform better than the 1100T, at least in most cases I've seen, and the price difference isn't a lot between those 2.

 

I don't really know what exactly differentiates 2 CPUs from each other if they have the same amount of cores and frequency, but there's a clear difference when looking at the charts.

Here's some more charts.

The 1100T seems to lag behind both the 2600K AND the 2500K, but sometimes surpasses the 2500K. Never the 2600K though.

 

E: Also, what the above said.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Nysba

[hoofhearted4]

hmm i was gunna switch out my i7 in my current build with the AMD listed, i like the price drop, but then id have to switch out boards and ram and stuff, and the price difference isnt that much of a difference where i wanna go through the hassle at this time.

 

i7-2600k it is.

 

 

unless there are any other intel CPUs that still put out near performance but cheaper.

 

opinions are welcome (my build is a few threads under this)

[hoofhearted4]

ima stick with the i7-2600 (not k)

 

final answer

[Thor.]

Intel - generally are faster. A 3.0 GHz intel processor will usually beat a 3.0GHz AMD processor just about any time. An AMD will usually have clock up about .2 or more GHz in order to just keep up. With turbo boost in the mix, that number goes up even further.

 

AMD - cheaper clock for clock. The strongest AMD processors cost less than most of Intel's mid-range processors. Though an Intel Core i5-2500k(at $215) will beat out an AMD Phenom II X 6(at $200) in just about anything that doesn't scale up to 6 threads. If you need a fast processor, Intel wins, but AMD is still good for those that need to keep their costs down and tends to be good with overclocking.

 

Edit: After see that you are looking at the i7-2600k for the intel cpu, the Phenom II cannot keep up at all. The $325 quad-core cpu can matchup to Intel's $1000 hexa-core cpu's (that is how much of a difference there is performancewise.) Add hyper threading and the i7-2600k is a virtual octa-core processor.

 

Not necessarily true with amd asus turbo its a different story.

 

http://www.pcper.com...Core-Technology

Edited June 11, 2011 by Thor.