Was looking into the amd 6750 chip to build a pc, but what's the equivalent of AMD's? Also, which is faster??
AMD vs Intel
- Thread starter ahbeng
- Start date
- Status
In the present CPU war...AMD is lagging big time to Intel. They have been not as aggressive coming out with CPU's that is as fast at what you can get in the intel camp in recent times.
AMD 6750? That looks more like you are talking about an Intel Core 2 Duo CPU 'E'6750?
AMD has some pretty good sweet spot price vs power but if you want power I would stay with Intel presently.
To answer your questions, for me there are two main things to compare:
Just quote you example plug from http://www.potterhouse.net/
1. Price - Intel 6750 is going at $315, I can't fine the exact match from AMD so I use below:
- Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz 6MB LGA775 Box $369.00
- AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 6400+ 3.2GHz 2MB AM2 Black Edition at $355.00
I
will take the Intel for their much advance core design (45nm process vs 65nm), lower power consumption, lower heat and better overclocking capability
2. Performance - Again, this is not the absolute, nevertheless a good barometer on where the chip lies....check out a few synthetic benchmarks from the pros:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_duo_e8500_wolfdale/page4.asp
Other consideration including the motherboard chipset....during my purchase time the Intel P35 chipset was far more superior than the Nforce or VIA chipset on AMD.....also drivers and compatibility seems less of an issue from my pass experience :sweat:
And finally, I am a little sceptical on AMD PR rating on their processor...basically they quoted their lower speed's chip with Intel equivalent PR rating....though they claim equal or faster in term of performance, I somehow feel otherwise....it's like saying their 1000cc car is equal or better than Intel 1.4L car....it's bull.....I am not willing to pay for that :thumbsd:
Just quote you example plug from http://www.potterhouse.net/
1. Price - Intel 6750 is going at $315, I can't fine the exact match from AMD so I use below:
- Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz 6MB LGA775 Box $369.00
- AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 6400+ 3.2GHz 2MB AM2 Black Edition at $355.00
I
will take the Intel for their much advance core design (45nm process vs 65nm), lower power consumption, lower heat and better overclocking capability
2. Performance - Again, this is not the absolute, nevertheless a good barometer on where the chip lies....check out a few synthetic benchmarks from the pros:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_duo_e8500_wolfdale/page4.asp
Other consideration including the motherboard chipset....during my purchase time the Intel P35 chipset was far more superior than the Nforce or VIA chipset on AMD.....also drivers and compatibility seems less of an issue from my pass experience :sweat:
And finally, I am a little sceptical on AMD PR rating on their processor...basically they quoted their lower speed's chip with Intel equivalent PR rating....though they claim equal or faster in term of performance, I somehow feel otherwise....it's like saying their 1000cc car is equal or better than Intel 1.4L car....it's bull.....I am not willing to pay for that :thumbsd:
AMD was King of the Hill just a few years back but some how they have dropped the ball. Pity..but it is a cyclic industry lah. Just hope they don't die out...need them to keep Intel on their toes heheh...
Yup. And AMD is revising their quad-core design. And the new Ati/AMD chipset is actually quite superior to the Intel/nVidia offerings right now. It's rock-solid.
I just expected much more from the AMD quads when you consider their dual-core chips massacred Intel until the Core2 Duo architecture.
For me, I'm not a CPU brand fan. I'll switch between one or the other as newer Microsoft OS, games and application dictates.
Right now I want to play the game Crysis with my 19" inch LCD native res 1280x1024, at medium to high settings without lag.
CPU is a big component to games performance bottleneck. I'm researching the net for my next system and it will be an Intel/X38 chipset platform.
AMD X2/Phenom CPUs just don't have what it takes to push performance given their technical specs (which I won't go into detail). Even with future introduction of 45nm versions, I predict AMD will still lag behind. The TLB bug issue really hit them hard.
I'll definitely go for Intel Core2 Duo E8500 rather the the Core2 Quad Q9450. Simply becoz up until now, software developers yet to fully utilize the more than 2 core multi-threading capabilities.
Until then, higher speed dual-core cpu which can be easily overclock is best bang for the buck!
Many review sites show that games requires higher clock speed than bigger cache memory or more cores in CPU.
Rendering apps prefers more cache memory and more cores though. This year really belongs to INTEL, but who knows what 2009 brings. Hope AMD is able to turn the tide and don't end up like CYRIX........remember?
Right now I want to play the game Crysis with my 19" inch LCD native res 1280x1024, at medium to high settings without lag.
CPU is a big component to games performance bottleneck. I'm researching the net for my next system and it will be an Intel/X38 chipset platform.
AMD X2/Phenom CPUs just don't have what it takes to push performance given their technical specs (which I won't go into detail). Even with future introduction of 45nm versions, I predict AMD will still lag behind. The TLB bug issue really hit them hard.
I'll definitely go for Intel Core2 Duo E8500 rather the the Core2 Quad Q9450. Simply becoz up until now, software developers yet to fully utilize the more than 2 core multi-threading capabilities.
Until then, higher speed dual-core cpu which can be easily overclock is best bang for the buck!
Many review sites show that games requires higher clock speed than bigger cache memory or more cores in CPU.
Rendering apps prefers more cache memory and more cores though. This year really belongs to INTEL, but who knows what 2009 brings. Hope AMD is able to turn the tide and don't end up like CYRIX........remember?
- Status
