AMD or Intel ?

[jojo]

I notice the latest processors from AMD boast 8 cores with 3.5Ghz

The best Intel has to offer is 4 cores, boasting faster speeds, 4Ghz

Intel seems to be seen as the CPU of choice. But using what is essentially, old technology, (4 cores), is the extra speed really worth opting for it over the 8 cores of AMD?

[mikkh]

www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-9590+Eight-Core

This shows how AMD are catching up, but and it's a big BUT, you have to take the following things into account

1) There's not much value in top end AMD's now, in fact the i7 nearly equaling the AMD in that list is actually cheaper by £26 on current Amazon prices.
But contradicting myself slightly, Intel Motherboards are a lot dearer and that would easily swallow up that £26 'saving'

2) Not all software is written to take advantage of multiple cores, but - playing devils advocate again (!) Most of the heavy duty stuff including games does/will support them.

Looking back at that list, the AMD FX 9590 is 8 x 4.7 GHz (turbo 5GHz) and only just beats the i7 4770 which is not their top of the range, but it's a fair one to compare with being a similar price
Both are £200+ which makes them hard to justify for me when there's far better value down the list in the AMD FX 8350 (4GHz) at half the price. The nearest i7 to the 8350 is still in the £200 bracket and looks very poor value at that.

Intel's popularity is mainly an American thing, we get stung badly in the UK invariably paying the dollar price in pounds which is daylight robbery considering the exchange rates.
Of all the computers I've been asked to build over the last 20 years or so, it's literally been a handful of Intel based ones and they've all been at the cheaper end of the market as far as I recall.

[jojo]

That's a very interesting page mikkh, I'll book mark it

I did find this, also quite interesting: www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-337-AM&tool=3

What brought this to the fore is in my current machine I have a cheep £20 graphics card. It's fine for most things, but one game I've recently been trying has huge drag. The specs of my machine meet the minimum quite easily, except the graphics card. It does suggest throwing all your cash into a top flight CPU isn't going be much use if you cut corners on Graphics.

It's all hypothetical for me right now. But it should be interesting to hear opinions. It's seems to be a topic that has a number of different approaches.

[mikkh]

The black editions have unlocked multipliers for those who like to dabble in overclocking. I've had a go in the past and while the numbers on the screen were telling me it was faster, that didn't really equate to any noticeable difference for me. So I stopped running my CPU's at higher temperatures for no reason. The 9590 in my other post will no doubt overclock to 6 GHz (with the right cooling/motherboard combination) and bring kudos from fellow overclocking chums when they manage to do it. But they're kidding themselves really, especially when overclocking and gaming seem to go hand in hand and all they're really achieving is squeezing extra FPS from a game that was running at perfectly playable FPS already.

The first reviewer amused me "I have been holding onto my aging Phenom II X4 955 for a long time now and decided an upgrade was needed."
That just happens to be the exact same CPU I'm running and yes in computing terms it's getting a bit long in the tooth now, but in real terms it still does everything I need and got a boost to 8 GB RAM that wasn't really required a few months ago - I just happened to have spare cash at the time. He's also proud his new CPU get's the maximum 7.9 from Windows Experience Index and that's the bit that tickled me.
My 'aging' Phenom II X4 955 (the one he had to upgrade) scores 7.3 ! So he's managed a whole 0.6 upgrade and must be very proud indeed. Even with a cheap tacky motherboard and slow RAM, his score must have been high 6's at worst and was probably equal to mine in reality.

Changing your graphics card will make a big difference, but picking one from all the different models can be quite confusing. To help you avoid the real turkeys, stay away from 64 bit memory width/interface labeled cards - They're usually the ones £40 or less, but some with 2 GB RAM could be more expensive but are equally rubbish. If cost is a factor, the cheapest 128 bit should be fine. If it's cheap and doesn't mention memory width/interface it's probably 64 bit and to be avoided

[jojo]

I confess I have never had a lot of interest in over clocking. Sounds like a lot of endless expense on ever more fancy equipment to push the limits of hardware beyond what it is capable. The only game that I have that needs more power is Elite Dangerous. Most of my time I hang around places like this.

The over clocker site though is a useful source since most of what they produce is intended to take machines to their limits. The Services set up I designed for XP home for example. I had a lot of information for Overclockers. Black Viper is fine but he's clearly a network admin.

My nephew suggested this: www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0096WIFU0/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=479289247&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B00761YFPW&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=0C1XPAHMQ30NGFXH1NQ1

Looks pretty good, hoping it will still be available when I can afford it.

[mikkh]

Yeah that would be OK, it will be at least 300% quicker than your current card

This is very similar for nearly a fiver less

www.amazon.co.uk/Sapphire-Radeon-DDR3-Graphics-Card/dp/B00FL8H1GM/ref=sr_1_2?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1409527235&sr=1-2&keywords=r7+250


the head to head comparison can be seen here

www.hwcompare.com/15330/radeon-hd-7750-vs-radeon-r7-250/

[jojo]

Thanks for that mikkh. Just sent off for it.

[mikkh]

NP, I was searching for an Nvidia alternative actually, but AMD/ATI seem to have the price/performance ratio pretty much sown up in the mid range market
The nearest equivalent Nvidia card is at least £10 dearer

[vikingken]

My home builds are AMD and my big one is an 8 core. However laptops are a different propersition and I have always had Intel. It is interesting to see in Device Manager my laptop reads 8 cores for my Quad core Intel i7. I'm no longer looking for the fastest, they are all too fast for me. Im thinking about giving up on the big ones and going for a top of the range laptop. You can plug in a big monitor, or projector and a keyboard if you wish. Unlike the old laptops its easy to open them up and clean the cooling system. Keep the air intakes open to an airflow and the cooling works fine. ( Dont stick them on the duvet ) I'm giving up a bit on following the lastest news, I must be getting old.  

[jojo]

So you go for the 8 core as well ken?

I had laptops for a while but prefer Desktop now. I don't need the portability and do like the repair-ability.

My wife likes laptops so much she has two!

[vikingken]

My home builds are AMD Jojo, I built a 6 core and then an 8. Not a lot of difference between them. My laptops have always been Intel, they are much better now they are much more servicable and I can understand why people are using them and not desktops.