[snorg]

I never buy Intel its not worth it.

I always buy the flagship AMD CPU, BUT I wait till the newer line comes out before I buy, I get super performance and save money hand over fist.

[coastie65]

Hey snorg, Oh man, I hope the folks behave themselves in ths thread as it is begging for trouble. You know how fanboys can be. I will say, that I don't consider Intel to be "Trendy ", just another choice. I haven't used an AMD, but will recommend them for budget builds when someone is on a very tight budget. I know people ( one member here as well ) that have built atound the Pheom II x4 955 BE and are very happy with what they have. The main issue I may have with them is the high TDP of some of the ones I do like, but a good cooling solution should handle that.

[compnovo]

Wow, talk about throwing down the gauntlet.

I have to say, as a happy AMD user, that my next build will be Intel if they keep putting out chips with so much performance for the buck. I don't build based on brand loyalty, I choose what fits best in my budget and my goals.

Edit: Personally, I don't think AMD's current proc's would be worth trading up from what you're running now, that hex core is a nice chip.

This post has been edited by compnovo: 04 February 2012 - 07:29 AM

[snorg]

Well AMD TDP is coming down, the new 6 core I just got has lower TDP than my old dual core. The stock cooler is ok for stock clock its a 4 heatpipe job. For OC a good super cooler can be had for 35 bucks. You also havta pick a mobo that has a good TDP section or you can get throttling if you OC by much.

This post has been edited by snorg: 04 February 2012 - 07:28 AM

[snorg]

@ compnovo

Ya well, If Intel was only a bit more inexpensive I would try it.
But look at their flagship CPU, its so high it must be an airship not flagship.

This post has been edited by coastie65: 04 February 2012 - 07:38 AM

[coastie65]

snorg, on 04 February 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

Well AMD TDP is coming down, the new 6 core I just got has lower TPD than my old dual core. The stock cooler is ok for stock clock its a 4 heatpipe job. For OC a good super cooler can be had for 35 bucks. You also havta pick a mobo that has a good TDP section or you can get throttling if you OC by much.

Yeah, they are. I liked the Phenom II X4 Black Edition stuff, but those things had a TDP of 125w ( and I thought my Pentium D @ 95w was a space heater ). Definiltely have to have the right MOBO for sure. There are some nice coolers out there at good prices for sure as long as your case is deep enough to support the height of those things. I stsrted with a Zalman CNPS 10x Performa, but the thing crowded out one of my DIMM slots, so went with a Gelid Tranquillo. The Cooler Master 212 Plus is good as well.

[compnovo]

snorg, on 04 February 2012 - 07:26 AM, said:

@ compnovo

Ya well, If Intel was only a bit more expensive I would try it.
But look at their flagship CPU, its so high it must be an airship not flagship.

That's why I never buy flagship anything.

Intel's i5 2500k is wildly popular, you see a lot of them in this forum, and reasonably priced. I can't justify trading up, even with my well-honed rationalizing skills.

[coastie65]

snorg, on 04 February 2012 - 07:26 AM, said:

@ compnovo

Ya well, If Intel was only a bit more inexpensive I would try it.
But look at their flagship CPU, its so high it must be an airship not flagship.

Well INtel has rolled out their socket 2011 based stuff, and the Ivy Bridge is on deck. I suspect that once they roll out the Ivy Bridge stuff, the Sandy Bridge prices will come down some.

[snorg]

Ok, my Phenom II X6 1100T stock is 3.3 and is routinely OCed to 4.2 and sells for about 200 bucks up here in ripoff land.

I need max power so I go flagship in the next to newest flavor.

[snorg]

Coolermaster Hyper 212 Evo is better than Coolermaster 212 Plus, and its only 35 bucks. In a mini tower case it has about a mm clearance of the outside cover.

My new 6 core TDP is 125W, but when you do a big OC you draw more than that at full load. But I never see more than 35% CPU usage even when Im video encoding. The only way to get 100% usage is with a torture tester.

[compnovo]

@snorg
I just now noticed that you set this up as a poll, but I didn't vote because my response wasn't listed:

"I don't build based on brand loyalty, I choose what fits best in my budget and my goals."

[snorg]

Ya Ok, Ill put a mark on the wall for your vote.

[waldojim]

I am choosing not to vote because of the wording.

A sub $300 Intel i5 is outperforming any AMD in the same price range. To me, this makes Intel the better value. I buy that which gives me the best value - no matter who makes it.

[snorg]

Ok good.
Thats still more money tho.
I didnt wanna go over 200 bucks.

And I know Im out voted, I expected that.

This post has been edited by snorg: 04 February 2012 - 08:08 AM

[coastie65]

snorg, on 04 February 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

Ok good.
Thats still more money tho.
I didnt wanna go over 200 bucks.

And I know Im out voted, I expected that.

I saw some i5 2500k's for under $200 USD just before Christmas. snorg, you have used AMD and have been happy with them. They have performed for you and that is what matters. in my opinion, it is what works for you and your budget and not the general concensus. I had a lady friend who groused about an AMD machine that someone gave her. It was a lot better than the Intel based Packard Bell she had for sure. I told her that the software didn't know the difference.

[compnovo]

snorg, on 04 February 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

Ok good.
Thats still more money tho.
I didnt wanna go over 200 bucks.

This is close:
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819115073

This post has been edited by compnovo: 04 February 2012 - 08:24 AM

[waldojim]

snorg, on 04 February 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

Ok good.
Thats still more money tho.
I didnt wanna go over 200 bucks.

And I know Im out voted, I expected that.

I understand, and appreciate that position. However, when I compare a $250 i5 to a $300 AMD FX 8150, I am forced to conclude that the extra $50 to go with AMD is money thrown away. You have been suggesting Flagship CPUs, in this case, AMD's flagship is not only more expensive, but the performance is more erratic.

If AMD finds its way back on track, with affordable, high performance processors, then I will be an AMD customer once more.

[waldojim]

coastie65, on 04 February 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

I saw some i5 2500k's for under $200 USD just before Christmas. snorg, you have used AMD and have been happy with them. They have performed for you and that is what matters. in my opinion, it is what works for you and your budget and not the general concensus. I had a lady friend who groused about an AMD machine that someone gave her. It was a lot better than the Intel based Packard Bell she had for sure. I told her that the software didn't know the difference.

That last statement isn't always true. It SHOULD be true, but there are slight differences in instruction sets - or how those instructions are handled. This has proven true more than one with video encoding. At one time, I had a video compression program that would ONLY work correctly on my old P3 450. Yes, it was terribly slow. But it was also fairly automated - insert DVD, click start, and wait. But I tried that on my AMD K6-2, and my AMD Athlon-XP. Using the exact same distribution of Linux, the same updates, and the same software. Yet it crashed every time. Turned out, it was because AMD was supporting the SSE extensions, but not QUITE the same way as Intel.

EDIT: Note that this does cut both ways. Extensions brought about my AMD are not handled identically by Intel either.

This post has been edited by waldojim: 04 February 2012 - 08:34 AM

[coastie65]

waldojim, on 04 February 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

coastie65, on 04 February 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

I saw some i5 2500k's for under $200 USD just before Christmas. snorg, you have used AMD and have been happy with them. They have performed for you and that is what matters. in my opinion, it is what works for you and your budget and not the general concensus. I had a lady friend who groused about an AMD machine that someone gave her. It was a lot better than the Intel based Packard Bell she had for sure. I told her that the software didn't know the difference.

That last statement isn't always true. It SHOULD be true, but there are slight differences in instruction sets - or how those instructions are handled. This has proven true more than one with video encoding. At one time, I had a video compression program that would ONLY work correctly on my old P3 450. Yes, it was terribly slow. But it was also fairly automated - insert DVD, click start, and wait. But I tried that on my AMD K6-2, and my AMD Athlon-XP. Using the exact same distribution of Linux, the same updates, and the same software. Yet it crashed every time. Turned out, it was because AMD was supporting the SSE extensions, but not QUITE the same way as Intel.

EDIT: Note that this does cut both ways. Extensions brought about my AMD are not handled identically by Intel either.

Yeah, I know. It was just an off hand remark I threw at her at the time. Actually, it was someone I was dating at the time and I was happy someone gave her that thing as i was getting more than a little tired od trying to squeeze more out the Packard Bell ( at her request I might add ) than it was willing to give. That thing was not intended to be used to try and run a business. I think it was running a P3 and she had "upgraded" to Windows 98 ( I believe Win 2k was the flavor of the day at the time ). She also thought she could handle a Website........not. That thing was crippled as far as memory went. Told her she would need a server for that. She ended up going to a third party to host her web site. She also didn't have the internet connection for trying to host a web site. Early on, AMD did have the better processor and I suspect when they were writing the instructions that was what it was based on.

[snorg]

Oh Ya, If Im PC tech for a girl Im dating I just do whatever makes em smile.