Who offers the best cpu? AMD vs Intel
Ah, the good old rivalry between Intel and AMD. As consumers, we benefit from this competition. This ensures that both companies work hard to produce the best cpus, at a good price that we are willing to pay. Of course, the price that someone is willing to pay will be adjusted depending on the person concerned. While $300 may be pocket change for someone with a high income job, it’s usually a lot for a student.
However, you’ll agree with me that everyone wants the best cpu currently available, at the price that they want to spend, whatever that price is. You could spend countless hours, reading full cpu reviews and comparing specs, which are great to read, if you want to spend to spend that much time that is. In the end, what you want to know is what the best cpu within your budget is.
So if you don’t have the time to do that, or just don’t care to do it, don’t worry. I did the research for you; I spent several days writing this article for you. As a matter of a fact, I’m writing this very paragraph at 1:50AM, before taking a nap, waking up at 6AM and heading out for work, for a contract.
Here are a few things to keep in mind when you read this list:
- This list is for anyone who wants the best bang for the buck on their next cpu
- Prices and availability change everyday. I can’t keep up with accurate pricing everyday, but I can suggest to you great cpus that you won’t regret buying at the price ranges that I list.
- This list is based on the best U.S. prices from NewEgg. In other countries or in a retail stores, things might be different. All prices are based on new retail cpu prices, no used or open box cards are listed; they might be a good deal, but they come with trade offs, such as limited return policy, limited warranty, etc.
- Intel’s Bus Speed (FSB) and AMD’s Hyper Transport are quite different, so do not rely yourself on that spec to compare cpus from both company. Instead, this spec should be used to compare cpus within the same company.
If you want to upgrade, here’s what you need, depending on where you come from:
AMD
Socket A: Cpu, motherboard, ram and video card.
Socket 754: Cpu, motherboard, ram and possibly video card.
Socket 939: Cpu, motherboard, ram and possibly video card.
Socket AM2: Cpu only, possibly motherboard to support higher thermal dissipation.
Intel
Socket 478 Cpu, motherboard, ram and possibly video card.
Socket 775 Cpu, possibly motherboard (depending on chipset), possibly ram (if it’s too slow) and possibly video card.
Let me explain the specs and ratings:
Here’s an example:
Specs:
Core: The name of the core(s) used in the cpu.
Number of cores: That’s pretty straight-forward.
FSB/Hyper Transport speed: The speed that the cpu communicates with the Northbridge (Intel FSB) or the memory(AMD).
Core clock: The maximum default speed at which the core(s) runs.
L2 Cache Size: The quantity of L2 cache memory.
Manufacturing Tech: 45nm or 65nm. Smaller is better.
Thermal Dissipation: The maximum thermal dissipation under default speed. Less is better.
Comparison:
Performance: All rated on a scale of 1 to 10:
- Gaming: How will the cpu perform in video games?
- Audio/Photo/Video Editing: How will the cpu perform with larger files and demanding applications for audio/photo/video editing?
- Single thread: How will the cpu perform with a single program that is not optimized for multiple cores?
- Multiple threads/Multithreaded: How will the cpu perform with various applications open at once or with a multi-threaded application?
- Overclocking potential: How well this particular cpu will overclock?
- Performance value for the price: How well does the cpu perform considering the price asked for me?
- Power usage: How much power (electricity) does it use? A higher note means that it uses less power.
Overall: x.x/10 : Add the seven individual notes and divide them by seven to get the overall note.
Under $50: Celeron E1200 vs. Athlon LE-1660:
Tie – Depends on the application(s)
For the first face-off, we have in the blue corner the Intel Celeron E1200 and in the green corner the Athlon LE-1660. The Celeron have the advantage with audio/photo/video editing, multithreaded applications and overclocking performance due to its dual-core, with nearly 100%(+1.6GHz) overclocking reported. The Athlon have the edge in gaming, single threaded performance and power usage, due to its fast and cool 2.8GHz single core. Which one is better? That depends on what you intend to do with your cpu. In the end, they are both very inexpensive cpus, with limited performance, which are designed to answer specific needs.
Intel: Celeron E1200Specs:
Overall: 4.6/10 |
AMD: Athlon LE-1660 Specs:
Overall: 4.7/10 |
Under $70: Pentium E2180 vs X2 5200+: Slight advantage AMD.
While the Intel’s cpu has a more efficient architecture, that alone won’t let it catch up the X2 5200+ which runs 700MHz faster than the E2180. AMD wins, by a slight margin though, as it’s crippled by an aged architecture which is desperately due for a refresh. When overclocking is involved, Intel does take back the crown though because their cpus overclock easily by 50% and more, which is way more than the AMD cpu will.
Intel: Pentium E2180 Specs:
Overall: 4.8/10 |
AMD: X2 5200+ Specs:
Overall: 5.1/10 |
Under $100: Pentium E5200 vs. X2 6000+:
Slight advantage Intel: While AMD’s Brisbane core can still compete and win against the Allendale core, it hits a wall vs a faster E5200, based on the Wolfdale core. With the X2 6000+, the Brisbane core is reaching its limits, offering similar performance to the E5200, but with much less overclocking potential and higher thermal dissipation.
Intel: Pentium E5200 Specs:
Overall: 6.3/10 |
AMD: X2 6000+Specs:
Overall: 4.6/10 |
Under $120: E7200 vs Phenom 9600 BE: Depends on your applications.
The E7200 has the edge when it comes to gaming, single thread performance, overclocking potential and power usage, but the Phenom 9600 BE is in lead for Audio/Photo/Video Editing and multiple threads/multithreaded performance. Pick your cpu depending on what you will be doing with it.
Intel: Core 2 Duo E7200 Specs:
Overall: 6.1/10 |
AMD: Phenom 9600 BE Specs:
Overall: 5.9/10 |
Under $175: E8400 vs. Phenom 9950 140W
Once again, this will depend on the applications used. This is similar to the $120 comparison, but it involves much faster cpus. Stick to the E8400 for gaming, single thread performance, overclocking potential and power usage. Go with the Phenom 9950 for Audio/Photo/Video editing, heavy multi-tasking or a well multi-threaded program.
Intel: Core 2 Duo E8400Specs:
Overall: 7.1/10 |
AMD:Phenom 9950 Black Edition 140W Specs:
Overall: 5.6/10 |
Under $190: Q6600 vs Phenom 9950 BE 125W vs E8500:
Gaming, single thread performance and power usage: E8500 hands down
For those of you who focus on Audio/Photo/Video editing and multiple threads/multithread performance, here’s a question: Are you going to overclock? If yes, go with the Q6600. If not, the Q6600 and the Phenom 9950 are both great contender. The latter uses more electricity though.
Intel: Core 2 Quad Q6600 Specs:
Overall: 6.3/10 |
AMD:Phenom 9950 Black Edition 125W Specs:
Overall: 5.9/10 |
Intel: Core 2 Duo E8500 Specs:
Overall: 7.1/10 |
Under $270: E8600 vs Q9400:
Running at 3.33GHz, the E8600 is the best cpu for gaming and single threaded performance. While the Q9400 is knowned for its superior performance for editing and multitasking/multithreaded, the E8600 isn’t that far behind, due to its speed advantage. This round goes to the E8600, unless you focus strictly on editing or multitasking.
Intel: Core 2 Duo E8600
|
Intel: Core2 Quad Q9400 Specs:
Overall: 6.5/10 |
Under $320: Q9550
Intel: Core 2 Quad Q9550 Specs:
Overall: 6.9/10 |
AMD doesn’t offer any faster cpu that the Phenom 9950 on the desktop platform. Thus the Q9550 is the only and best choice at this price range. Its main improvement? The larger 12MB vs. the 6MB found on the Q9400. |
Under $550: Q9650
Intel: Core 2 Quad Q9650 Specs:
Overall: 6.8/10 |
AMD doesn’t offer any faster cpu that the Phenom 9950 on the desktop platform. The Q9650 is the pinnacle of Intel’s engineering on the desktop platform, except for Extreme series which is ridiculously expensive. |
In conclusion, you can see that AMD is still competitive in the lower end of the market with their X2. They are doing pretty well with their Phenom too, although they aren’t making much money out of it.
Intel’s Nehalem, known as Core i7 , will change everything in the higher end of the market in just a few weeks. AMD will then need something and quick. The X2 line-up needs a much needed refresh, same goes for Phenom.
I invite you to let me know what you think of this. Do you believe that some ratings are unjustified? Do you think that a particular cpu should have featured? Have any questions? Leave a comment and participate in the conversation with the community here!
Did you enjoy this post? Do you want to make sure to receive the next ones and not miss any of them? I invite you to subscribe to the RSS then. You can also receive updates by e-mail, with the form on the top right corner. Thanks!
Stumble it!
Loading ...
web | October 17, 2008 3:08 am
This is a very useful article. And I really like the price breakdown!
[Reply]
Wei Liang | October 17, 2008 6:29 am
Thanks for the share. This comes in handy when I want to build a computer by myself.
Wei Liang
[Reply]
VitaminCM | October 17, 2008 8:38 am
I do a lot of multi-tasking and media editing. I was really leaning towards an Intel chip. Maybe I could save a few dollars and get an AMD chip instead. It looks like they are lagging behind Intel overall, but for my primary needs they are still competitive.
[Reply]
klutzyer | October 17, 2008 9:34 am
great breakdown on current cpu’s , comprehensive guide for anyone looking at their next build!
[Reply]
neal rodriguez | October 17, 2008 1:14 pm
i don’t know the specs, but i think intel’s got it; i’ve never seen anything more effective and quicker than the dual and quad core processors.
[Reply]
JohnDetroit | October 19, 2008 12:22 pm
very nice article. your breakdowns are simple to read and i plan on showing this to people who want me to build systems, i always stumble for the simple way to tell them the differences. you nailed it on the <50.00 cpu . YOU ROCK Mathieu!
[Reply]
Mathieu | October 20, 2008 9:56 pm
Thanks, I’m glad to hear that you like it web.
[Reply]
Mathieu | October 20, 2008 9:57 pm
My pleasure. I sure hope that it comes handy when you or a friend will be building a system. If you need any assitance with it, let me know!
[Reply]
Mathieu | October 20, 2008 10:06 pm
Indeed, for budget quad-core cpus, AMD have an advantage. As you said, while they don’t offer the best performance, the low cost helps a lot. Also, overall, AMD motherboards have more/better features.
[Reply]
Mathieu | October 20, 2008 10:09 pm
Thank you very much John, that kind of comment gives me the inspiration to continue! I appreciate!
[Reply]
Marcin | October 28, 2008 5:32 pm
Apart from trying to get some commission via cj.com, I can’t see anything I could trust here, sorry.
For example, where do you get the numbers from? If you benchmarked the CPUs by yourself, how about a description (even brief) of the method used. If you used existing benchmarking applications, how about you state the results and applications used. If you used external sources, where are the links to the sources and kudos to their respective authors who did the actual work? And if it’s from the top of your head, well then, that doesn’t convince me at all.
If I was to buy a CPU, I would like to know what system was used for testing, was it 32- or 64-bit? Did you use multithreading enabled applications to do work in oh-so-wide category of Audio/Video/Photo-editing? Which ones were you using and how did you test the performance?
I don’t see any of those things mentioned here so excuse me for all the criticism but seriously, calling this “guide” comprehensive is a little too much, don’t you think? And either you’re a very slow typer or you had many naps inbetween writing this article if it took you several days.
[Reply]
Mathieu | October 30, 2008 5:56 am
Hey Marcin, thanks for your critic. Let me reply to you.
As a matter of a fact, I do try to make commisions via cj.com. That helps me pay hosting costs, invest into the blog and save up money to pay for parts that I’d like to review. In the end, it doesn’t cost any extra for anyone who buys any part(s) through my recommendations and it helps me improve this blog.
This guide is meant to be guidelines for someone who plans to buy a cpu in the future. While I did not run benchmarks, for the simple reason that I do not have the budget for this, various sites compared these cpus already. Just google it as “e5200 benchmark” or “e5200 review”, changing the e5200 for your favorite cpu.
I read various source of informations about computer hardware parts everyday, including a bunch of benchmarks. From reading so much, I can tell for example that Wolfdale/Penryn are 5-10% faster for clock-to-clock comparison versus their Conroe/Kentsfield counterparts overall.
Also, when comparing cpu from the same line-up, all you need is logic to figure out that the same cpu will be faster with a higher core clock. I’m thinking of the Q9550 vs the Q9650 here. Another example of that would be the X2 5200+ vs the X2 6000+.
So I use a mix of what I know already from reading, with external sources. You raise a good point, I should indeed link to external benchmarks, for my readers to see concrete benchmarks.
As for Audio/Video/Photo-editing, the vast majority of applications covering these areas are in fact multi-threaded. As said above, I use a mix of the information that I’m aware of already, along with some external sources.
I have no problem with criticism, I actually appreciate it as it allows me to see my weak points and it helps me improve my articles, so I thank you for taking the time to write it.
I only have so much time everyday, as I have a lot of responsabilities of my own in my life, as a household leader who takes care of his family and of course, I like to see my friends when I can. That explains why I took several days to write this article Also, doing an article over several days allows me to see different aspects that I wouldn’t have thought of if I wrote in one session.
[Reply]
PC Gamer | November 11, 2008 3:26 pm
I have a socket 939 with a Athlon 64 3200+, along with a 6600GT video card, that really was way better than the pentium 4 3.0 Ghz offerings at the time. It is sad that AMD has slipped so fast and far, I really hope they can reach their glory days again!
[Reply]
chaiphet | January 8, 2009 11:19 am
I think Intel is better cpu than AMD because the most cpu from Intel have efficiently. AMD is lagging behind Intel. Over-clock (speed up more than default) on Intel’s cpu that there is no problem and edge or hang, so it support gaming. The maximum L2 Cache of AMD’s cpu is 2mb but Intel has up to 12mb. CPU Updating, Intel likes to create cpu in the same socket for long period time that make alternative for update cpu, but AMD change socket effect consumer cannot update cpu because a newer cpu does not match the old socket. Most chipset support Intel more than AMD because chipset from Intel were companies. Although Intel is better than AMD, but AMD is cheaper.
[Reply]