So I was building a new PC, and had to make a choice

[stardust]

I am building a 3.2Ghz quad core, 8Gb DDR 3 RAM, and Windows Vista 64 bit.

Should I go with Intel or AMD? The specs for both processors are almost the same, but the price difference is ludicrous!

$245 for the AMD model, $999 for the Intel?!?!?

Click the link if you don't believe me:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...7%201302825342

BTW, I went with AMD as always; my wallet is $754 happier for it!

[Spore]

I think you may need to do some more research. You are looking at Intel's i7 processors. One thing you have to take into account is that you cannot simply compare how many GHz the processor has as different processors can do more or less per clock. The i7's happen to perform far better than any consumer level processor on the market currently in that respect, making that 3.2GHz much more meaningful.

Another thing to take into account is that if you had bought the i7, you would have been in trouble as it requires a socket 1366 motherboard and tri-channel ram. Anyway, if you want to look at that AMD processor's Intel equivelant, I suggest you google the i7 920. I believe it is 280 dollars. Remember though, that on top of this, you are required to have a socket 1366 motherboard and tri-channel RAM. It is also eerily overclockable. Both processors will do fine regardless of what you need though. Anyway, do you research and post your specs so I can see what else you got (:

[stardust]

Well, I got the computer up and running, I haven't done much with it as of yet because I need to find a internal wireless adapter (with 64 bit drivers) to get online and haven't transferred my old stuff to the new system yet. Not sure exactly what I'm going to use the full 8Gb of RAM for either, esp since most current software still runs on 32 bits . My Phenom II 955 is running cool and very stable at stock voltage and slightly OC'ed at 3.456 Ghz. My motherboard suppler, Biostar has supplied some nice software to work with AMD processors, that automatically configures the system clock to run at a safe and reliable level. The software slowly incremented the clock speed until system crashed and reset somewhere above 3.6 Ghz. When I rebooted, it was running at 3.456, which is what the OC software recommended, so that's where I left it at. I'm not going to try to force it too to the extreme like some people do, because that usually just leads to overheating and huge system instability with only marginal gains, plus tampering with voltage settings can lead to damaged components.

Originally Posted by Spore

I think you may need to do some more research. You are looking at Intel's i7 processors. One thing you have to take into account is that you cannot simply compare how many GHz the processor has as different processors can do more or less per clock. The i7's happen to perform far better than any consumer level processor on the market currently in that respect, making that 3.2GHz much more meaningful.

I actually read some various benchmark tests that compared the 955 to other processors, and the i7 did do marginally better in several of the benchmark tests, but I do not consider a 20-30% increase in performance worth 4 times the cost. And I am aware of things like sockets and motherboard compatability and stuff. Even the older Core 2 Extreme quads rated at 3Ghz or higher were like about $500 a piece, and most of the i7 motherboards were expensive as well. Newegg had a lot more triple-channel kits (3x2Gb, etc) than they did dual channel, so I had to scroll through a lot more stuff to find what I wanted. I got a really good discount on a 2x2Gb 1333Mhz DDR3 memory kit (normally $60 but discounted at $40 with the purchase of a Phenom II Processor), so I bought 2 kits for 8Gb $80 total and filled all 4 slots on my motherboard. You just can't find a better deal than that!

[Spore]

I actually read some various benchmark tests that compared the 955 to other processors, and the i7 did do marginally better in several of the benchmark tests, but I do not consider a 20-30% increase in performance worth 4 times the cost. And I am aware of things like sockets and motherboard compatability and stuff. Even the older Core 2 Extreme quads rated at 3Ghz or higher were like about $500 a piece, and most of the i7 motherboards were expensive as well. Newegg had a lot more triple-channel kits (3x2Gb, etc) than they did dual channel, so I had to scroll through a lot more stuff to find what I wanted. I got a really good discount on a 2x2Gb 1333Mhz DDR3 memory kit (normally $60 but discounted at $40 with the purchase of a Phenom II Processor), so I bought 2 kits for 8Gb $80 total and filled all 4 slots on my motherboard. You just can't find a better deal than that!

The i7 processors are generally for enthusiasts at this point in time, due to their price, but that is what the extra money gets you. At this current moment in time, the i7's (I think now it is Intel's new server CPU's though) are the highest performing CPU's available. Naturally they have headroom for extreme overclocking too (and Intel probably expects most of them to be overclocked. Enthusiasts). Anyway, the reason the highest end i7 is 1,000 dollars is because as the price of a component goes up, the performance to price ratio decreases. Current technology can only bring us so far, but if you actually need the highest amount of power now, that's your option. The i7 920, Phenom 955, and other cards in the 200 to 300 dollar range are for the gamers. Also, the reason why the now outdated Core 2 Extreme Quads are still 500 dollars even if cheaper ones perform better is because Intel would rather you buy their new products instead of those. Everybody does that with their "old high-end" equipment. Now, you keep forgetting to post the most interesting part of your computer specs. Post the rest!

[stardust]

Originally Posted by Spore

The i7 processors are generally for enthusiasts at this point in time, due to their price, but that is what the extra money gets you.... Everybody does that with their "old high-end" equipment. Now, you keep forgetting to post the most interesting part of your computer specs. Post the rest!

One thing I didn't realise about the i7 was the capability of running 2 threads per core - I didn't take hyperthreading into account when doing comparisons.

I haven't done any benchmarks yet. What exactly do you want to know about my system? I just came home from school over the weekend to assemble the thing and make sure it worked; I also got the OS installed. I am just using the stock onboard video card for now, and for the past few years, stock cards have been more than sufficient for me - I know this sounds kinda lame, but my idea of "sufficient" in terms of video processing is being able to run an N64 game at 1600x1200 60Hz full screen. It also has 128Mb onboard memory and runs Vista's Areo interface flawlessly with a 4.3 rating (my CPU and memory bus are both 5.9, whatever those arbitrary numbers mean). I mainly want a fast computer for stuff like 3D rendering software, fractal generating, and other heavily intensive loads, not PC gaming. I'm too much of a retro and Nintendo fanboy to care about modern PC games - exept maybe World of Goo, LOL!

BTW, I just learned on the web that my Core Duo Laptop could be overclocked; downloaded some utilities, and am now running my 2.0Ghz Core Duo T2500 at 2333Mhz and the FSB at 777Mhz with no penalty in stability

[Spore]

Originally Posted by stardust

Long quote.

I just assumed you had swell GPU to back up your CPU and wanted to know what it was.

[RetroNL]

If you want a good set to go in with the future I advise you a good mobo with DDR 3 and a minimum of 1600mhz FSB, like the Asus p5q3 series.
In gaming I suggest a duo core above a quad, I read on many sites that the quad core in gaming is lesser productive because of the packed capacity it just needs from 1 - 2 cores, the only strong effect of the quad core will work in Windows by compressing files and stuff, but still a good Dual Core will survive very long in the future because many programs/games are very left behind of the stats of processors these days and I also think in the future, because it will cost lots of money to produce games that need 3,0 ghz or less. I should choose a E8400 3,0ghz Intel (low powerconsumption, big capacity) I have some benchmark stats here: http://tweakers.net/reviews/1036/las...loopt-uit.html
As you can see the new I7 leeches a lot of power, It only is less consuming at Idle though, but of you want to show off with unnesacery specs I would go for the quad core with HT (you also need another mobo), dont forget you can always put a normal quad core without HT in a good motherboard like the one I advised. To be honest with you, I dont see The i7 and upcomming 8 line florish that much in the nearest future, because not everybody is waiting for high energy bills plus as I said you don't need it for 95 % of the apps on that are around even not the comming 5 years.
As for graphics go for a good DDR 3 graphicscard, that should be enough for the things you want to do.
Well its your decision, Good Luck !