Intel or AMD

[Alfa_Male]

Yeah, but you dont want to get yourself an extremely cheap CPU, and be upgrading next year or so... Most of the new games do support more than 2 cores, and there is a £30 difference between cheap i3 and high-end quad AMD. For an extra £30 you prepare yourself for next 3 years coming, and you probably save £20 -£30 on a MoBo with the same specs anyway.

The money is yours, get any of those.

You can't beat quad AMD pricewise or performancewise with any intel. They overclock well too, being BE's with unlocked multipliers.

As I said, I'm not an expert

Id go for the AMD system with such a budget, you will not regret it. 4 physical cores will be much better than 2 cores, its a future proof thing. This guys says no lie.

PS: I have both amd 965 BE and an Intel i7 930, so i experienced both.

 

[Jujumonkey]

I was planning on getting a AMD x4 black edition or x6 1090T, but ive worked out my budget, and i can aford an intel i7 930

I would think AMD are going to bring a new CPU out, Intel have had the market for too long now, they need to come up with someone as powerful as an i7 but cheaper, which I dont think they can do, no offence to them.

From my research i found that AMD have a new cpu architecture (named bulldozer for desktops and bobcat for mobile). intels next cpu's will both take new socket sets, socket 1155 is replacing 1156 and i cant remember the socket number thats replacing the 1366 but itll be x68 and quad channel memory). the new amd bulldozer will be tri or quad channel memory to but there's rumours and hints that it might be partially compatible with am3 boards but you'll loose the extra memory channels. Will bulldozer be the new power platform? i dont know, but at the moment i'm leaning towards AMD for my new build. the 3.5 ghz black edition quad core looks good for gamers, and the 3ghz x6 1075T or the black edition 3.2 ghz x6 looks great for low cost multi threaded performance. In independant reviews the 1090t outperforms intels 930 and 870 cpu's, and as for motherboards i really dont think you can beat the am3 890fx's for modern features at an affordable price

 

[alienware]

Id go for the AMD system with such a budget, you will not regret it. 4 physical cores will be much better than 2 cores, its a future proof thing. This guys says no lie.

PS: I have both amd 965 BE and an Intel i7 930, so i experienced both.

The I5 quad costs the same or less than the 965 here in the UK. Are you seriously going to advise people to buy a 965 that's on par with a Intel 45nm quad over an I5?

The I3 is dual core with hyperthreading yes, but it costs £70. You can't get a 965 for £70. Try more like £130. And at that level you're banging on the door of the I5.

I totally agree that you would probably think they're about the same because hey, the mind can only pick up so much. Differences in day to day use would be microscopic. Synthetic benchmarks will show you what your mind can't decipher and games will offer some more FPS which at that level of clock speed with those cores wouldn't be noticable either, but the fact is you need to make a decision based on what is better.

And the I5 is better than the 965 by a long way. If you encode video or audio the I5 is an absolute no brainer. Cold fact is it does it faster and therefore does it better. Gaming isn't so important because as long as you can make the cap (usually 60fps but in some cases 30) you're sorted.

Quad core Phenom 2 are only a good choice if you already have a system (DDR2 or DDR3) that has say an Athlon 2 dual core that you fancy dropping something straight in (providing your board has a bios update to allow it) and be all done in less than 30 minutes. Advising people to build a new system with a large outlay based around a chip that's as good as a 45nm quad (Q series) and costs pretty much what an I5 does is frankly a bit daft.

As I said I do agree that for the most part they will be inseperable, but spending a large chunk on something inferior is madness. Even if that inferiority is hard to see.

In independant reviews the 1090t outperforms intels 930 and 870 cpu's, and as for motherboards i really dont think you can beat the am3 890fx's for modern features at an affordable price

And this is very true. For any one to build an AMD system (high end) from scratch and pump out a large chunk of money then the hex core are the only ones I would even consider. Building a high priced and specced system around a 965 is insane.

I also love AMD's chipsets. And that's why I can't bring myself to change out my system any time soon. But if I did it would be Intel all the way at my pricepoint. At least with the hex cores you have what could be considered a choice.

 

[Kevin]

1090T in scan is now priced at £187. awsome

 

[alienware]

Yeah that's a nice price. If I'm lucky and they drop it any more before releasing the next line I might be tempted

I don't think I've ever spent more than £150 on a CPU. And tbh I don't really want to either.

 

[cameron93]

the intel i series has a lot more to offer but your budget may have to be streched...

 

[Bocephus]

Wow. A lot of opinions, some that I feel are largely based on their preference (Intel over AMD). I don't see where you get that the 1090T X6 for less $$ can't perform as well as or out perform an overpriced i7 (not talking about the i7 extremes), hell I can build a whole computer for that price (1000.000 US which is totally ridiculous) and few games even use hyper-threading anyway so there's another useless point IMO.

I'm planning a new rig too and am standing in the crossroads of this same delima on AMD-Intel. Hope Tom does a review and clears this up.

Until then, I feel it's purely subjectional. Unless your one of those two types of people that think the more you pay for it the better it is or ones that want it just to say they spent 300.00-1000.00 US on an overprice piece of silicon.

I admit I dont have enough knowledge for an informed opinion so I have to go on what I do know

 

[Bocephus]

Which AMD? I5 dude... I5. Give me a minute got a couple of pics here

OK brief rundown. These recommended specs are from Custom PC magazine. There are very VERY few people that I have any respect for (nor listen to) when it comes to reviewing hardware. This is because most of them are bumboys and are being bribed or looking onto products kindly when reviewing to make sure they get more. So, given that I am incredibly skeptical and trust no one (not even TTL until I have seen a second opinion !) then it's hard for me to endorse any one reviewing products, or, to trust in a product. It's my money after all.

However, I always find TTL absolutely bang on the money. I also find Custom PC bang on the money. Give them a sh*t product and they will tear it limb from limb. So, without further ado here are their recommended PC systems this month. Please bear in mind at the time of print the I3 was £93 so the Pentium was better value. Note the board and PSU?

Now that system used to have a Athlon 2 X2 in it. Now it doesn't. For a reason.

Let's move onto mid range shall we?

Oh look ! Intel again ! I wonder why ! So now let's warm things up and go onto performance.

Hmm. Intel again. Cue the conspiracy theorists ! And now let's go balls out and be completely irresponsible.

Hmm, that would be every single aspect of the PC build gaming world dominated by Intel. It's not because Custom PC talk rubbish and it's not because they don't get AMD chips to review. It's because it's PLAIN. COLD. HARD. FACT. Intel's CPUs are now better in pretty much every single department of gaming. If you don't want to listen? fine. If you want to ignore what the whole world is saying? fine. Why don't you set up quad SLI whilst you're at it and have done.

Hmmm...that's funny, the 1090 is equivelent to the i7 930. So just because it's not in your little catalog doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't true. I'm pretty skeptical by nature also...so the fact that they don't show and AMD CPU suggests to me that they're getting a kickback...conspiracy theorists unite now Lol. It' really all relative

hehe

As far as you not trusting Tom off the get go...at least he shows you with video stats to back it up. I would trust him way more than what some only puts to print

not trying to be an arse

 

[AMDFTW]

intel has all the bases coverd in regards to low end,mid range and high end and the AMD chips fall someware inbetween

the i5 is getting replaced tho soon enough but even then intel will probly have the midrange market.

a i7 950 at 4ghz would smash a 1090t at 4ghz and the 950 is another 930

 

[alienware]

Hmmm...that's funny, the 1090 is equivelent to the i7 930. So just because it's not in your little catalog doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't true.

Yes it is funny isn't it. Because the 930 will beat the 1090 hands down unless you absolutely overclock the crap out of the AMD, at which point the AMD shines. However, not every one will see it that way you see. And then advising people to buy hardware you would be a raving pillock to tell them to buy something that you MUST overclock to see the potential, especially when some do not know their overclocking arse from their proverbial elbow.

I'm fully aware of the 1090s potential. However I am also fully aware that since the 1090 AMD have done very little with that socket. I also know that in about three months time the socket (AM3 incase you were wondering) is going to become defunct. I am sure that my 'catalogue' (which happens to be a magazine) know that also. Thus, giving out crap advice will bite you on the ass.

I'm pretty skeptical by nature also...so the fact that they don't show and AMD CPU suggests to me that they're getting a kickback...conspiracy theorists unite now Lol. It' really all relative

hehe

The fact that they are suggesting Intel over AMD right now (because for months there were AMD chips there) is because they obviously know something you don't. That being that AM3 is being dropped really soon and you will have a non upgradable motherboard on your hands. Had you done your research you would know that, and know that telling some one to buy a brick is clearly bad advice.

As far as you not trusting Tom off the get go...at least he shows you with video stats to back it up. I would trust him way more than what some only puts to print

not trying to be an arse

So lying to a video camera is harder than lying in print? I don't think so. If you ever needed proof of that go and look at that pleb Rodney Reynolds who seems to think that everything he has ever reviewed ever kicks ass.

Yes as time has gone on I have learned to totally trust in Tom. Would have been a bit naive to walk in here believing everything he said.