help persuade me to go intel

[j0j081]

Well I'm finally getting ready to upgrade to a PCIe system. My socket 754 has served me well and it's still pretty darn fast but the newest games I am unable to run smoothly at my lcds native resolution so figured if I need a new graphics card might as well do the processor as well. This is going to be done on a tight budget with the gpu being the last thing purchased (might ask for it as a xmas present). I know as much as anyone else that Intel is the smarter way to go right now but for some strange reason I am still temped by AMD. Call me a fanboy or whatever but guess I just like what I am used or have some kind of brand loyalty thing going. If I go AMD I will probably be buying these 3 parts very soon.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Windsor (concluded this would be the better buy over the 5000+ BE)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819103773
BIOSTAR TF560 A2+ AM2+/AM2 NVIDIA nForce 560 (read this is a great board although not true AM2+)
http://www.newegg.com/product/...p?item=N82E16813138081
G.SKILL 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (best deal I could find)
http://www.newegg.com/product/...p?item=N82E16820231098

I'm not really sure what the comparible Intel system would be, perhaps you can help me, but this comes out to a little under $300. Was hoping to spend around $250 or so. Anyway, my questions are then what would be some good comparible Intel setups to this and what can you say to convince me to go Intel over AMD? Yeah I know all the benchmarks say Intel is faster but personally for gaming primarily I'm not sure I'll see any real world noticeable difference in performance. Thanks

 

[Conjugal Visit]

I think you're answering your own questions j0j0:

"I know as much as anyone else that Intel is the smarter way to go right now but for some strange reason I am still temped by AMD. Call me a fanboy or whatever..." You're right - you sound like a fanboy.

"Yeah I know all the benchmarks say Intel is faster..." Maybe I'm looking for AMD love in all the wrong places, but I can't remember seeing a review, or a an article, or a site this year that hasn't said that AMD has lost this round against the C2D.

Here's one of a few threads right here at Anandtech discussing the the E2XXX and E4XXX Cpu's running stable at high O/C's on, for the most part, budget boards like the Abit IP35. Wanna talk fanboy, search this forum for Abit IP35 supporters...sub-100 board that folks are really getting behind...

Personal observation - demonizing Intel "just because" seems pretty pointless, particularly with the gains they've made in the last 18 months.

 

[mlhm5]

go with the Intel e2180 cpu which can easily be OC to 3.4GHz with two simple moves - $90

go with the ABIT ip35-e MB - it is $90

if you can wait a little, I am sure you can get 4-4-4-12 memory for the same price, otherwise that memory you selected if just fine.

http://www.overclock.net/intel...read-budget-build.html - e2180 how to

http://www.overclock.net/intel...ards-quick-review.html - results with MBs

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear - ABIT ip35-e

 

[4x4expy]

just went through the same decision. The last Intel chip I owned was in a HP boxed desktop I bought about 5 yr ago. My current system, pretty outdated, but AMD like my last few. Initially I was ready to buy the 6000+. Bang for the buck it is great. But Intel has the performance and overclocking edge right now. The E4500 is ~$30 less than the 6000+ and offers plenty of OC headroom(pretty easily 3ghz plus). I ended up going with a Q6600, at a premium of course, but it should last me a little longer. I have run my Mobile Barton CPU for over 3 yrs.

 

[nonameo]

you're tempted by AMD because of the good cheap boards and the lower entry level cost for the processor.

Actually, ATI is releasing a 3850 for AGP I think. Or at least the rumor mill says so.

 

[bryanW1995]

it's very hard to go wrong with intel right now. ip35 e and p35 ds3L seem to be the two best budget intel boards right now. e2160 up to e4600 are all very good cpus and outstanding overclockers. If you want really nice oc's, spend the extra $20 or so for AC freezer pro.

 

[j0j081]

well guess I'll try piecing together an Intel system later tonight as see how it looks in comparison. One thing I've noticed is in a couple other threads people are saying the AMD processors seem to run smoother than Intel. One person attributed this to have something to do with the memory management but I'm wondering if it's just a bunch of bs.

 

[bryanW1995]

I can easily call bs on that. I am on my e6750 right now. To my right is my "fileserver"/DC rig with an opteron 180. At work I use an x2 4000+ am2. My e6750 absolutely destroys the other 2 at anything other than web surfing (which is what I do 70 % of the time ).

 

[j0j081]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
I can easily call bs on that. I am on my e6750 right now. To my right is my "fileserver"/DC rig with an opteron 180. At work I use an x2 4000+ am2. My e6750 absolutely destroys the other 2 at anything other than web surfing (which is what I do 70 % of the time ).

so you mean the webpage loading seems faster on the AMD system? that might be what others were referring to as being smoother/more snappy.

 

[bryanW1995]

not smoother, but certainly equal. Of course, I'm running my e6750 memory at 1046 5-5-5-18 1T, which is probably faster than most c2d rigs run. My opteron 180 fileserver is possibly a little less "snappy" with mem at 2t and my work x2 4000+ is probably just as "snappy" with 1T memory, but there is really not much difference between any of them. None of them EVER bogs down while surfing, and they all run DC 24/7. The OS is probably more important than the memory settings, I have xp pro on the amd's and xp home on the e6750.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
I can easily call bs on that. I am on my e6750 right now. To my right is my "fileserver"/DC rig with an opteron 180. At work I use an x2 4000+ am2. My e6750 absolutely destroys the other 2 at anything other than web surfing (which is what I do 70 % of the time ).

I can definitely call BS on that. I've got both a single core A64 4000, and a Q6600, and the A64 is definitely snappier in normal Windows use/websurfing/whatever. Of course, when you start actually running software that puts the CPU to work, there's no comparison; the Q6600 destroys the A64, even in single-threaded apps.

 

[Denithor]

For gaming: to beat the 6000+ at stock you would need the e6550.

Abit IP35-E + e6550 from Mwave for ~$250 shipped after $20MIR
Corsair XMS2 2x1GB DDR2-800 from Newegg for $41 shipped after $30MIR

Total after MIR: $291 or about $10 cheaper than the 6000+ build you planned out. If you take a look at these UT3 benchmarks you will find that the stock e6550 beats out even the 6400+ let alone the 6000+ and also provides much greater overclocking potential than the AMD chips.

Of course, if you are into overclocking you can substitute in the e4500 for a savings of $50 and get equal to better performance depending on how high you push it (many people easily hit 3GHz with the e4500/IP35-E combination).

 

[kmmatney]

For gaming performance you won't see much difference. I don't see much difference between my 2.9 Ghz E4400, and another system I have with a X2 running at 2.5 Ghz. I do notice a difference in other tasks, such as video encoding.

 

[swing848]

CPU Benchmarks Try finding a benchmark where AMD wins.

With a budget of $250 to $300 overclocking seems reasonable if you want the best bang for your dollar. If you overclock the E4400 is probably the best, it has 2MB of level 2 cache [plenty for gaming], a multiplyer of 10, and can be overclocked from about 3GHz to 4GHz on air.

Overclocking is a bit of a gamble but this CPU does the job so well that you cannot lose. Many people have to resort to slightly exotic methods to go beyond 3.5GHz such as lapping the CPU and a better HSF

I have lapped components in the past, however, I was fortunate to be able to overclock my current E4400 from 2.0GHz stock speed to a stable 3.45GHz with nothing but the addition of using an ancient XP 90 heatsink that was on an old motherboard sitting on a shelf. If I want to get past 3.5GHz with this heatsink and fan I will have to lap this CPU. [Note that without lapping I can get the CPU to 3.6GHz, however it is not stable when under a heavy load.]

One important piece of information, if you want to overclock you will need clean and stable power, so make sure you have a high quality power supply.

Build One:

CPU
Motherboard
RAM

Build Two:

Same as above except:

CPU

NOTE: Why doesn't UBB code such as url= work on this site?
------> Answered by myocardia, thank you for the help.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: swing848
CPU Benchmarks http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html Try finding a benchmark where AMD wins.

With a budget of $250 to $300 overclocking seems reasonable if you want the best bang for your dollar. If you overclock the E4400 is probably the best, it has 2MB of level 2 cache [plenty for gaming], a multiplyer of 10, and can be overclocked from about 3GHz to 4GHz on air.

Why would you recommend an E4400, when the E4500 costs less, is faster at stock speed, has a higher multiplier, and also has a guaranteed M0 stepping?

If I want to get past 3.5GHz with this heatsink and fan I will have to lap this CPU. [Note that without lapping I can get the CPU to 3.6GHz, however it is not stable when under a heavy load.]

Lapping only brings your temps down somewhat, it doesn't improve your processor's overclocking capabilities.

NOTE: Why doesn't UBB code such as url= work on this site?

Because the software that's used here doesn't use UBB code. To post a link, just paste the link into the reply, like this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819115031 To label the link, use the http button at the top of the reply box, like this: link to E4500 @ newegg.

 

[swing848]

myocardia,

E4400 was a typo. The link I provided was for an E4500.

RE: lapping - Temp reduction does increase overclocking potential. If temp reduction did not help with overclocking no one would purchase an expensive heatsink [or water cooling] and use the stock HSF from Intel. I looked at an E4500 a few weeks ago and the core cover was terrible, it was so bad that it looked deformed, that puppy needed lapping before any serious overclocking could be performed.

Thank you for the UBB info.

I noticed the links I provided are now broken after I edited the post, as UBB would not work. After further editing, using your information, I finally finished the links. Note that I still forgot to change my typo concerning the E4400...

 

[j0j081]

well thanks for the help guys. now I have 3 dif wishlists on newegg. nne with the 6000+, one with the E4500, and another with the E6550. I'm probably going to do either the 6000+ or the E6550 because although I don't mind overclocking (my current system is slightly now), I'd probably rather pay a few extra bucks for gauranteed performance then oc after that if it even seems necessary. I wonder if newegg will have any good deals on this hardware I want around black friday.