I have a cheap Asus AM3 board and a Phenom II 555 CPU. It fully unlocked all the cores, so I'm very happy.

This week I built a i5 2500 Sandy Bridge machine for a friend. Also cheap Asus H61 board, 8GB DDR3, 1 TB Sata HDD, 22x DVD Writer, cheap case with PSU all for ~ AUD 500.

The on-die video card scored 5.4 under W7 experience index if anyone wants to compare...

My next system will likely be Ivy Bridge. I have no faith in AMD at the moment. Bulldozer is late / they have issues with the 32nm process. And bulldozer boards won't be cheap. everything I have seen so far points to enthusiast products, which I have no interest in.

Their computex (or was it another show) presentation resently was a joke: Sorry we can't talk about Bulldozer, but here is a chip of Trinity for you to look at!

Reminded me of Nvidia and the wood screws 🤣

I have been an AMD fanboy for a long time. I am switching to Intel for my next rig. Performance wise I think Intel is ahead of AMD.

On the other hand, Intel is more expensive.

I built my current system a year ago around a Core i7-930. I was deciding between this and whatever the high-end AMD 6-core processor was at the time-- I forget-- but I chose the i7 because I don't use a large number of heavily multithreaded applications and the i7 offered better performance per core. I really, really like it, but I realize that I'll be in trouble down the line if I want to upgrade because LGA1366 is dead now. This could also work to my advantage if I keep watch on retailers, and I could snag a better LGA1366 processor as they start to try getting rid of them.

Either way, it performs far ahead of my needs right now so I expect that, even without upgrades, it will last me a long time. My last system was a low-end Athlon 64 and it lasted me five years, so having built an extremely high-end system this time I imagine it will last at least that long as well, if not longer.

Core i7 still costs too much. I am using a Gigabyte 880G based motherboard and Phenom II x4 945.

Tetrium wrote:

I made this as a spin-off from this topic: AMD Quits Benchmark Group Implying Intel Bias […]
Show full quote

I made this as a spin-off from this topic: AMD Quits Benchmark Group Implying Intel Bias

What are you guys current rigs?

Is it Intel? Or did you pick and AMD?

What are the current advantages of either platforms?

Is Intel still the more expensive one? And what about future upgradeability?
Is Intel currently harder to upgrade then AMD? And what are the chances that either one will still make CPU's compatible for boards that are now in the shops?

My most recent rig is an AMD AM3 rig sporting a 955BE (3.2Ghz Phenom II quad core).
I went with AMD as it had the best price/performance ratio for me at the time. The system was build early last year.

I've preferred AMD over Intel ever since the netburst days.

My current system is very similiar to what you built for AMD. Only mine is the 965BE and it was built around the same time... I stuck with AMD for the same reasons as you and that still seems to be the trend. I don't take the benchmarks very seriously as I know they can run very differently in home use especially depending on what you actually use them for. In the benchmarks that I've seen with my friends i7 systems vs the Phenom II systems, they were very close (despite what the popular benchmarks were initially telling us). With each manufacturer winning in different areas. So what I would say is stick with whatever makes you happy... there is no winning or losing with these two awesome companies. I try not to get too carried away with fanboy-ism (is that a word?) but I have stuck with AMD for a long time as my main systems for myself.

I have a beastly notebook and two beastly desktops (one for TVPC).

Intel Q6600 @ 3.0
Radeon 6950

Intel Core i7 720QM
Mobility Radeon 5870

AMD Phenom II X4 3.0
GeForce GTX 560 Ti

The desktops are mostly about 3 years old now but with new video cards. I picked up the notebook over a year ago (ASUS G73). Oh I also have my EeePC 900. Tried a couple of 12" notes in there too but sold them off.

One sure way to cure fanboy tendencies is to own everything 🤣. I want both NV and ATI around because sometimes one works better with a game than the other.

I put together my current rig about a year ago and have added to it until about 5 months ago.

It's an LGA1366 - i7 920 on a Gigabyte UD4P, 12GB 1600 RAM, 2 Gigabyte 480GTX's in SLI, Antec 1200 Watt PS, 4-2TB-7200rpm Samsung hd's in Raid 10, 2-150GB Raptor's in Raid 0 and a Revodrive x2 - 100GB for the main drive.

I've always bought intel from the get-go. I think it started with someone telling me that the AMD processors wouldn't run all the games (yeah, well, i believed it) and ever since then it always seemed to me like intel was ahead of the game. Later I remember people having problems with the first Athlons on the Socket A when they came out, problems with overheating and burning chips. That's why I never bought one, was afraid of problems. I know now they're very good chips but i guess you stick with what you've always been happy with. I guess it's the same with cars. If you buy a certain brand, drive it for years and it doesn't give you any problems, you're more likely to get a new one from the same manufacturer.

"the AMD processors wouldn't run all the games "

The Athlon FX-55 was the best gaming chip of it's generation beating even the Pentium 4 EE for a lot less money. Anyone who was using a Netburst for gaming back then got hosed both in the games and in their wallets.

sliderider wrote:

The Athlon FX-55 was the best gaming chip of it's generation

I guess I should've been more exact. I meant the early AMD cpu's in the 386/486/586 era. Nothing above a Pentium 1. Those were my first computers and honestly, at the time, that's what I was told in retail stores.
(didn't you pick up on this when further down I wrote "...Later I remember people having problems with the first Athlons on the Socket A when they came out...?)

Another point regarding the "cost" issue. Whatever little money you can save by choosing a Phenom over a Sandy Bridge will end up costing you more through your electricity bill.

I couldn't believe how tiny the cooler for the i5 2500 CPU is. IMO performance per watt is the real benchmark to look at.

But most reviewers just brush over this aspect. Tomshardware does some good articles on this if you are interested.

sliderider wrote:

"the AMD processors wouldn't run all the games "

The Athlon FX-55 was the best gaming chip of it's generation beating even the Pentium 4 EE for a lot less money. Anyone who was using a Netburst for gaming back then got hosed both in the games and in their wallets.

AMD had a two year window where they reigned supreme. Now they have to compete on price again and not on performance.

I'm very happy with my C2Q q9550@3000/1600fsb. I could easily change it to 3.2 or 3.4ghz, but I don't even need the extra speed.

That said, if I was buying a box today, I'd buy a 6 core Phenom box. Intel may have competitively priced quad core chips, but their 6 core stuff is absolutely outrageous in comparison. Screw hyper threading, I want more cores. The value won't be apparent for a good couple of years, but they will eventually be apparent. The Intel product would be better for gaming though, but oh well.

SavantStrike wrote:

Screw hyper threading, I want more cores. The value won't be apparent for a good couple of years, but they will eventually be apparent.

Yes, AMD does give you more cores for your money. However I see this a different way. AMD NEEDS to give yoy more cores to stay competitive.

e.g. the cheap Athlon X4 chips compete with Intels dual cores. And the 6 core chips compare with Intels quad cores.

If I would build a PC, it would consist of an Asus H series board, the i5 2500 and 8 GB DDR3.

Asus because of their EFI Bios. I saw it this week and it's pretty cool!

lo

it's all about getting a perfect fit for the amount
you are willing to pay and the minimum performance
you demand from a new system. inside you
can feel what's right whether it's AMD or intel.

i recently got an i5-2500k because it seemed like
good value for money with it's given performance
and power consumption and operating temperature.
i tend to look for a CPU + GPU that can play
current games well and ought to keep me going for
the next 3 years which has been my upgrade cycle
for the last 15 years or so. I also like to achieve
the quietest PC possible since I work mainly at
home and I can be next to the PC for hours at
a time so a cool solution is important with a quiet
fan.

in my case it's also which of the games i bought
in the last few years that i really would like to play
again with better framerate and what i need to
to do that. this time around i got an msi p67 plus
that cpu with a 560ti. i'm sorry to admit i enjoy
playing the latest fallout series which will get a
boost over the last generation upgrade of an
E8200 + 9600GT.

i am no particular fan of intel or amd but in the case
of intel the P3 was outclassed by athlon so that got
a miss and the P4 was just a power hungry hot cpu
which didn't appeal to me. if AMD feels right in
3 years i will get one we shall see.

BTW, my mainboard has a UEFI bios. it's not really
unlike the standard bios we are used to except it
reminds you of that awful AMI bios from the late
90s with lots of mouse clicks. if you want screenshots
i will take some?

good luck. bye

I use both all the time, though I like to think of myself as partial to AMD. Currently my main AMD machine is a Phenom 955BE @3.6Ghz/ Asus M4A78Pro/ Nvidia 460GTX and my Intel is a E5700@3.66Ghz/ Asus P5A/ Nvidia GTS250. Both are pretty old- the Phenom was built 2 1/2 years ago- I was an early adopter of AM3 and that board is one of the first AM3 boards released by Asus- it uses DDR2! Still it has never skipped a beat in all that time despite being my most heavily used system. It received a mid-life update last year with it's 7750BE/ 8800GT combination replaced by newer 955BE/ GTX460 parts. The Intel was chucked together using various old spares I had lying around cause I needed a more powerful backup system than my AM2 single-core machine.

Prior to this, I had a couple AM2 systems with LE1620/ 5200+/ 6000+ chips and before that s939 with a 3000+. All were reliable, powerful systems for their time.

My AM2 systems were built when Core 2 systems were all the rage, yet they played every game from that generation at max settings- at a price that was half that at most compared with a similar Intel build.

I would disagree that AMD took multiple chips/ chipset revisions to get Phenom working well. The very early AMD 770/780 northbridge/ SB 700 southbridge boards are bulletproof and take Phenom IIs without complaint- in some cases even Thubans- like my M4A78Pro.

It's also easy to criticise Phenom 1 now, but at the time it was very competitive compared with similarly priced Intel systems. In mid-2008 I built a Phenom 9850BE/ Asus M3A/ Radeon 4850 system for my bro instead of the then crowd favourite Intel E8xxx/ P35 systems. They cost about the same to build back then.

That system is still happily chugging along playing the latest stuff whereas if we had gone the E8xxx route the lack of 2 more cores would be severely felt today.

Also, before talking about the "higher" overclockability of Intel chips vs AMD, pls consider that you can only obtain such results using primo quality ram and cooling. Whereas with the various multi-unlocked BE systems I've had experience with you only need to handle the cooling part (which is comparatively cheaper). With some of them you get AMD's excellent boxed cooler which while noisy does deliver the goods- as well as any mid-priced aftermarket cooler. Any generic old DDR2/3 ram would do - on my own Phenom 955BE I have seen 4ghz stable (with more buffer available) all using various el-cheapo rams.

Most of the gaming benchmarks of let's say similar vintage Phenom 955BE vs 1366 i7 systems show them neck to neck at stock speeds. Overclocked to 4ghz, the Intel has the clear lead. But my point is, it is not easy nor cheap to get any Intel to 4ghz. Hence, such comparisons are academic for the most of us.

Concerning heat/ power consumption of AMD vs Intel - this is only true for stock systems. Overclocked Intel systems are hot and thirsty!

Intels do have one clear advantage where I am from though- that of widespread spares availability long after platform obsolescence which explains why all my old systems are Intel.

Don't get me wrong- I am not Intel bashing here but my point is AMD has consistently delivered the goods throughout the years - enough to enable the vast majority to do anything on them that an Intel system can do- at a lower price. Quad for $100? 😲 🤑 😜

Sometimes we have to leave benchmarks aside. Value, budgets, reliability, upgrade potential and "real world" performance are things that provide more user satisfaction at the end of the day. Unless of course, you have money to burn and must have the best. 😵

Built a new system recently -

intel Core i5 2500K @ stock speed, with no overclocking
Gigabyte Z68X-UD4-B3 Motherboard (Z68 Chipset)
8GB 1333MHz DDR3 RAM
AMD Radeon HD 6950 x2 in Crossfire (runs default in non-crossfire mode,used only when needed)

So, in a way, this is a "collaboration" of Intel and AMD, since AMD absorbed ATI into it. 😁

Still using WinXP in one of the harddrives.

I'm quite happy with CPU prices. What we really need is a price shift with SSDs. They seem to stay at the same price and capacities don't grow much.

Thanks for the honest posts so far guys, I really enjoy reading them! 😁

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

I'm quite happy with CPU prices. What we really need is a price shift with SSDs. They seem to stay at the same price and capacities don't grow much.

To me SSD's are just too costly for their capacity. I've been using Spinpoints for a long time now (for over 4 years or so) and they have been quiet, fast, cheap and reliable.
I don't really care that SSD's are much faster, I don't even mind the 1gig harddrive in my 486 needing a bit more time to load stuff 🤣!

I got attached to WD a few years back. Now I have like 5 drives from them and they all have been fine. You can use the WD edition of Acronis which is pretty cool.

HDD prices are meant to go up soon, I read that the manufacturers are predicting a shortage...

RAM is soo cheap at the moment. It's just NUTS

*cough*Intel core i-7 6gb Ram Ati 6750*cough* 😀