CPU/Mobo Which has a lower Total cost of ownership, Intel or AMD?

[lalitnagda]

I see a lot of topics in this forum about AMD. But I guess Intel is worth the price we pay. Because performance wise I feel intel is a lot better.

AMD had a lot of heating problems. In 2007 I had purchased 4 different AMD CPU's in a frame of time from the noted AMD distributor, and guess what all the 4 CPU's had heating problems, finally after the RMA the new CPU's received were a lot better, but the RMA procedure almost took a month's time, but there was no count of income loss and productivity loss.

p.s. never overclocked any cpu and also motherboards were from gigabyte and asus.

after which I opted for intel based CPU's which are a lot expensive but equally better and stable.

sometimes which really makes me think that though I pay more but the product I get is equally better. Same were the opinions of my other contacts and clients as well.

Now that I have installed Intel CPU's for most of my clients till date I have no issues. again the c2d's and c2q's outperform most of the competition. Also till now i have never heard of any intel c2d based cpu having over heating problems.

and yes there is no competition for the core i7.

again intel as a company is financially more secure and has technological lead for years.

anyways every person has their own views

pour in your feedback too

thanks

 

[tufel]

Here We Go Again!

 

[mithun]

Huh!:S

If i recall correctly, back in 2007(mentioned in the OP) we did have the Athlon X2 processors(was using a x2 3600+/3800+ myself) which ran very cool and stable, were cost effective and definitely so much better than the similarly priced Pentium D CPUs.
The current scenario is even further away from what the OP is trying to indicate. The Phenom II AM3/AM2+ platforms are much more VFM than the top of the line Intel offerings. Though in the low-end and mainstream market, users cant go wrong with either, coz both companies r offering equally good solutions.

 

[Aniruddh]

Well,i guess Intel runs hotter compared to most of the AMD chip.i have used E8500 for 6 months and its temp use to be around 45*C where as my current X3 720 runs around 32-35*C,So about the temp thing is total B*llshit.

Yes if you talk about performance then i do agree with you to some extent,me too feel my E8500 was lot faster compared to current X3 720BE,but then E8500 Dual core is selling for 10K where as X3 720 is available for 7.5k.

 

[cranky]

Fanboy alert!

I've used AMD processors since 1999. Had one Intel system till date. Hated it - no difference in performance for the additional cost.

no competition for the core i7

Classical fanboy statement. So what, how does it matter? Have you bought one yourself?

has technological lead for years

Care to back that up with some links? Or some facts? These statements you are making are all hot air. Go get a life...

equally better and stable

and some English lessons. "Equally better"! Oxymoron, or just moron?

Same were the opinions of my other contacts and clients as well.

Where are your facts, the evidence, statements, benchmarks, prices, power consumption charts, temperature readings? Why are we supposed to take your word for it?

The facts: Intel had good products up to the Pentium3, right up to the launch of the original Athlons, back in 2001. The Athlons took their pants off, and Intel had no reply, with their Northwood processors being labelled room heaters. Till the launch of the Core 2 Duo in 2004, Intels were lagging all around, including performance. The C2D changed that and handed the performance crown back to Intel, but prices were very high. AMD in turn responded with price cuts and value-based platforms (in English: affordable motherboards with integrated graphics that are much better than those of the Intel systems). Today the TCO (English: Total Cost of Ownership) of the AMD platforms is still lower than the Intels, they are equally overclockable and run just as cool. There is no real-world difference in performance between the two, unless you're talking i7 - and that is 1.5x to 2x the price of Intel's own offerings in the Core 2 segment, let alone AMD.

As for overheating, the truth is that morons passing off as system builders mess up installations. I've never had a overheating problem either, so it's not the processor which is at fault. I suspect I know what it is though - Intel systems throttle back performance with temperatures, whereas AMD systems hang. In one case, the user can detect a problem, in another case, he can't. Obviously, a moron will only point to the AMD system which is exhibiting the symptoms. Because he doesn't even know what the symptoms are, and the Intel is suffering as badly, though he wouldn't even know it.

My advice: Don't be a fanboy. Fine, you like the big I, put up posters of it in your room or paint a logo on the side of your car. Or get a tattoo on your palm. Here, discuss on merit. Post facts and technical issues and you'll get a rational discussion. For now, you'll just get ignored or pulled up for flamebaiting.

 

[G@d of w@r]

talk about old Prescott P4 CPUs!! they idled at 55-60deg!!

Intel always sucked for me after Pentium III so shifted to AMD after using P4 HT and i will never move to Intel again!!

I had not even a single problems with AMD! it always rocked for gaming..

 

[lalitnagda]

Anirudh, i do not mean that amd's are hot, the recent ones that i am using are a lot better and cooler, even the my cpu's that came after the RMA worked fine and cool.

but what i mean that there are some pieces that are defective and they seem to have an problem of over heating and in my case my luck was bad that all 4 of my cpus (from 3800-4800) had the same issue.

but performance wise the intel c2d's and c2q's are a lot better and stable especially those intel quads, when you are doing movie editing or 3d max rendering they give me the best performance even on entry level mobos.

i have seen cases where the intel cpu's were being used in normal room temperatures for rendering day and night for about 7-8 days non stop and yet they seemed to churn out the best results.

By stability i mean imagine you have kept a hi-res film or multile frames for rendering and it takes days for rendering one would not mind paying extra.

 

[hash]

People really need to buy what they need and not what they want.

They're driven by these benchmarks which show i7 smokes Phenom II. But in reality that person won't even need that increased performance that i7 offers. 20 % in reality. Not to take anything away from i7 but personally I think i7 is only for the die-hard gamers and for professional people. I7 beats Phenom II in many benchmarks but by how much ? All range from 50 seconds - 2 Minutes,10-20fps . And these 2 Minutes or 10 fps only matters for those who do stuff that's way beyond a normal person would do .

And again, there was a time when Athlon's ruled and Intel couldn't respond then. But they have now. AMD and Intel take blows in turns one after the other. So,waiting for AMD to strike back.

Also till now i have never heard of any intel c2d based cpu having over heating problems.

And about the heating issues its your bad luck cause I've had AMD's all my life and never experienced it. You can't put down AMD just because 1 guy had some heating issues. There are a million Chip's out there and few are bound to unstable like my own friends Q6600. You really can't claim this as a reason to put down AMD.

again intel as a company is financially more secure and has technological lead for years.

Actually you'll see the opposite in a few years, cause AMD holds a share not only in the CPU market but also in GPU market.

but performance wise the intel c2d's and c2q's are a lot better and stable especially those intel quads, when you are doing movie editing or 3d max rendering they give me the best performance even on entry level mobos.

C2Q and C2D were amazing chips. But as Phenom II came in they both are almost the same.No real advantage over here any more in performance or in pricing. Only I7 offers more.

This is going to one long troll.

 

[Dark Star]

I don't care about rest of the crap posted but I will just reply to this, have you asked your clients to reset the HSF ? :lol:

has technological lead for years

You must be kidding right ? What technology you are talking about, the fabs the nm's ? Well even Ibm hasn't catch to Intel as of now. Just wait for few years Global foundries will settle things, AMD don't bribe their partners to sell only their CPU's like Intel does. :| ..

Now what technology ? Who brought 64bit computing to the world ? eh ? Who brought native Quad/Dual core design, Interconnect and IMC ?

Well even i7 thrives on the interconnect , native Quad and IMC that AMD has delivered

Its true that Intel has the lead for now with i7 no doubt intel is a great company but if you are talking about C2Q's vs Phenom II, then you are sadly mistaken, both are almost same in all respect. Overall cost of ownership is lower in AMD making it more viable platform to opt than Intel. and the best part is socket backward compatibility - Lga775 is dead, Lga 1156 is pretty much future restricted [no i9 for it, no triple channel] and the only platform Intel has for now is the pricey 1136 While an Am2+ owner can pop in Am3 processor and an AM3 owner can have peace of mind for future Am3+/Am4

 

[chetansha]

I remember the time when we brought in AMD thru official channels , and boy, only thing i am gonna say - check the P2P - price 2 performance ratio.

True a ferrari is a great car, but that doesnt make other cars stupid .

 

[spawnfreak]

Intel rocks anyways...

 

[Audiophi1le]

I see a lot of topics in this forum about AMD. But I guess Intel is worth the price we pay. Because performance wise I feel intel is a lot better.

AMD had a lot of heating problems. In 2007 I had purchased 4 different AMD CPU's in a frame of time from the noted AMD distributor, and guess what all the 4 CPU's had heating problems, finally after the RMA the new CPU's received were a lot better, but the RMA procedure almost took a month's time, but there was no count of income loss and productivity loss.

p.s. never overclocked any cpu and also motherboards were from gigabyte and asus.

after which I opted for intel based CPU's which are a lot expensive but equally better and stable.

sometimes which really makes me think that though I pay more but the product I get is equally better. Same were the opinions of my other contacts and clients as well.

Now that I have installed Intel CPU's for most of my clients till date I have no issues. again the c2d's and c2q's outperform most of the competition. Also till now i have never heard of any intel c2d based cpu having over heating problems.

and yes there is no competition for the core i7.

again intel as a company is financially more secure and has technological lead for years.

anyways every person has their own views

pour in your feedback too

thanks

"pour in your feedback too "

My feedback is tht u are a fanboy and I wasted my time to reply to this.

"and yes there is no competition for the core i7." for now....time keeps changing and AMD sometime will be on top.....I remember ppl running after AMD when P4 was around.....

I am not a fanboy of AMD either(but there are manny many amd users/fans here- hope u get nice comments)....:tongue:...I I had an intel rig bfr and now I
have AMD rig for now bcoz I can upgrade easily in an AMD platform.

 

[halo_3]

and some English lessons. "Equally better"! Oxymoron, or just moron?

Haha that was just brilliant! You sir, deserve the award of best comment of the day.

 

[Aces170]

Ok, is see any more flamebaits am shutting the thread.

But the OP, has come up with the worst excuse ever "over-heating" problems. You can give countless other reasons why intel would be better, but this is a low, and a so 1990's argument. The only processors in the last 5 years to have heating issues were the Pentium 4's which IMO were the worst Intel CPU ever.

Right now AMD has a hard time in the upper segments, but in the lower end its still the king. I am talking platform wise as most people in the lower end wouldnt buying standalone gfx chips. If I yet have a budget below 10K I would buy AMD based setup Of course the introduction of Lynfield will change that, and I dont see any silver linings in AMD's portfolio...

The facts: Intel had good products up to the Pentium3, right up to the launch of the original Athlons, back in 2001. The Athlons took their pants off, and Intel had no reply, with their Northwood processors being labelled room heaters. Till the launch of the Core 2 Duo in 2004, Intels were lagging all around, including performance. The C2D changed that and handed the performance crown back to Intel, but prices were very high. AMD in turn responded with price cuts and value-based platforms (in English: affordable motherboards with integrated graphics that are much better than those of the Intel systems). Today the TCO (English: Total Cost of Ownership) of the AMD platforms is still lower than the Intels, they are equally overclockable and run just as cool. There is no real-world difference in performance between the two, unless you're talking i7 - and that is 1.5x to 2x the price of Intel's own offerings in the Core 2 segment, let alone AMD.

Cranky if I am not mistaken, Northwood based proccies were decent Ocers, and were the only ones which could stand up against AMD. Williamette and Prescotts now those were legendary. Also Cranky I believe TCO's are now in favour of Core i7, if its being utilized completely. Techreport has a nice metric of calculating it, it checks the points generated by setups in folding (obviously a multi-threaded enabled app.) against total energy consumed. If you want I can post the links, also I wouldnt look at the nos produced by AMD and Intel themselves.

 

[dOm1naTOr]

Intel rocks anyways...

And those words shows, how gr8 knowledge you have.
I respect both Intel and AMD. i like the i7s, and the E5xxx series very much.
I have owned many AMD and Intel rigs till now [2 intels and some 6 AMDs].
Both have their own pros and cons.

My first PC, with Intel Celeron 1.7Ghz. It ran very hot, and was giving pathetic performance. i switched to sempron 2600+ which had 1.8ghz clocks. Performance gain was marginal in games. All those games which failed to give playable frame rates[on any setings] on my MX440 128 card began to run smoothly at high setings. Temps were very high for both the proccys [60c idle and max 70~75c].

Then i got X2 4200+ 939, which was the king of the hill series, with world's best performing chips. Got it immediately after their release. I was very much satisfied by its performance, temperatures and everythin, but was too expensive [bout 12.5k for proccy]. Then C2Ds were launched, beating all AMD X2 proccy hands down but it was even expensive than the highest X2.

Then i got X2 AM2 in 2007 mid. It ran really cool, idled at sub 30c and havnt seen above 48c. Then got my lappy with Intel penryne core. I was amazed by its low power consumption and temps. But it was a mobile proccy, so cudnt expect otherwise.
Now i have a PII X4. On stock cooler of X2 550, it idles at avg of 27~32c and max goes to 48c on load.

conclusion: Both manufacturers makes gr8 chips, at times some are expensive and some have good vfm. Its upto us if we ve to choose the vfm one or the expensive one for a small marginal gain in performance.
Overll i feel AMD based rigs has better vfm. PRoduct quality of both are almost same.

 

[cranky]

Aces, the Prescotts were terrible, Williamettes were useless. The Northwood processors were better from a heat production point of view, but on Performance per clock and performance per watt AMD was better. Then the Israel Intel team pulled the C2D out of the bag, and we know what happened then.

We can keep debating the future, but the fact is that IMC, unified bus and on-chip mem controller were AMDs innovations (just as x86 was an Intel innovation). I don't buy the argument that Intel is better. Actually, I don't even advocate AMD is better. I think it's horses for course and the fact is that everybody will have their personal beliefs. Trying to impose that on others and coming out all guns blazing in the first posts without checking facts and history is what I take objection to.

I'd like to hear of one single person on this forum who is using a i7 in a non-professional environment and utilising the entire platform capabilities. It is of course possible to do so in a render farm or computing cluster, and even then there is a power consumption issue (which is why AMD still has some foothold in that market, their running cost is still lower) for clusters over a certain size, depending on the unit's revenue.

But that is not what this discussion is about, so it would be good if you changed the thread title and the discussion can be more fruitful.

For now,

Intel is a lot better

pour in your feedback too

My feedback is that the first statement is unsubstantiated nonsense.

 

[Emil]

I think OP has stirred up a hornet's nest by his "knowledgeable" comments.

I don't think that one can make a blanket statement about one being better than the other. At any given time, for each budget level/usage requirement, the most optimum solution may come from a different company.

Circa 2007 I got myself the X2 3600 and Jetway 690 Mobo because, for my use it happened to be the most economical solution. The CPU works fine to this day.

This year I needed a CPU+Mobo for a relative. Taking his needs in mind, the most economical solotion was the E5200 of the Gigabyte G31 Mobo. But to say Intel is great and AMD sucks or vice versa is ignorance of a high order.

 

[tush]

AMD don't bribe their partners to sell only their CPU's like Intel does. :| ..

+1 to this

AMD doesnt go for extensive marketing as Intel does. Intel does heavy advertising and charges more for its products. Ultimately consumer has to loose.

This thread should not be closed. Its one for confused souls. Once they read it no doubt they will go for AMD :hap2:

 

[Aces170]

I'd like to hear of one single person on this forum who is using a i7 in a non-professional environment and utilising the entire platform capabilities. It is of course possible to do so in a render farm or computing cluster, and even then there is a power consumption issue (which is why AMD still has some foothold in that market, their running cost is still lower) for clusters over a certain size, depending on the unit's revenue.

Interesting, so how would you measure TCO's in a non-professional setup. Enthusiast dont care for money, anyways

AMD as you rightly said has got a good competitive products where a lot of multi-processing is involved, and they yet have a power consumption advantage. But thats about it, Nehalem has more or less took the crown in most applications.

AMD hasnt changed its architecture in any major ways since K8 days, whereas both the Conroes, as well as the Nehalems have advanced radically. I feel atleast in the desktop market, i5 is gonna be a game changer, if its turbo-boost tech is what it seems, it should give Intel a push towards single apps, and multi-tasking capabilities. The Nehalem architecture is not so successful in the gaming market, as yet there are very few games which take advantage of multi-cores.

AMD doesnt go for extensive marketing as Intel does. Intel does heavy advertising and charges more for its products. Ultimately consumer has to loose.

This thread should not be closed. Its one for confused souls. Once they read it no doubt they will go for AMD

You cant blame a company for earning more? AMD does not have enough money for extensive advertising, where as Intel has. AMD does not have enough money for R&D whereas Intel has. Actually if it wasnt for Intel, we wouldnt betting dual core CPU's for 2.5K

 

[dOm1naTOr]

Half of the price we pay for Intel products can be seen as adds and promotions. Be it TV, most web sites, most games, most apps. Above all this, they even bribes distributors for canvasing customers towards the them.

I think this is the truth: Intel's Rand D centre guys are really y gr8 and truthful.
But their marketing and managements guys are trying to make the max out of those efforts, even above what they deserve to make profit, by over pricing, advertising, bribing distributors etc.

Also inorder to make max profit in more than one reason, they make each and every series of proccy no compatible with older platform and force users to get neweer chipset mobos. Even if in there LGA775 socket, there are many incompatible combinations. And now, two more LGA, for i7, and i5. lets wait and see.