Desktops forum: Intel vs. AMD CPU in desktop: Does it matter?

I have enjoyed this post more then most. It did bring all the fanboys out but at the same time we got some very good replies. The thing I have enjoyed the most is the thumbs down on some of the replies. I am still trying to figure out who could give Bob's reply a thumb down, yet he got 3. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmm.

maybe its the fact that some of us know what he typed is nonsense.

amd and intel make many different cpus/apus. and not even one is mentioned. why is that ?

running VS is not difficult.

As said, I am not a geek, but I am picky and build my own. Since I am not a online gamer,Just a PC installed gamer, I do not need the ultra speed so AMD is more than suffeciant. I do not photo edit but I do like fast graphics so I get as large a video memory as posible. Be careful here for some MFG's will state 1G video memory but half or more is shared with the computers RAM memory. That is like operating several prossesing things at the same time and over running the ram so the computer starts using virtual memory(hard drive). Slows way down.
64 or 32 bit I don't think matters that much except for on line stuff. What matters I think is the propper amount of ram for witchever one. 4Gig max for 32 and 16 to 64 Gig for 64 depending on Mfg. and brand. If you buy a 32 Bit system go maximum ram and at least 6Gig for 64 bit.
My comp. is MSI Motherboard with AMD AM3 3, 4Gig PC 10700, on board Radeon 3300 graphics w/ 1Gig nonshared memory and Windows 7 Pro. 32bit. 32 because I want to run some Windows 2000 and XP programs.

totally agree.
I have also built my own systems and have always used AMD. (not that I don't like Intel) Just felt that for the money and performance, I got a better deal.
Also never had a reliability issue. My last PC is now is now 6 yrs old, and I do everything from business to photo editing. I wish the HDD were as reliable. On my third.
The real key is RAM. The more the better.
Can't beat Nvidia for price, quality image, and speed performance.

I watch video online. If you do, as well, then speed becomes more of an issue.

I agree with you sentiments regarding the AMD multi-core performance. I am quite curious to see how the Bulldozer actually performs when released to the public. It would be great if it were to turn out to be anything like the Sledgehammer cores of yore.

Why all the thumbs down? What I said is 100% correct.

Odd thing about stock coolers. I've recently built several machines for both friends and myself and honestly, I am more worried about the stock cooler on the my friend's i5-2600 from coming loose than the stock cooler that came with the AMD systems I built.

Whereas the AMD coolers were actually screwed in and then secured by bolts on the backside, the cooler from Intel was secured only by 4 pins that had to be pushed down into place and which I have little trust in. Infact, even after making sure the pins were in correctly and the heatsink was secure, when we turned the system upright again, the heatsink came loose and we had to go back and ended up having to redo the thermal paste and reinstall the cooler.

In either case though, I suggest buying a third-party cooler if building your own system. As for the op's situation, if buying prebuilt pcs and the difference is less than $100, look for online reviews of those particular models as some may have flaws or issues not stated by the sales rep and some oems are prone to choosing really cheap components in their budget machines. Also make note of any warranties that come with the system as a system that costs $100 more, but comes with a longer warranty imo would be the better choice.

Build Specs:
AMD FX-8120
Cooler Master V8 CPU cooler
ASUS Sabertooth 990FX
Corsair Vengence 16GB DDR3 1600
Sapphire Radeon HD6870 1GB
Antec EarthWatts 750W
Cooler Master Scout Chassis

Do not worry peaceman.

Being a member of a few discussion forums online, on topics ranging from arts to science to hobbies, I am used to see the best advice being abused and insulted. "Every forum has its troll!": sometimes they are anonymous, others they are well known, even respected professionals, who however feel some sort of pleasure in bossing around everybody, evaluating negatively every new idea that does not come from them (or minimally disagree with their ideas).

It is good to check if a negative reaction is caused by some mistake, but after that, perhaps one should be proud: you surely wrote something significant if somebody felt strongly against it!

Maybe it is because you have pointed out a design choice as a quality issue. Intel chose to put a sensor in the die to shut down the proc if the cooling system failed. AMD chose not to do that. That does not mean that AMD is a poorer quality unit, only that AMD chose not to include such a sensor in their procs. I have chosen AMD 's for my builds and have never had one fail . My present AMD Phenom II 965 generally runs in the high 80's to low 90's with the CoolerMaster Hyper 212+ cooler. It did run a bit warmer with the stock cooling.

There are so many different CPU's and accelerators that go along with them, that this is not a simple answer. Super computers use both Intel and AMD CPU's, depending on which has the best and fastest architecture at that time. Consider looking up CPU speed ratings at: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/. PassMark Software rate hundreds of CPU's performance. Decide on the price range you can afford, then look at the different charts. I like the 'Best Value CPU Chart' for a quick comparison of speed versus cost.

You don't say whether you are planning to build your own system or buy a ready built system. If you are going to build your own system, when you decide on the CPU, you need to make sure that the other pieces all fit together properly to maximize your system performance.

For what it's worth, if what you're going to be doing is light duty stuff, the AMD box will likely do the job very nicely. Btw.. There's only an i3, i5 and i7 Intel chip in their current lineup. They went with the odd numbers...

In reality, there isn't that much of a difference between Intel and AMD chips in terms of the kinds of tasks they can do. They're both 100% compatible with each other as far as running Windows goes.

About the only time you might notice any sort of major difference is when you get into demanding games that beat the living daylights out of systems while even running with minimal graphics. Crysis comes to mind. For a number of years, that was THE defacto benchmark on how well a game might run on a system. Most systems a few years back couldn't handle the game. Many systems of the day ran the game like a slideshow..

Even "social" gaming - like on Facebook (read: Farmville), won't benefit much from buying one chip over another. Having more RAM memory matters in such situations makes a bigger difference than which CPU you've got under the hood.

The same sort of issues can be found should you decide to do video processing (i.e. taking home videos and massaging them into something you can burn on a DVD and share it), or other processes that require lots of horsepower to run.

However, you mention that you won't be doing that sort of stuff - so in that regard, you may as well save some duckets and spend them on something else - a better monitor, a nicer printer, whatever.
What would make a bigger difference is the number of cores built into the chip. I don't believe most desktop or laptops these days come with CPUs that have only one core. If you do come across one - avoid it like the plague. Single core chips aren't worth the time or money - even if you only want a light duty machine. Dual core chips are definitely the better way to go - Quad core is fine as well.. Hex (6) or Octal (8) core systems - for your purposes is overkill and more money than you likely need to spend.

Either brand processor will work for your purposes providing you avoid the real low-end procs. A mid-range CPU from either manufacturer will handle the job. The trick is to provide your system with lots of RAM and it seems to me that the OS of choice should be a 64-bit OS as it can address infinitely more memory than can a 32-bit OS. With a 32-bit OS you are limited to 4 GB of addressable RAM, maximum; although when the system is booted and running is will NOT show 4GB as the system reserves some for its own use. Thus you can see that by going with a 64-bit OS you can theoretically address 64GB of memory providing your motherboard will support that quantity. On that note, the motherboard is probably the most critical component you have to choose as it will determine what the system will ultimately be able to support.

I hope that I've note gotten too long-winded or confusing.

Anyone consider the watts used by the CPU? Intel i3 is 65W and the AMD FX 4100 is 95W. Lower temps= longer life? Also lower power costs over the life of the CPU? Am I right?

Lucid is still right concerning heat though. The greater the wattage the greater the heat, and you have to make sure you have adequate cooling to deal with it. Of course the higher the wattage the greater the capacity of the psu. Gamers tend to have the biggest dilemma when it comes to juggling the proc, MB, vid card, memory, etc. As you notch up capabilities of the various components you also (typically) raise the power requirement of the overall system. So now you have a 500-600w system that's generating lots of heat when running under load (i.e., playing a demanding modern game with the resolution and graphic settings dialed up to max) and you have to make sure you're venting that heat effectively. The flip side of this is you can have an efficient little system easily running on half that wattage by just using a modern APU (combination CPU and GPU on one die). Both manufacturers supply these and for casual use they are fine. They run cooler and use a lot less energy.
I'm a PC gamer and laptop user so I'm familiar with both camps: My desktop (homebuilt) is an I5-2500k w/16GB of Vengeance RAM on a Z68 MB . I'm still using a somewhat power efficient GTX460 video card. Storage is a 248GB SSD and two 1TB HD's. The power is a 600w OCZ unit and between hydro cooling for the I5 and large slow fans moving heat out of the Lian Li case the system actually runs cool and quiet. Contrast this with my laptops, a Lenovo X120e with an AMD E-350 APU and 4GB RAM and an Acer One 722 with an AMD C-60 APU and 4GB RAM, both very portable and actually have fairly peppy performance from both the processor and the video unit. Neither laptop is a gaming machine of course, but that's not their purpose. There's the right combo out there for you depending on what you really want the machine for, and for the most part both processor manufacturers make pieces that essentially will do the same tasks for you.