AMD vs Intel

July 10, 2008 4:28 AM

AMD or Intel? (2008 Edition)

I'm about to buy a new computer for my parents (so web browsing, photo viewing and editing, movies sometimes and old games) so not high power, but able to multitask well and last them a good few years.

I've decided I want to go the Ubuntu/XP dual boot method.


Anyway, I've decided I like everything about the components in these two systems, but it's been ages since I asked this question: should I go AMD or Intel?

Does the fact that it is an Athlon 64 mean that I will have to run a 64 bit OS and programs on it? For my 'rents, I basically need the most compatible CPU, no?

Thanks in advance
Ed

posted by edbyford to computers & internet (17 comments total)

Does the fact that it is an Athlon 64 mean that I will have to run a 64 bit OS and programs on it?

No. You can still install a 32-bit OS on an AMD64 CPU. Also, current Intel CPUs are basically the same; Intel call their architecture EMT64, but it's no different to AMD64.

I basically need the most compatible CPU, no?

Neither AMD or Intel is more "compatible".

If you want a really high-end system, it might be worth comparing specific CPUs, but in this case, it doesn't really matter.
posted by narge at 4:43 AM on July 10

narge is perfectly right. All the x86 Ubuntu variants run fine on all these processors, as does 32-bit XP.
posted by flabdablet at 4:52 AM on July 10

it don't matter which 'cause you aren't getting top of the line. (if you were, intel is winning right now with their core 2 duo series AFAIK)
posted by Mach5 at 5:28 AM on July 10

Thanks you guys! Just out of interest, did you follow the links in my post to the two systems I'm looking at? If so, what did you think?
posted by edbyford at 5:54 AM on July 10

"Neither AMD or Intel is more "compatible"."

That might be true, but Intel is the "real thing", where AMD is a copycat.

I can't prove it, and it's only anecdotal, but I've had more historical problems with AMD platforms than I have with Intel ones.
posted by gjc at 6:21 AM on July 10

The funny thing is that Intel was the leader and went down one route of 64bit development and AMD a maker of low cost chips when down another route. Intel then had to play copycat to AMD when the market found AMD's design much better. If you asked me AMD or Intel, 3 years ago I would have said AMD. That being said.

Today, If it was me I would buy and Intel Core2.
posted by ps6000 at 6:42 AM on July 10

That might be true, but Intel is the "real thing", where AMD is a copycat.

That makes no sense. Theyre just processors. In fact if youre running 64-bit youre running AMD instructions because intel was so late in the game. "Problems with AMD platforms" are meaningless unless you can point to unpatched microcode bugs. Considering all of the intel math bugs it can be argued that AMD is a better product.

That said, intel is the industry leader and the core 2 duo is pretty nice, but from a price/performance point of view I wouldnt be surprised if discounted AMD chips are the better deal right now. Its pretty trivial hair-splitting outside specialized applications really.
posted by damn dirty ape at 6:49 AM on July 10

edbyford: both those setups look definitely sufficient for the kind of browsing that parents do, and should last them a few years. my only worry is i've never heard of CCL before. try giving newegg a try, they have never ever let me down, and also have nice cheap boxen too.
posted by Mach5 at 7:03 AM on July 10

Mach5: thanks! I wish Newegg was available in the UK, but they're not, and I've heard good reviews of CCL, and they've won a few awards too.
posted by edbyford at 8:08 AM on July 10

I have 4 systems at home right now, the oldest of which is 5-6 years old. All are built from parts. None are intel inside, one is a low power via, one an AMD Athlon xp, one a single core Athlon 64, one a dual core Athlon 64. They've all been solid, other than some trouble with RAM timings with a few when they were first built, and that was fixed by updating the BIOS. I've had similar issues with a core 2 duo on an intel motherboard, so it isn't an AMD specific issue.

Buy the CPU based on price/performance, toms hardware and anandtech can both help get a handle on relative performance. Intel is going to own the top end of absoluter performance. Otherwise, AMD is competitive, and at the low end, may actually be cheaper if you look at whole system costs because the cheapest and boards seem to be cheaper than the cheapest intel boards. Worth considering that even a $120 CPU/motherboard combo is going to do a good job with the tasks you list.
posted by Good Brain at 8:20 AM on July 10

In my experience as a system builder, on the high end, Intel offers more performance and better value. However, you don't seem to want to build anything high end, so instead I would like to point out that AMD tends to be cheaper at entry level and lower-mid range. Look on newegg/zip zoom fly for a cheap AMD Athlon X2 and an inexpensive moetherboard (check the reviews first to make sure it isn't junk, and go for one with an integrated graphics card if it won't be used for games). I suggest dual core, because dual core machines feel a lot faster for daily tasks. Clock speed doesn't matter that much, a .5 ghz difference between chips is noticeable, but a .2 or less difference isn't, so keep that in mind when comparing models. Go for memory that is at least 80% of what your motherboard's clock speed supports, matching it would be nice if it's affordable. Faster memory than that is only useful to overclockers and people with faster boards.

Make sure you don't use a 64 bit OS, as they tend to have the most compatibility issues. At this point in time, gains from 64 bits are slight, and they need to have custom drivers, meaning you'll get buggier drivers and have to wait longer for updates. I prefer Windows XP, but Vista isn't terrible.

Compatibility really isn't an issue so long as you have a 32 bit OS and an x86 chip (Any major chip from AMD or Intel). In fact, I think it would be prohibitively expensive to get a chip which is not 32bit compatible or x86 for your job, unless you bought a really old Mac.
posted by mccarty.tim at 9:02 AM on July 10

Sorry to post again, but I think I should stress that there is a 64 bit variant of Ubuntu out there, and posted right next to the 32 bit on their site last I checked. Do not go with it, as fewer programs work with it than 32 bit. I know it's tempting, but right now, 64 bit is not that helpful unless you have more memory than a 32 bit chip can support (4 GB, too much for what it sounds like you want. 2 GB would be nice, 1 GB would be okay).
posted by mccarty.tim at 9:05 AM on July 10

Here's some background technical information about AMD vs. Intel.

I'm not sure what problems gjc had, but he's absolutely wrong about AMD being a copycat. In fact the technical designation for the 64-bit PC architecture is amd64, which signifies that AMD was the one who proposed and first implemented it. Faced with widespread acceptance and technical merit of the new architecture, Intel adopted it under its own name (EM64T or Intel 64). All Intel and AMD processors except AMD's latest line (Phenom) are rock-solid engineering marvels. The problems that sometimes arise if you use very cheap components stem not from the processors (which even at the lowest end are made to the same extreme quality standards as the high end), but from the low-quality power supply, motherboard, memory, and other components in the system.

That said, Intel has recently pulled far, far ahead of AMD in technical merit (performance, price/performance, performance/power, and price/performance/power). After transitioning to their 45 nm manufacturing process - a triumph of semiconductor engineering - and a new iteration of the Core 2 architecture, they have taken the lead that they opened over AMD with Core 2 and ran away with it. Without going into too much detail, I'd say that the 45nm Intel parts are the clear leader in terms of consumer technology now. Here's a list of the ones sold on NewEgg, the lowest-priced of which now retails for $130.

Since you're looking for lower-priced parts, the difference isn't as big. In general AMD tries to maintain price parity at the low and middle end, so you'll be getting almost exactly the same deal if the other components are equal.
posted by azazello at 9:24 AM on July 10

Echoing what most of the above posts have said, Intel is currently stomping AMD in the upper-mid to high end performance market. AMD, however, is still very competitive in the low to mid-range market. I couldn't quickly find benchmarks on the Intel E4600 chip in your second system, but based on the benchmarks of the E4500 I've seen, the Athlon 5600+ X2 in the first system will probably be faster overall. But it will not be a large difference, and definitely not one your parents will notice.

Compatibility should not be an issue at all, for either system, running XP or Ubuntu. Since the performance difference in this case is essentially a wash, I'd say go with whichever name will make your parents feel more secure. If they know the Intel namebrand, and it says "quality" to them (or vice verse), then buy it, lest they perceive a difference in performance/quality simply because you went with "the other guy". If they are completely ignorant of computer hardware namebrands, go with the AMD chip, as the performance will be slightly better, and you'll be supporting the "underdog".

It's too bad CCL doesn't offer a system with the Intel E7200; the discussion would be moot then, as the chip is only about $10 more than the E4600 and outclasses it (and the AMD chips in that price range) in almost every way. Good luck!
posted by XcentricOrbit at 10:03 AM on July 10

I recently built a system with very similar requirements to yours. For me it came down to the motherboard chipsets for AMD and Intel. In the end, the new 780 chipset from AMD proved to be better value with a built-in ATI HD3200 which gives you an HDMI port and accelerated HD playback. I coupled that with an AMD X2 4800 processor and a nice case from Antec for a very affordable machine that'll be useful for a few years. I concur with all the above who have recommended AMD for your particular needs.
posted by reformedjerk at 10:54 AM on July 10

The AMD doesn't list the video card in it, but I wouldn't buy the Intel with the nVidia 8400, until this has been investigated further.
posted by baserunner73 at 6:10 PM on July 10

Their Value AMD System seems fine for your parent's needs and is £85 cheaper than the one to which you linked.
posted by PueExMachina at 8:39 PM on July 10