Hi all! I wanted to ask, which brand works best with LFS, Intel or AMD?

On a general term, a few months ago I'd have clearly said AMD, but with the Core Duo, Intel has finally managed to deliver a more than competitive CPU. That said, in LFS it is better to have a higher clocked single core than a dual core with two individually lower clocked cores. This is because LFS doesn't take advantage of dual core processors, so it basically only uses one of the cores, which in a head on comparison to pure single core CPU's is often slower.

Leprekaun,
another one?

You made already similar one at the graphic card section.These threads are simply useless as most of the time it only make mostly coming people who are fanatic for each of the brands.

With CPU and graphic card its always the same way.One is better intel next time AMD and its going in circles.Same with NVIDIA and ATI.

AMD was leading a long time with K8 architecture and Intel had to make big reorganization in the company.P4 at the end was a disaster for them to produce.Now its better Intel with the nice C2D architecture which has a part from P3 architecture which was very succesfull for Intel(bless the Osraeli engineers)but at the 3rd/4th part of the 2007 AMD is coming with new K10 architecture so things might change good for AMD again.

The poll you made is really relative.

There is no better brand better for LFS, simply the most powerful - AMD's 64 -bit lines kicked the hell out of the slow, hot Pentium 4's, but Intel came back with the Core 2 Duo's which had a better architecture - on paper, an AMD is 2/3 faster than a P4 at a given clockspeed, this is why they sell CPU's such as the AMD 3700, designed to be the same speed as a P4 3.7 GHz, which only runs at 2.2 GHz - however due to the better architecture of the AMD it's actually a little quicker. It's also quieter, too.

Intel have done the same, and made it so that for a given clock speed the Core 2 Duo is 3/4 more powerful than the AMD 64 CPU, and twice as fast as the P4 - meaning that a lowly entry level 1.86 GHz Core 2 Duo is technically just as quick as a 3.72 GHz P4, however in reality it is alot quicker.

You can't really use clock speeds to compare them, but the basic rule is that Intel Core 2 Duo's (C2D's) are the best, and if you can't afford them (which is hard when you can pick up a CPU, a GB of RAM and a mobo for inside of £130), then AMD have some great budget chips like the 3600 x2 Brisbane which can be overclocked.

Well I guess I could sum it up

If you want cheap go for AMD if want performance go with Intel

no I'm not saying that AMD is slow and cheap but if you are planning on spending more than 300$ on the CPU alone then you will get better performance from Intel.


Ah yes the x2 3600+ a very nice and cheap cpu just have to a bit careful when buying one of them some shops might still have old 3600's lying around
(90nm, Windsor core, ADO3600CUBOX) but they have half of the normal L2 cache (256kb) and that will hurt the performance so what you would want to buy is the x2 3600 Brisbane(65nm Brisbane core, ADO3600DDBOX) as Jakg already said.

low nm = less power = less heat = perhaps quieter = overclocks more

right now, most people will tell you to go intel. Alot of people are switching over to intel as their chips OC alot better lately and run cooler. maybe things will change in the coming months.

AMD for years, but i might switch over myself when intel drops prices again. I might pick up a brisbane 4000+ or better.

if you wanna stick with AMD, get the 3600 x2, it will overclock to around 3 GHz, the 65 nm 4000 will do the same but will be more expensive

Right, cool, cheers lads for the replies . I've been out of tune with the whole PC hardware scene so its nice to know some new stuff . I discussed with my bro last night to maybe go with the Intel Duo Core as a lot of you mention its quite good and better than AMD but he tells me that AMD is always better. My bro is actually a computer engineer/programmer so I'm quite puzzled now . Well, we decided to read reviews about each of the processors and see which is better in terms of $ and performance.

At the current prices, AMD has a better deal on anything under the 5600+. They're simply cheaper for the level of performance you get and the only Intel CPU that even remotely competes at this level is the E6320. At the E6320's price point, AMD wins. At the 5600+'s price point, it's a toss up between the 5600+ and the E6420. Beyond that, Intel has the better deal with the E6600 or E6700.

Overclocking has also been mentioned and yes, the Core 2 Duo is very well known as an incredible overclocker. However, I strongly discourage this practice, regardless of the CPU, and especially if you've never done it before. It's simply not worth the added risk of instability, data loss/corruption, or in extreme cases, fried components.

Quote from Leprekaun :

I discussed with my bro last night to maybe go with the Intel Duo Core as a lot of you mention its quite good and better than AMD but he tells me that AMD is always better. My bro is actually a computer engineer/programmer so I'm quite puzzled now

Then maybe he's not as good with PC's as he thinks? ATM Core 2 Duo is owning everything AMD make, and AMD's comparitive performance CPU's are too expensive - i like AMD, but they've given up and are preparing "K10" and hope it will "turn the tide"

How about the new AM3 socket? Its said that Am3 processors will work on AM2 mobos, but Am2 processors wont work in Am3 mobos, i think that if it works on Am2 mobo it wont use its full potential right? What about DDr3 thing, am i doing a bad job buying an 4200 with Am2 mobo today? (m2n sli)

DDR3 is faster, but soo expensive it's pointless (atm).

AM3 will be good - but why bu an AM2 board when you want an AM3 CPU?

Quote from Slidaaaa :

How about the new AM3 socket? Its said that Am3 processors will work on AM2 mobos, but Am2 processors wont work in Am3 mobos, i think that if it works on Am2 mobo it wont use its full potential right? What about DDr3 thing, am i doing a bad job buying an 4200 with Am2 mobo today? (m2n sli)

Well no as you aren't buying high-end, ddr3 wont effect you for some time to come.

Quote from Jakg :

DDR3 is faster, but soo expensive it's pointless (atm).

AM3 will be good - but why bu an AM2 board when you want an AM3 CPU?

Im saying that incase they release new Am3 processors, i would like to be able to use it in my current Am2 mobo, so i dont have to buy a new one lol, but im afraid it will not run as its supposed to...

Yes some features maybe disabled on the AM2 mobo using AM3 processor.
K10 have quite different architecture with some extra nice features.

Also take in mind that the percent number of people who do overclokcing is really minimal.We have some "experts" here in this thread so we might think the opposite.I make PC as my hobby and I get some money from that but the number of overcloked machines is like 1/50.I always care more about stability then having people complaing then its restarting itself etc.When you do it at your home and you know very well how to do that(its not just simply raising the FSB) and where are the limits then its fine.


AMD has now very good deals.Personally I think the best buy is now E6600.No really extra high prize and amazing perfomance.The price war was this year really strong.I think the strongest one in last few years.I guess some people who bought CPU at the start 2007 had to be extremly pissed later on but these wars were really good for us - customers.

1/50?

Its waaaaay lower than that - i'd guesstimate in the world about .1% of all PC's are manually overclocked. Shame, but tbh when people assume that by overclocking your PC INSTANTLY becomes massively unstable and bake the CPU it won't get much higher.

Luckily overclocking requires basic knowledge (like how to get to the BIOS) so people don't try it with no knowledge and kill something - i'm running a massive overclock with no stability or temp problems, and i've never killed anything

That was number from the machine I built.I just wanted to show that its really small number in the world its even smaller.

So I really hate somone arguing that C2D is better deal because you can overclock it so much.Its a deal for someone who knows how to overclock and face the problems when its become unstable but not for somone who can just use windows.They dont look at how much its overclockable but at the money/performance ratio.

P.S:I will race thread in this section because I am lost with something....yeh.every help would be welcome.