Intel Quad Vs. AMD Phenom

[B-rock]

So I was looking at Tigerdirect today just kinda dream shopping. So I look at processors and I notice that AMD is cheaper for their "Quad" version but then I look at the specs of both the AMD and Intel Quads

9950 / 2.60GHz Socket AM2+ 2000MHz (4000 MT/s) $249.99

Q9550 / 2.83GHz Socket 775 1333MHz $349.99

So I ask, is the .23GHz less on the AMD actually better because of the 667 MHz Bus speed?

[Beefynick]

Personally I would go with the AMD. It is cheaper for one reason and with the increase in the front size bus you probably will not notice a difference between it and the Intel.

Experience has taught me that AMD processors tend to run hotter than Intel. That may be another consideration you may want to take into effect.

[mohaas05]

Intel processors tend to usually be better than AMD. If possible, I would lean towards intel.

[MistyTehMoose]

It really comes down to personal preference here. Firstly, think whether you actually need a quad core. What are you doing with it? If it is merely for bragging rights reconsider your choice. A dual core is perfectly fine for gaming, etc.

I personally prefer intel.

[Derelict]

My buddy was saying quad processors are more just a name at the moment. He said computers don't really have the rest of the components at the same speed, so it moves faster than your computer can really register, and defeats the purpose. I have no idea personally, but he's pretty good with computers. Personally, I'd just go with a dual like Misty said. It's cheaper and you can get a good enough one that can run any game released at the moment.

[OoooF4LiFe]

He was just looking at the two, and trying to compare them guys. I don't think he's actually looking to purchase one of these, but moreso if the Intel chip with .23GHz is faster even with the slower bus speed. (I have no idea really, just clarifying since beefynick is the only one that has commented on the bus speed deal)

And just to touch on what Derelict/Misty is saying, quad cores aren't really going to mean anything for awhile. It's like getting 4GB of ram, with a shit motherboard, or an amazingly fast videocard, with a slow as fuck processor. Nothing else on the market really compares to any of the quad core (even some of the dual core chips), so it'll be bottlenecking itself and never actually using all of it's power.

[MistyTehMoose]

You'll never use 4 gig of ram if you don't have 64bit anyway.

But I see the point you are trying to make.

[B-rock]

Well, the only reason I'm saying this is because I would be wanting to build something that I wouldn't have to upgrade for a while. I also like to play really high end games like Crysis and Assassins Creed. Granted I know that I could buy a high end Core 2 duo but I wanna build a future rig and overclock it.

Thats also another thing, I heard that AMD was better for overclocking

Another thing I don't know if its true or not, but that Nvidia = Intel and ATI = AMD and that crossing them you don't really get the best results

[peasupplyco]

Another thing I don't know if its true or not, but that Nvidia = Intel and ATI = AMD and that crossing them you don't really get the best results

Incorrect. This is false, i use AMD and Nvidia and it runs excellent, and have never seen/heard otherwise.

AMD is better, that quad doesn't bottleneck like the intel quad does.

Always Better.

[Hell_Tiger]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no motherboards that support a 2000 MHz FSB. Even if you used the AMD Phenom, it would have to run at 1600 if you have a high-speed MB or (most likely) 1333 MHz, which makes the intel quad more effective.

Intel processors also require statistically 20 to 40% less power and therefore produce less heat.

[MistyTehMoose]

Incorrect. This is false, i use AMD and Nvidia and it runs excellent, and have never seen/heard otherwise.

AMD is better, that quad doesn't bottleneck like the intel quad does.

Always Better.

I would disagree. AMD is cheaper for a reason.