New Build: Intel vs AMD

[Jimbob17]

Hey guys im looking at building a new computer for a friend i have been out of touch with the new chips sets and everything for a while they dont want to spend much they just want a computer that starts up fast and they just do a bit of photo editing emails that sort of thing.

Im wondering if i should get a intel CPU or AMD
Also are they any good chipset that are fast booting?

Any advised is greatly appreciated. THanks

[peterb]

Unless you are going really high end, I don't think there is much to choose. AMD processors and mobos tend to be less expensive than an Intel equivalent.

If you want high speed boot, the consensus seems to be to use a small (ish) SSD for the operating system, and a conventional HD for apps and data (unless you have lots of dosh and can afford a large SSD (or several) for all your online storage.

[oolon]

Why not get a nettop or CULV (consumer ultra low voltage) computer like the Acer Revo or the Asus EeeBox, both are atom based, and are more than powerful enough for most people and are dirt cheap. There are dual and single core versions, and can be mounted to the back of a monitor. Asus computers have a fastboot feature, which caches the bios results on disk for hardware for a fast start.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It is a good thing that you asked this question on Hexus as in many other forums there would have been a flame war by now!!

AMD tend to have cheaper motherboards and better specified motherboards for the same price when compared to the new Intel socket 1156 platform. Unlike with socket 775 Intel have started budget socket 1156 motherboards start at around £65.

With regards to processors AMD is quite competitive with what Intel has currently upto around the £125 to £135 price point. The AMD processors tend to have better multi-threaded performance and the Intel processors have better single threaded performance at many price points. This is because AMD tends to offer triple and quad cores at the same price points at which Intel offers dual and hyper threaded dual cores.

The Intel processors tend to also have better peak power consumption too.

[mac124]

Depends what exactly you mean by photo editing, a little bit of red eye reduction, full on photoshopping or RAW conversion? If its the latter then an atom based set up might not be the way to go, i speak from experience as the Atom i used to have was 2-3 times slower at RAW conversion than my desktop Phenom based PC, and when you are doing multiple pictures this soon adds up to a lot of extra minutes.

Do you have a buget? If so then i am sure Cat could come up with a few suggestions, he is usually one of the first on the scene with a spec .

[oolon]

If its the latter then an atom based set up might not be the way to go, i speak from experience as the Atom i used to have was 2-3 times slower at RAW conversion than my desktop Phenom based PC, and when you are doing multiple pictures this soon adds up to a lot of extra minutes.

Are you using Photoshop 4 which uses the graphics card for some processing? If So what graphics have you in each computer, the examples I gave where Atom/Ion for that reason.

[watercooled]

Yeah Intel or AMD is a bad flame war trigger on some forums . Anyway, you should be looking at what CPU to get rather than MFR, MFR is only really important if you have brand loyalty or if you're looking to upgrade the CPU on an existing motherboard or something. As a general rule what others have said is true:
Everyday tasks/office system e.g. web browsing/word processing/music/videos/etc - basically anything which doesn't require much horsepower something like an Intel Atom or VIA Nano (not as well known but superior to Atom in many areas).
More of a mid-range system, AMD tend to offer better value in this area IMO.
High-end: This market is fairly contested by both Intel and AMD IMO as both offer good high-performance CPUs for good prices.
Higher-end: For something like a high-end gaming PC for example, Intel offer the most choice but because of lack of competition in this area you generally pay for it.

How often will the system be used for photo editing, a basic system would be fine for occasional use/for small photos/basic editing/etc but you'd be better off with something more powerful for frequent editing.

[Uriel]

Tomshardware do a monthy CPU recommendation article covering CPUs for each price range. It's rather gaming oriented but may be worth a look to assist buying decisions:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-g...iew-31815.html

[McstylisT]

Personally speaking here you have two options ( thinking your buying new of course).

If money is an issue and you need to get the best for the current fund you have then AMD is a good bet. You can probably manage a good system with a Phenom 2 955 for less than you think. These also do really well in gaming rigs.

But , if you have funds and want something that bit better then look along the Intel i5/i7 route. I5 being a similar sort of price to an AMD but have slightly better kick in the engine. The i7 is the superior and king of the desktops to be honest with you. But they cost.

Having used both brands in the past 5-6 years i would say Intel are better form my interactions , but for sure these new AMD setups really are nothing for anyone to dismiss. They are solid components and will do a fine job.

Best of luck

McT

[Nick259]

I'm very content with AMD atm. I bought a 790x mobo and a 550 and managed to unlock it to a quad core all for £120. For gaming at least amd seem to compete well with the i7's at higher resolutions so i'm happy with my purchace. AMD also have some nice cheap dual/tri cores and theres always the nice, but not guaranteed, possibility that they will unlock. As far as i'm aware though its only the phenoms and a few athlon tri cores that you have a chance of unlocking.

[Jimbob17]

Thanks for all your replies, generally it will do a bit of photo editing but i would also like a fast start up time, is there any specific boards that are good with start up times as well? Sounds like a weird question to ask but the people i am building this computer for want it to start up real quick

[psu1]

Is the i3 worth getting then?

[watercooled]

Thanks for all your replies, generally it will do a bit of photo editing but i would also like a fast start up time, is there any specific boards that are good with start up times as well? Sounds like a weird question to ask but the people i am building this computer for want it to start up real quick

None spring to mind but some do go through POST quicker than others but it's not a commonly advertised spec. It depends what you mean by fast booting exactly, do you mean you want it to spend less time POSTing (the black screen with white writing before Windows starts loading) or you want the PC to load Windows and be usable quickly, if it's the latter then an SSD would help but it would probably have more to do with startup items etc - if your current PC has to load all kinds of programs on startup or a bloated AV package then doing something about that would make a big impact i.e. get a lighter AV and stop any programs running on startup that aren't completely necessary.
@psu1: That depends on what you would use it for really; without knowing what you would be using the system for/budget/etc it's not really possible to answer your question.

[TooNice]

How are things these days from a bang-for-buck perspective? I might teach my flatmate how to build a PC (as opposed to building one for), I know where the components goes, but my knowledge outdated in terms of motherboard chipset, and costs of CPU/type of RAM and so on. Last I checked, AMD does provide pretty good value, but is that still the case?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It depends on your budget and what you want to do with the PC. AMD are also releasing the Phenom II X6 next month AFAIK.

[TooNice]

'General purpose'. Basically your internet browsing, watching movies (possibly HD), casual gaming on a 22" monitor (last time he was still building his tolerance from FPS induced motion sickness).

I built something quick without looking too hard: http://prntscr.com/6w3l

- Fan is for the heatsink (not sure if others are better, but I guess the S-Flex is tried and tested).
- GTS 250 is more than enough until I am sure that he'll eventually overcome the motion sickness.
- Not sure if it's worth paying £10 extra for the Dominator.
- I know that the PSU is well overkill. Yet, it's not significantly more expensive than reputable modular PSU with lower wattage. Quiet a modular FTW.
- I don't know anything about chipset. Reason I picked that motherboard is simply because Anadtech used a similar motherboard to test the X2 555, and because it supports USB 3.0 (I don't expect a rebuild for another 2 years at least).
- Will chance with unlocking the X2 555. If it works, great, if it doesn't, doesn't matter for a casual user.

Either it gets built next week, or it won't get built for a while. Even though I said flatmate, I move about between places and I am only going there for a short while. This also mean that I would ideally like a heatsink that is in now.

For the time being, the emphasis is on low noise and solid performance, under £600-£800 exc OS.