What CPU would you get?

[Bandit]

I know the Intels out perform the AMD processors and I love my Quad Core Intel in my main system here. However, I dont want to spend thousand plus dollars upgrading my sage server.

So my choices are:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 Conroe 2.13GHz LGA 775 Processor Model BX80557E6400 - Retail for $218
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Windsor 3.0GHz Socket AM2 Processor Model ADX6000CZBOX - Retail $239

As you can see, those two are priced close enough to call the price even. Which one would you get to power your sage server?

After posting this I saw the Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz LGA 775 Processor Model BX80557E6600 - Retail for $308 and may be willing to spend that much on CPU also.

[paulbeers]

e4300 and do a basic overclock to 2.4 ghz by upping the FSB from 200 to 266.

[stevech]

If everyone stops purchasing AMDs, we'll see a monopoly at Intel and our prices will go into the Shell/Chevron mode.

I've always purchased AMD because I buy sweet-spot speed/price and AMD is a much better deal. My latest is an AMD AM2 4200, dual core. It is really fast, esp. since I spend extra $ on really fast DDR2 low latency memory.

No More Monopolies, Please.

[GTwannabe]

With the Intel option, you can get a cheap CPU like the 4300 and overclock it like mad. There aren't any AMD CPU's that can achieve anything close to a 50% overclock.

However, if you go with AMD now, you will have the ability to drop in a Barcelona quad-core CPU in the future. All AM3 CPU's are supposed to work in AM2 mobos, while the next-gen Intels will require new mobos and RAM.

[mayamaniac]

Originally Posted by Bandit

So my choices are:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 Conroe 2.13GHz LGA 775 Processor Model BX80557E6400 - Retail for $218
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Windsor 3.0GHz Socket AM2 Processor Model ADX6000CZBOX - Retail $239

As you can see, those two are priced close enough to call the price even. Which one would you get to power your sage server?

After posting this I saw the Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz LGA 775 Processor Model BX80557E6600 - Retail for $308 and may be willing to spend that much on CPU also.

For the SageTV server, get the fastest one, in the choices you have, go for the E6600 2.4Ghz. Whether you use the server for playback or not, you'll need the speed. Things like SageTV video conversions, comskip processing, and transcoding to media extenders and placeshifters, etc, these are very CPU-intensive tasks.

But if you decide to go the AMD route, make sure to get an nforce chipset motherboard.

[jmiddleton]

AMD have been adjusting their prices to maintain a price/performance advantage over Intel. According to the CPU performance charts published by Tom's Hardware, the Athlon X2 6000+ is between the E6600 and E6700 in performance on most benchmarks. After last week's price cut it is the bargain of the two you are comparing. Expect a price cut from Intel around the end of the month to rebalance things.

If you are looking for raw performance, Core 2 holds the crown today, AMD should regain the title later this summer with their next generation "Barcelona" processors. Intel should get it back around the end of the year with the 45nm "Penryn" chips.

[Bandit]

None of these replies are making my decision easier, hehe.

Almost ready to take the Quad Core I have in main gaming PC and use that for new sage server and just get a Dual Core 6600 for gaming PC.

I hate decisions!

[amac]

Intel is supposed to drop their CPU prices April 22-23. The E4300 will be $123USD. AMD will likely be forced to drop their prices again. In other words, whatever you do, wait a week!

[stevech]

Point of reference... my low cost AM2 dual-CPU AMD 4200 with fast memory:
Transcoding using Nero: 40% CPU (single threaded app)
Writing DVD: 15% CPU

so if you aren't cash-rich, those top-end CPUs ($$$) are not essential.

[Bandit]

Well, money burns a whole in my pocket, would love to wait for the 1333 FSB chips later this year, but not waiting that long. Will try my best to wait til next week and going to get E6600 probably. Thanks for all the input!

[flavius]

Originally Posted by stevech

No More Monopolies, Please.

Agreed. Most of my other wintel boxes use AMD's, but the e4300 is just irresistable at the moment.

AMD needs to get their act together, and I hope they will. That's just how this works.

[stevech]

Originally Posted by flavius

AMD needs to get their act together, and I hope they will. That's just how this works.

Well, I support the underdog since it works well and I don't want to see an Intel monopoly. AMD does't have the capital budget means to sell with unethical predatory intent as do Intel and WallMart.

[flavius]

I think, AMD is well beyond of being an underdog.

[davephan]

I would really like to get a QX6700 quad-core, but I may settle for an E6600 dual-core, since the quad-core (about $970)is about triple the cost of the dual-core (about $320). I'm holding out for the price drops next week.

I'll also need to buy a mainboard, memory, and get an IDE hard drive controller card as part of the upgrade.

My Althlon XP 2800+ can barely keep up with transcoding Xvid AVI files back into Mpeg2 files for the MVP playback process.

Dave

[flavius]

I find the beauty is in to buy what you need, not what you can affort

[stevech]

Originally Posted by flavius

I think, AMD is well beyond of being an underdog.

How so? Intel dwarfs the market share/revenue that AMD has.

AMD market cap: 7.40B
Intel market cap: 120.99B

[mayamaniac]

Technology wise, AMD is not an underdog. Their chips were faster and cheaper than intels during the AthlonXP days. And AMD beat intel to the 64bit processors by more than a year. Intel recovered, but AMD is still very competitive.

But market share wise, AMD is a huge underdog. Not being carried by big sellers like Dell is a huge blow. Only recently Dell started selling carrying AMD chips, but still I'm guessing the large majority of their sales are intel systems.

[flavius]

Originally Posted by stevech

How so? Intel dwarfs the market share/revenue that AMD has.

AMD market cap: 7.40B
Intel market cap: 120.99B

While those numbers do mean something, you still have to see them in context:

..In the first seven weeks of 2006, AMD's share in desktops in that area climbed to 81.5 percent, while Intel's has slid to 18.5 percent, Baker said. That's almost a complete reversal of their typical relative positions.

In notebooks, Intel's share has declined to 63 percent, even though Baker and others generally agree that Intel enjoys a technological advantage in laptops.
..

http://news.com.com/Strike+three+for...3-6045843.html

[stevech]

I just worry that very recent trends and marketplace tactics put AMD at risk again. And who suffers if Intel has no competition?

Enclosure. Look at the analysis ratings.

[flavius]

Certainly, I agree with that
What's with the attachment?