Intel vs AMD for Sage - Poll?

[tvmaster2]

I've been searching all over the site and have found mixed results. Has there ever been a poll done as to which processor gives fewer headaches for a Sage HTPC? If anyone has the link can you post it, as I can't find one.

[robogeek]

I'm guessing nowadays it's not really a question of whether an AMD vs Intel brand processor will give you headaches. It's all about picking the processor with the features and speed you need based on what you're going to be throwing at it...SageTV server, SageTV client, HD playback, commercial skipping, transcoding, etc. I'm not saying AMD and Intel processors are a horse a piece, but when you're talking dual and quad core 2.5GHz and higher per core, most people will find that more than adequate unless there are lots of comskipping and transcoding processes running, regardless of which brand it is. Besides processor speed and number of cores, front side bus speed, cache size, power consumption/CPU throttling, and overclocking ability are a few other features to consider.

If anything is going to cause headaches it will be the bios and chipset on the motherboard, motherboard drivers, or the usage of poor quality capacitors on the motherboard that will cause the most grief in the end. If you can get past that, it probably won't matter which brand of CPU you choose as long as it provides the speed and feature set you need.

All of that being said, I've used AMD processors for years and have been very happy with the lower cost options they have provided compared to similar speed Intel processors. But I did rebuild my SageTV server machine earlier this year and went with an Intel processor this time. I found motherboard with good reviews that I liked with the features I wanted, and it just happened to take an Intel CPU. But I'm sure if I hunted around more, I could have found a motherboard with nearly identical features that took an AMD and be just as happy with that.

[robogeek]

As far as headaches on a HTPC, it's also worth mentioning that the sound and video chipsets are another sore spot and something to consider if upgrading to a new motherboard.

[paulbeers]

My recommendation, create a budget for a build and then find the best bang for your buck. AMD usually wins especially with their new Athlon x4's now, but Intel will win at the mid to high ends (see i5's and i7's). I also recommend at least considering the power consumption of your processors as they will cost you more over time due to your energy bills. I have been very happy with my AMD XXXe processors, but that is purely personal preference.

[mattdcknsn]

I use AMD procs just because of cost. From my experience the horsepower is about the same between the two. Since I transcode a lot the front side bus is always where I concentrate on.

[tvmaster2]

Originally Posted by robogeek

As far as headaches on a HTPC, it's also worth mentioning that the sound and video chipsets are another sore spot and something to consider if upgrading to a new motherboard.

from all the info I've read here, I was just about to go AMD with a Gigabyte 785 MB, ATI 4200. But I read another entry from someone who wasn't an ATI fan (I have Intel / Nvidia currently, which are outdated for HD), and the 785 chipset that was supposed to handle HDMI 7.1 audio actually doesn't (it may actually be the AMD that can't do this - not the motherboard chipset). I don't really need that feature (5.1 is fine for me), so that's not as important. And then there's the future prospect of editing the HD files I'm recording: if there's transcoding involved, is that an area where one proc brand beats the other?

[SWKerr]

There will always be Intel and AMD bigots but the cpu is really a commodity item at this point and it is price vs performance you are looking at. Both will work well with a decent motherboard.

AMD owns the low end from a value perspective. Intel is the performance king and the i5 is a relatively decent value. For an HTPC the AMD options will fill the need. Having all that extra money and power sitting around doing nothing does not make much sense.

If it will end up being your primary desktop and you want to do some video editing then Intel may be the way to go. I do a fair amount of video editing and for me my low end AMD X3 720 works fine. The only time you will really notice a difference is when you render the video. It will take a lot longer on the AMD rig. Thing is the expensive Intel system will still take awhile as well just not as long.

What I do is price out what will work and compare it to a much nicer rig. I look at the difference in cost and consider what I would do with the difference. (Extender, 2tb Hard drive, BluRay, Xbox360) I always cheap out and buy a new toy with the difference.

Something to consider for an HTPC is can your current PC take a $40 Video Card and work as a Sage client. You can move it to a new case and add a quite cpu fan and be working. Then you can build a high end box for your desktop where you might actually enjoy the i5\i7 power.

[Taddeusz]

I've found it has more to do with the motherboard chipset. I'll admit it, I've become an Intel fanboi. Ever since I bought my Intel DP35DP motherboard I've been very impressed with their offerings. It is by far the most stable board I've ever owned. I paired it with a C2D E6550 and is currently running Win7 x64 without a hitch. In the coming week it is going to get a bump up to a C2Q Q8400. The 2.33Ghz E6550 is going to make its way into my SageTV server to upgrade the 2.2Ghz Athon X2 4200 that's currently powering it. That should give my server the power it needs to transcode 1080i/p H.264 video. The X2 4200 just doesn't quite have the speed to do it.

In regards to Intel vs AMD processors. The main reason AMD has been lowering their prices so much is that they can't compete with Intel on performance. Both brands are certainly fast but Intel really has the edge with higher instructions per clock. AMD just hasn't been able to catch up since the C2D came out and trounced them. So price is all AMD has to compete with.

[tvmaster2]

all good advice - thanks. seeing that the intel's add to the cost, and that this will likely be, in reality, a HTPC box primarily, AMD seems like the better choice.