E8500 vs X2 7750

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar

Is an Intel E8500 system worth paying 30 more bucks than a AMD 7750 system.

  • Yes

    Votes: 44 83.0%

  • No

    Votes: 9 17.0%
  • Total voters
    53
kirvinb

kirvinb

Distinguished
Jan 2, 2009
122
0
18,680
Ok im building a system soon...and i jus went on the egg and made a wishlist on what i think would suit my needs. Im a college student..with media taste so i want a pc thats capable to playin videos email..documents..all that stuff...now i know that doesnt require much power...but i am a causal gamer..and avid photoshop user...so i need pc and video card power...


My video card choice will be the HD 4830...the price is nice for the performance it seems...But my processor choice is a lil hard...I choose a AMD 7750 orginally...but i made another wishlist with an Intel E8500...they have a 100 dollar difference....so the intel should and is a whole lot better than the AMD version no question. But I cut some corners on the INtel system and got it to be only 30 bucks cheaper than the amd system...

With the AMD SYstem i get a blu ray drive and a dvd burner...and 2 hard drives...an seagate 160 gb and a seagate 1tb...

With the INTEL I only get a 1 blu ray drive..and 1 Samung 1 TB.

The amd system total would be 1370 while the intel system total would be about 1400


My question is would it be worth it to pay 30 more bucks to get the intel system over the amd system?

Sorry for all the writing...i did it so you dont have to ask questions later
Thanks in advance
 
I just changed the processor in my workstation from an Intel E6850 to an AMD 9350e and I was very surprised. It certainly seems quicker in Vista and Photoshop CS2 but the big difference was in COD4. On a 24" screen the AMD is heaps better than the Intel. A more consistent framerate, smoother and overall a lot more playable. It's also cheap and runs cool. Just make sure you have 8gig of ram. Either that or wait a few weeks for the new Phenom. I hope this helps you out.
 
it acuallly depends if you want a 64bit OS. AMD is acually ahead of that CPU in the 64bit OS range. But for 32bit Operating system the E8500 would smash it. Any ways if you want to save some green get the E8400 which is about $10-$20 dollars cheaper and you can overclock it just as good.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037

PS. I was totaly for AMD until I decied to see what it was like to build an Intel computer and I was amazed and now I'll buy from both companies.
 
At this point in time, there is not questions about it. It's totally worth spending that 30.00$ on the Intel system. Even though, AMD seems to have promising products around the corner, Intel still holds the bucket especially in the mid to high end processor market. That being said, it doesn't mean that you can't get an AMD system and be happy with it. BTW, I use both companies for different purposes. Main rig is Intel, HTPC is AMD......
 
Actually after trying the AMD and doing my own testing I can see the benchmarks like 3dmark are completely meaningless. If you run two systems, one intel dual core and one phenom quad side by side in 3dmark you will see what I mean. The intels frame rate goes up and down like a yoyo and the Phenom cruises along at a much more consistent, smoother rate. Yes the intel racks up more total frames over the test but the Phenom has a higher minimum frame rate and is a lot more playable. Here is a link that demonstrates the same thing that I worked out. In COD4 my dual core is playable up to 1680x1050 on medium settings. The AMD is now running at 1920x1200 with everything on max and it is still smoother and more playable than the intel.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_phenom_x3_8750/11.htm
 


Yeah quads ARE stronger then duals in multithreaded apps etc - ofcourse it will seem faster in some areas :sarcastic: .

Compare an Intel quad (even the Q6600) to and AMD quad and you will see an even greater leap in performance.

Comparing two different spec'd and priced chips is stupid.
 


Well, I wouldn't say benchmarks like 3dmark are completely meaningless. However, it could be argued that they should be upgraded to show how consistent the processors perform.

If processor A can average a game at 100 fps, with highs as much as 200 fps and lows as low as 10 fps (and radically spikes framerate in either direction constantly)... and processor B can average a game at 70 fps with highs as much as 100 and lows as low as 45 fps (and stays relatively steady throughout)... which gives the better gaming experience? I would contend that processor B would be the better choice. This is one of AMD's strong points with the Phenom architecture. It is relatively consistent.

You may also find that Phenoms tend to lose less steam than the Core 2's when running in higher resolutions. But you rarely see that these days, as most sites test CPU's using extremely low resolutions so that they can remove the GPU bottleneck from the equation. This made sense up until the Phenom architecture (and now the i7 architecture), which have gobs of bandwidth at their disposal, which apparently helps alleviate the CPU bottleneck to some extent.

But these days the enthusiasts are too lazy to test and more interested in flaming, the reviewers are too set in their ways or have been bought out to some extent, and benchmark companies don't feel the need for their software to offer more comprehensive testing if nobody thinks it necessary and their competition doesn't have it.
 



Youre comparing Intel's dual core against AMDs quad core, only the OP is not asking about the AMD quad core. There is no comparison between an Intel e8400 and AMD X2 7750, the Intel smokes it.
 
I am saying go for the quad AMD because in Australia the AMD 9350e which I have upgraded to costs $200 and an intel E8500 is $300. When using 64bit Vista and 8gig of ram the AMD quad is superior to the intel and a lot cheaper. As for the q6600 take a look at the link. On a 24"screen the AMD quad is the best processor on the market. Even the q9450 and i7 only manage to match the AMD in COD4 at 1920x1600. The i7 is five times the price and has no advantage at all. On top of that the AMD quad is smoother in game play.
 
Well MalcolmK...i could go for an AMD Quad...the 9950 is only 170 which about the same price of the E8500...but lookin over benchmarks...that quad doesnt deliver power where i need it...photoshop...games....and power director....im sure its a good processor...but it doesnt seem more powerful than the E8500 in most applications....

and for the other comments...I was comparing a system with a intel dual core vs and amd dual core...so the playing field is even...those comparing quads to dual cores are unfair since generally a quad should outperform a dual.

i did notice that a intel Q6600 is about the same price as intel E8500..should that be considered into the system?

And also...i was plannin on using a 64 bit OS....would that change the outcome at all?
 
The E8500 is better in games, but games will be getting better with quads, in photoshop the q6600 will be a lot better...

I have a E8400+9800GX2 for gaming and a Q6600+7600GT for my VM servers.

I tried my Q6600+9800GX2 for gaming and the E8400 was better with more games.

But for you if you do a lot of multitasking and photoshop you should go for Q6600, games will still play very good.
 
I'm not sure why you would choose to get a Segate 160GB in addition to a 1TB drive. Anyway, with that budget I'd rather go with the AMD system and cut out the 160GB Segate and the DVD burner to get a better video card like a 4850 1GB. Since the 7750 has an unlocked multiplier it will be rather easy to over clock and you should get at least 3.1 GHz out of it. Of course the E8500 is worth the extra money as it is significantly faster than the 7750 and of course overclocks much better, but you can't really be cutting too many corners on the motherboard or Power supply if you want to overclock the E8500. For the Intel system I would rather go with an E8400 to save a few bucks, since it has the same OC potential as the E8500, and put that towards a better board of vid card. For an Intel setup I wouldn't go with anything less than a P45 based board.
 
CPU: I7 920
Mobo: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813188039
RAM: 3GB http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145225

Total: 740 + shipping + other stuff

Another 3 gb of ram will cost you another 130.

A light gamer could get away with a 4850 or 4830. 150 for that.

A HDD (640gb drives are better than 750gb or 1TB drives) could run you in the 70$ range.

A DVD drive is 30$
A BluRay reader is 100$

Power supply and case are up to you.

1000$ for a system that will dominate in PS, light gaming, and everything else sounds good to me, but maybe you were aiming a bit lower?


 
/facepalm

Consider what you loose for that 'extra' $30, your DVD drive and a secondary hard drive, and perhaps a bit of overclocking headroom. From your usage scenario, AMD FTW.

You can get the best of both worlds however, grab cheeper Intel, such as the E7xxx or E5200 and do a bit of overclocking, and use the saved cash to get your DVD and hard drive back.
 
For your $1370 budget you could get the suggest Toms I7 system + BluRay reader.

you could save ~$200 if you switch from a 4850X2 to a 4850 and you could still get a second hard drive.
 
3dmark benchmarks may be "meaningless" by it is definitely CPU bound more so than it should be. that is why quads typically score higher nut do not necessarily pack the same punch in gaming. if my only choice is between the two mentioned then spend the extra 30 dollars. i am running an e8400 and i sure dont see frames jumping up and down. if it werent for my bad habit of spending money meaninglessly it would get me by for a good while. B-Unit is correct though. a couple adjustments in the BIOS and a decent aftermarket cooling solution and you are cruising a e5200 or e7xxx at 3.6Ghz or better.
 
i must add...that the price was 1370 and 1400 because everything was including in that price....the 1920 x 1080 mointor...keyboard mice...sata cables...everything from head to toe on a new pc..

.I read that 1250 build by tom..with the i7 and followed it accordingly...the total would be about 1750...vs 1370 vs 1400 with everything....not sure...if its worth the 400 dollar price increase... only a 5 to 15 performace increase in the benchmarks i need...but i do understand once software gets optimized for it...it may be better...not suree 400 dollars better tho
 
The Phenom 9350e is garbage, why was it even brought up here?

@ OP Just get the E8400/E8500 and overclock it. Also keep in mind that 4830 wont be able to handle any modern games at decent settings at that resolution. You mind listing your entire cart/specs? We might be able to help you cut cost elsewhere so you can gain in other areas.
 
ok Intel System
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500
ASRock P45XE-WiFiN LGA 775
ASUS EAH4830/HTDP/512MD3 Radeon HD 4830
Crucial Ballistix 4GB DDR2 800
1x SAMSUNG Spinpoint F1 HD103UJ 1TB
ZEROtherm ZEN FZ120 120mm CPU Cooler
6x Blu ray Rom Drive

AMD system has identical specs...except different processor and mobo of course...and different hard drive..and addition of another optical drive

GIGABYTE GA-MA790X-DS4
AMD X2 7750
2x Western Digital Caviar Black 640 GB
22x DVD burner
Wifi N pci e card
 
Without a doubt whatsoever, I'd get the E8500 (or even E8400) over ANY of the AMD chips available currently. If we were talking Phenom II (when it comes out) I might think it over and review some benchmarks.

For now though, I can't find a performance reason to buy an AMD chip unless you're on a really tight budget. I'm not an Intel fanboy either. My Q6600 is the first Intel chip I've ever personally owned. Every system I ever built was AMD before this.

Facts are facts. Intel simply dominates right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom