Phenom II X4 925 vs Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200

[Guest]

The both systems [under consideration here] are otherwise identical and the price is nearly the same; My area of interest lies primarily in Sound and Video editing + Graphic design; which one should I choose the one with the Phenom II X4 925 processor [x64] or the Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 [x86] - based one? I am interested purily in performance; issues pertaining to software availability, etc. are of no concern to me.
Thank u all in advance,

Nicolas A. Moltisanti, Ph.D., A.A.M.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Q8200 is faster clock-per-clock, but the PhenomII is better due to higher base clock rate and better overclocking abilities.

Q8300s @ 2.5GHz cost $150 at Newegg, almost the same as a Q8200, and would be better than both options.

 

[dpaul8]

The Phenom II X4 925 system and the Q8200 system will be very close in performance for video editing and graphic design based on this article:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=81&p2=52

Although the processor comparison does not have the exact AMD processor, this should still give you a good idea of the relative performance.

 

[nforce2010]

Follow this compare, the Phenom II X4 925 is better.

Its price is better too.

This one

 

[buzznut]

I too would recommend the AMD processor. The Q8200 is not capable of virtualization. XP mode in WIN7 requires running microsoft virtual machine, so that is why I recommend the AMD CPU.

 

[deadlockedworld]

The Phenom II X4 925 is a slightly better processor. I was also going to include the link in dpaul's post --which shows that the Phenom 920 wins in most areas--so we should assume the 925 is a little better than even that.

The Phenom II X4 is a newer processor from AMD, while the Q8200 is the last of Intels now discontinued Core 2 Quad lineup. Even though the performance difference isnt great--the Phenom is newer technology than the Core 2 Quad--and will be around longer. This will make the Phenom easier and cheaper to upgrade+etc should you ever need to.

A similar thread--but with the model above the Q8200:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/270743-28-core-quad-q8300-phenom

 

[Raidur]

Don't forget if you want to upgrade in the future you might have some more headroom with the AMD. If it wasn't for that I'd probably go for the Q8200.

 

[hell_storm2004]

AMD one for me. Q8200 is in its last phases of its life. Plus going for the AMD would give you a better upgrade path in the future whereas LGA775 doesn't!

 

[sighQ2]

A socket AM3 cpu on a socket AM3 mobo, will allow you to simply DROP IN any future new release AMD cpu's through 2010 and possibly longer.

The comment about virtualization is real.

and as mentioned, socket LGA775 is dead; not to mention, it uses the now dinosaur tek of FSB, which sux in today's pc world, which more and more emphasizes GPU. The old shared bus can't keep up. More and more software is appearing for GPU, GPGPU.

 

[Onus]

I know and accept the risks when one assumes...
...However, if the money is there, you appear to be precisely the level of professional user who can benefit from, and justify the cost of, i7. Unless your work requires a high-end workstation graphics card (i.e. not a gaming card), you would only need to spend $35-$50 or so on a GPU; if you were going to buy something like a HD5770, the money you save there might allow the platform upgrade to i7 on LGA1156. It will blow the other two out of the water for your intended uses.

Edit: That said, if the option isn't there, then the points above about LGA775 being a dead-end are well taken. Whether or not AMD ever leapfrogs Intel again in performance, the fact remains that a Socket AM3 mobo has an upgrade path, and LGA775 does not.

 

[skywalker5555]

AMD Phenom II X4 925 is very near to Q9300 when it comes to stock performances