Well it is hard to compare the X4 945 because there is no quad in that price segment from the new iX series. But when you use X4 965 to compare is only 20 € less than i5-750. The cheaper Athlon X4 are busted in most bechmarks even with the dual core i3-530. You may certainly always find a cpu between others that has got no good match - try to compares those which have got one. The dual core i5 are no real good invest as the turbo mode would only work when 1 core is idle which would not be that often the case. Only if you really want the new AES functions you need those 32nm cpus which are not in the older quads nor in the i3. A good comparision in in the current ct 7/10. But for 100 € what do you find better than i3-530?
I just looked to benchmarks and compared Phenom X2 550, Athlon X3 435, Athlon X4 620 and Intel I3-530:
Performancerating tests (higher is better)
Phenom X2 545: applications 100%, games 100%, theoretical tests 100%
Athlon X3 435: applications 115%, games 115%, theoretical tests 113%
Athlon X4 420: applications 125%, games 120%, theoretical tests 125%
Intel I3-530: applications 119%, games 126%, theoretical tests 145%
power consumption (lower is better):
Phenom X2 545: idle 100%, full load 100%
Athlon X3 435: idle 100%, full load 101%
Athlon X4 420: idle 99%, full load 111%
Intel I3-530: idle 90%, full load 71%
current prices (in Germany with 19% VAT):
Phenom X2 545: 72 EUR
Athlon X3 435: 65 EUR
Athlon X4 420: 80 EUR
Intel I3-530: 101 EUR
I think we can agree that the Athlons are by far the best value propositions in the mid-low-end segment. This is reflected in techreport's recommendations.
One more thing: the i3 does not support VT, while the X4 does. This is not for everyone, but it is useful when working with virtual machines.
Go AMD and ATI
Personally, I have had some bad experiances with Intel and AMD. Intels never seem to have enough features, and AMD dud chips (see the original Phenom.) Despite this, I do recommend AMD for a better price to performance ratio. I know with all this talk floating around about how much faster the i series is, you may think AMD is falling behind, but where real world applications are concerned, AMD is comparable on the low end. I personally run an Athlon X4 635 @ 3.51 GHz, and for such a low price, it runs circles around a similarly priced Core i3.
As for graphics, I would really go for ATI. I know that support sometimes seems flaky (see Unigine,) but for the most part, it is just fine. I also like the choice of being able to know that there is a open source driver available, if I ever wanted to use it. I have a Radeon HD 4650 in my computer, and for the most part, it can handle just about any Linux game I can throw at it.
Are you kidding me.....
Originally Posted by Kano
Those numbers are in celsius mind you.
Again in celsius from toms no less....
Why do you compare s1366? There the cpus are 130w tdp, s1156 for dual 73w and quad 95w. In idle mode they beat AMD chips with ease also for load.
I suggest you go with Nvidia and Intel. The motherboard should be made by either Asus or Gigabyte. Intel's processors are more energy efficient than AMD's processors and programs are usually optimized with them in mind. Intel's chipsets are also very good. Nvidia's graphics cards have excellent binary drivers. You cannot go wrong with that combination.
Originally Posted by Serjor
OK, so if you dont like that one then how about these.....
Originally Posted by Kano
These are all I7 860s, which happen to be priced similar to Phenom 965....
I can go on if you like.. For a quick rundown, for about the same price you can get a 2.8ghz I7 running stock with load temps around 65-80 degrees celcius, or you can get a BE965 at 3.4ghz (performance should be about the same, maybe a slight edge to AMD.) running stock with load temps arounf 40-55 degrees celcius.
The I7 generally overclocks to between 3.9ghz-4.2ghz with a good aftermarket cooler and runs between 75-100 degrees, the AMD can get between 3.8ghz-4.0ghz with a good aftermarket cooler and will run between 55-65 degrees The performance edge when overclocked may go to Intel, but I'm gonna have to say with temps like that the overall better deal is probably gonna have to go to amd.
I have an Intel Core 2 Duo Q9500 and I have it running at stock clock speeds stably undervolted it to 1.1 volts, which makes it extremely cool running. I am sure that the core ix processors can be undervolted as well, especially the 32nm varieties.
Originally Posted by duby229
Anyway, as far as benchmarks at major review sites go, AMD's processors are about equal to my Intel Core 2 Duo Q9500. The Core ix series tends to outperform them in almost every benchmark.
Btw. every Intel iX supports VT. No AMD CPU supports VT but since AM2 (with the exception of Sempron) they support AMD-V (formerly known as Pacifica). In /proc/cpuinfo -> vmx -> Intel VT, svm -> AMD-V.