Hello all...

I'm going to be building a computer within the next month I am having a CPU dilemma. Me and friend have been debating the cost/performance ratio of AMD/Intel. I am a huge AMD fan and have been using them for years without problems. Morally I like what AMD is about more then Intel (like they are going to open source drivers etc), but my friend argues the Intel (and benchmarks back him) whoops the AMD x2 in performance (E6400). I am a gamer and performance is important to me and so is value. I don't have to break speed records with my computer and I would consider myself a moderate gamer so hardcore hardware is not really needed. But am I going to take a huge performance hit in let's say the x2 5600 vs the E6400 if I decide on the AMD?

I would just like some opinions on this and thank everyone who contributes!

And I would just like to note:
I don't really want to start a intel/amd flame thread I just want some opinions maybe from those who have used both.

Thanks again!

Intel actually provides opensource drivers too, FWIW, as well as loads of documentation on the inner workings of their hardware for those of us inclined to write code for it (myself NOT included ), and my personal opinion (since this *is* an opinion question) is to go with Intel.
I realize there is the angle that they are/may be to some degree in bed with certain 'software monopolists' but that's going around these days.
When I compare the two machines we have here at home, mine being an Intel, and my girlfriend/roomie's being an AMD, even taking into account that the two are not 'directly' comparable in terms of speed, I am glad I have an Intel over the AMD. Not being someone who buys based on the pretty packaging or solely on 'brand-name' recognition, I simply believe the Intel stuff to be 'better' in quality and performance.
-- Opinion only.

I think the 5600 and 6400 are pretty close - but the Core 2 Duo is an incredible overclocker. Have a look at the pi benchmarks in this section of the forum; I posted the results for my C2D 6600 running at stock speed. It may give you an idea.

Get a core2 duo, I like AMD, but Intel is just bringing on the whoop.

I haven't heard any new stuff from AMD for awhile, I'll have to check... Intel seems like they recently been pumping new out chips.

I'm and intel guy if you needed to know.

As part of my job, I do a lot of hardware evaluation, and at present there's no doubt that Intel is in the lead. If you can wait a few months, though, AMD will have its quad core chips out and they look seriously nice. Some amount of it is going to depend on the intended use for the chips. For games or scientific calculations you will notice a lot more difference than for Web browsing.

I wouldn't make a decision based on morals, but as GrapefruiTgirl mentioned Intel is extremely friendly to open source in its own right. The last time I went to LinuxWorld, Intel was one of the top level sponsors (AMD was the next level down, IIRC).

Go with what you like.

From a practical point of view, both Intel and AMD make excellent products, so whatever you choose, it will work.

Personally, I have been very impressed by AMD, and they have won my business. The first PC I built used an Intel chip, the second used an AMD, and based on the amazing price/performance I got out of that chip (Ahtlon 2500+), my third PC also boasts an AMD, as will any future PC's I build. Just my 2 cents -- again, both companies make excellent products, I just think I am getting a better value for my dollar with AMD

You'd be better off buying a high-end video card instead of a high-end CPU, IMHO. I'm seeing X2 4400+ Dual Core's going for ~$100 (U.S. dollars) nowadays. I really can't imagine a game that would require more horsepower than that.

Heck I just found one on ebay WITH a motherboard for $130 + $20 shipping. Think I might buy it...

Of course, if you can afford both - do it. But if you have to decide between spending on the CPU or spending on the video, opt for the video. BTW: Two SLI'ed mid range cards can perform as well or better than one high end card while costing less.

I too am a huge AMD fan and have always used them. AMD has always been the underdog and I liked that about them however the performance of the Intel Core 2 Duo is hard to deny. I just picked up an Intel E6600 and I have an E6300 at work and they are simply leaps and bounds faster than the machines I have ran with the AMD AM2 processors.

I would not even think twice about getting a C2D!

Either go AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+ / 3800+, or go Core 2 Duo.

Really, there's not much point in AMD's offerings past the Athlon 4400+, where price effectiveness is moot. If you feel the price is alright for that Core 2 Duo, go ahead. I'm going AMD myself, an Athlon 64 X2 3800+, just because of the fact that I can get the 65W version, in a retail box, from a mostly-retail store, for 100$ Canadian. It totally blows the closest Intel offering out of the water (Pentium 4) and I'm not interested in doubling the CPU cost for a Core 2 Duo.

I would much rather take this over an outdated AMD 64 X2 3800+ not to mention when you out grow the C2D, you have room to upgrade rather than be stuck in a dead end arch for AMD 939.

Hmm, that Intel chip is competitively priced. I still haven't really decided myself.

Here's the best deal I found of the Bay of E though FWIW:
http://cgi.ebay.com/AMD-Athlon-64-x2...QQcmdZViewItem
$120 for X2 4400+ dual core with a mobo and $20 more for shipping to USA. Only reason I didn't buy it myself was the ECS mobo. I've had problems with them in the past. Though at that price I guess I could have keep it just for testing.

@Carlwill: You might have the extra 100$-200$ to move from an Athlon 64 X2 3800+ AM2 setup to a Core 2 Duo-based setup, but I don't. Not a chance in hell I'm waiting any longer (I was going to buy it last year) and going for a Pentium 4 then upgrading later is stupid.

@Crito: Holy crap that's a low price.