[skinnyman9000]

Im about to start planning my computer build, and so i have to answer the initial question of AMD or Intel.

The system will be used for gaming, office applications, and the internet. The only processor intensive thing i will use it for is Utorrent, but that is only run at night as it saps the internet bandwidth far too much. I usually play strategy games such as Total War, C&C, Civilisations etc, although i want it to run the odd FPS too.

Now ive been looking at the price difference between the AMD and Intel. Due to the gaming side of things i was thinking that an AMD would be the best choice, namely the AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6000+, but the difference in price between this and a comparative Intel chip is around £50, with the AMD being just £120 and the Intel £172. I've always be told 'you get what you pay for'. So will the Intel chip really by that much better? Or should i stick with the AMD for my gaming needs?

[slipend]

The AMD Athlon 64 x2 series is great.

especially your quoted, 6000+ model. You can't got wrong with that.

[skinnyman9000]

I asummed that with it being the best available AMD at present that it would be more than up to the task of running the games that i normally use, but its just that £120 for a top of the range processor seems a little low to me.

Unless thats just the market these days, the last time i purchased a computer was 3yrs ago

[alex]

It does seem low for a top end processor doesn't it.

But don't forget AMD are in direct competition with Intel, and if you take into account the fact that Intel's core2's have a better architecture then AMD have to try and beat them on the price front.

The 6000 you've quoted is a very good chip, but it's outclassed by Intel's new E6750 or they're initial E6700. Both of these cpu's are more though. Hence the lower pricing point on the AMD. They've priced it around E6600 money, and the 6000 is the faster chip. So anyone looking at the E6600 might be swayed to move over to AMD.

[grush]

TBH the intels are probably a faster chip but for what you're going to be using it for I doubt you'd notice the difference save the £50 on the CPU and spend it on a card or ram where you possibly would notice a difference.

[skinnyman9000]

Thanks for the replies guys.

I've been an AMD user in the past and have been happy with the results, so i was hoping to stick with them. Its a shame they dont do another chip slightly faster than the 6000+, maybe a 3.6Ghz one or something similar.

[alex]

Funny you should mention that, AMD have pre-released a AM2 6400 (3.2ghz 2x1mb cache) out to developers so they can upgrade their mobo bios's.

Pricing (I'd guess) will be just lower than the E6850. But be in no doubt this chip will run hot. As will yours, hence the AC 64 I quoted you.

[skinnyman9000]

I guess for the extra money that the 6400+ will be it wont be worth the small increase in speed, especially when the 6000+ can be overclocked to higher than the 6400+ is as standard anyway.

Then when that time comes a small upgrade in cooling will/should solve the heat problem from overclocking