Welcome To Signs101.com: Largest Forum for Signmaking Professionals

Signs101.com: Largest Forum for Signmaking Professionals is the LARGEST online community & discussion forum for professional sign-makers and graphic designers.

 


  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Intel Vs Amd

Discussion in 'Computer Hardware' started by signs2trade, May 21, 2008.

  1. signs2trade

    signs2trade Active Member

    I NEED TO REPLACE SOME COMPUTERS. WE DO A FAIR AMOUNT OF WRAPS AND A LOT OF DESIGNING AND DIGITAL GRAPHICS. SHOULD I USE INTEL OR AMD....ALSO WHAT WOULD BE THE SUGGESTED COMPONENTS FOR A GOOD, FAST DESIGN AND RIP COMPUTER. I RUN FLEXI,PHOTOSHOP,COREL,VERSAWORKS RIP....NORMAL EMAILING ETC..
    THANK YOU
    KEITH:help:
     
    Tags:
  2. animenick65

    animenick65 Very Active Member

    1,320
    0
    36
    May 18, 2005
    Boston, MA
    As of right now, Intel is going to give you the most processing power for your buck. You can get AMD chips cheaper, but they just aren't up to par right now. Now you need to see if Versaworks is multithreaded or not, I would hope it is. A quad core processor is a good option if you run multithreaded programs. The price on quad core processors is decent right now.

    Also keep in mind the possibility of a RAID setup for better performance and data security. Check out some of the MMs on here that sell computers specifically for the sign and large format print industry.
     
  3. Shovelhead

    Shovelhead Major Contributor

    10,882
    16
    0
    Dec 5, 2003
  4. animenick65

    animenick65 Very Active Member

    1,320
    0
    36
    May 18, 2005
    Boston, MA
    Rule #1 in looking for or building a decent computer, don't rely on C-NET for information.
     
  5. SignBurst PCs

    SignBurst PCs Very Active Member

    I agree... especially a 3 year old article. No offense intended Shovelhead.

    Things just change so fast in the technology industry. 3 years is an eternity.

    C-net is a media outlet. There is often a bit of "spin" on their articles.
     
  6. OADesign

    OADesign Active Member

    794
    53
    28
    Jan 27, 2006
    California
    IMO to get the most bang for you buck use intel chips and go with the q6600.
    easily overclockable, runs very cool, and paired with some good memory you should be good to go.
     
  7. jiarby

    jiarby Major Contributor

    4,513
    0
    0
    Feb 11, 2007
    Intel by alot... The L2 cache makes the difference
     
  8. SignBurst PCs

    SignBurst PCs Very Active Member

    I am really an Intel fan right now (at least for design). AMD has it's place and is heading in some interesting directions, but right now, I am sticking with Intel.

    The quad cores are the way to go. The Q6600 is great, but there are better bang-for-your buck processors out there. Bigger caches and higher clock speeds for the same (or less) money.
     
  9. signs2trade

    signs2trade Active Member

    Thank You Thank You Thank You
     
  10. OADesign

    OADesign Active Member

    794
    53
    28
    Jan 27, 2006
    California
    Well pony up on the info there brother!

    I am in need of a new machine. I was planning on building it around the q6600. The price for the performance it just right.

    what other Intel chips will perform better?

    sorry if I'm pirating the thread
     
  11. choucove

    choucove Active Member

    809
    0
    0
    Feb 25, 2008
    Well I'll just throw in my two cents to give AMD some credit here:

    I've built a few Intel and a few AMD systems through the past years. EVERY AMD system we have built has outlasted and outlived in every way the Intel systems by at least two years. They just have a much better lifetime it seems. Additionally, it's wrong to go and say that EVERY Intel processor outperforms EVERY AMD processor. If you go strictly and compare costs, the cheapest Intel quad-core processor is still more expensive than the most powerful and most expensive AMD quad-core processor, and the Intel processor will not be able to rival the faster AMD processor without some overclocking.

    The usual debate that Intel beats AMD is at the most expensive top-of-the-line dual cores and quad cores. Once you start getting ready to shove $750 or more into a processor, Intel is your way to go, as their top of the line processors are more powerful than AMD. But when you compare cost-for-cost between AMD and Intel, you can get just as much performance from AMD than an Intel system, and even at a cheaper cost if you look right and plan ahead.

    AMD also has the benefit of an integrated memory controller, which is a very powerful force! Because of this, AMD processors are able to better utilize and see benefit from faster speed RAM in your system which also can be a powerful force.

    There are a LOT of professional IT companies (which includes high-power system designers such as Alienware, VooDoo PC, Acer, HP, and Dell to name a few) are recognizing the real potential of the AMD Phenom processors and are beginning to design and really advertise systems with this setup because A) they are generally cheaper than the Intel systems, and B) For the price the performance is really great. Sure, you can spend even more and get systems that are high-end Intel systems that will still beat it, but it doesn't mean that AMD is not near enough power for anything and everything you need in a designing & rip workstation.

    I just finished building a system actually that will be doing some designing but will mostly be for rip workstation. I ended up going with two AMD Opteron quad-core processors. At 2.2 Ghz on each processor, they are not the fastest when compared to some quad-core Intel Xeon processors, but there are many tests and benchmarks that have shown an AMD Opteron quad-core can perform up to 20% more "stuff" (calculations) per clock than an even faster speed Intel Xeon processor. Then given the reasonable cost of these quad-core AMD processors at $400.00 each compared to around $600.00 each for a similar Intel Xeon processor, it was a pretty simple choice for me.

    All in all, I'm just saying to not just toss AMD aside completely just because everyone has equated that Intel trumps AMD in EVERY battle because it is completely false. In the absolute highest end of the market if you're looking at spending several thousands per computer, you can probably get the top of the line Intel systems that beat out AMD, but if you've got a budget you clearly should also be looking at what is available from both sides as AMD does offer incredible prices for great performance.
     
  12. SignBurst PCs

    SignBurst PCs Very Active Member

    I am not an AMD detractor... I like their processors a lot. We have built hundereds upon hundereds of AMD based systems.

    But, I really like the performance resulting from some of the newer quad cores out of Intel (especially the more high-end ones).

    As far as you reliability experiences, is it the actual Intel processor failing sooner than the AMD processor? In our experience, we have not found this to be the case.
     
  13. ChiknNutz

    ChiknNutz Major Contributor

    4,789
    2
    0
    Apr 18, 2003
    Yeah, would like to hear about some other processors. We're right smack in the middle of looking at probably two systems...one as a design/RIP and the other a design-only station. Have considered just getting 2 identical Dells cuz I can do that for about the same as one hi-end system...and the specs on the Dells are better than what we have now for our primary workstations! Yes, have considered a super-duper SignMonster, SignBurst or similar, but not really sure if we need that much HP. I've built several PCs for myself over the years, and typically have used AMD with good results, but really have no specific preference yet.

     
  14. Baz

    Baz Very Active Member

    I havent looked at the spec differences between the new processors this week (they change all the time!) but a couple of years ago AMD had better performance over Intel along with much better power consuption. Now things have switched and Intel has the better product.

    You cant go wrong with either really. When i look at computers to buy (or build) i allways search and read whats best but in the end i buy what i can afford :). I just like to buy name brand parts because my sense is that the products would be more stable and have proper support (ie. drivers and software updates).

    BTW ... I prefer an Intel processor coupled with an Intel chipset based motherboard.
     
  15. slipperyfrog

    slipperyfrog Active Member

    552
    0
    16
    Jul 18, 2007
    Las Vegas
    AMD was king........Intel is now. That being said I am really looking forward to what AMD is working on.

    Personally I'm an AMD fan but currently running Intel machines as they are just better right now.
     
  16. mark in tx

    mark in tx Very Active Member

    2,081
    0
    36
    Oct 25, 2005
    Harker Heights, Texas
    You'll get as much arguments about AMD vs. Intel as you will about Mac vs. PC, ultimately, most people go with price and couldn't tell the difference between the 2 chips anyway.

    One thing I highly suggest you do not do, is to use your design computer as an email machine.

    IMHO, a design station should not be on the internet for a variety of reasons. Antivirus, anti-spyware, applications phoning home, etc.... all take away from the performance of the machine.

    A 10 year old Bondi Blue iMac will check your email, download files, and Google search just as well as a new $3000 dollar Dell, Sony, or private label computer.
     
  17. SignBurst PCs

    SignBurst PCs Very Active Member

    Even though the specs are the same (on the Dells), the actual quality of the hardware won't be. Nor will the overall VALUE of the systems.

    I, as a business owner, have to understand the difference between cost and value. It is kind of like sign shops and vinyl. If you insist on using the higher quality vinyl, you will undoubtably be undecut by the other shop using cheaper low-quality vinyl from "who-knows-where".

    Even though their price is lower, is it a better value? Nope, and when it fades, peels, and looks like crap, they are going to come back to you.

    We try to save you that step.

    You will save time with that extra horsepower, and time is $$$.

    BTW, have you ever tried to call Dell to get tips on the best way to setup Photoshop for overall performance, networking tips, data storage ideas, software compatibilty questions?

    Not trying to be pushy. I am sorry. I just hear this same reasoning over and over when our customers tell me why they are buying from us now.
     
  18. Sabre

    Sabre Member

    375
    0
    0
    Sep 13, 2005
    I have been a hardcore AMD fan for many years, but there's no denying Intel's hold on the performance crown at the moment. 2 of my main machines currently are running Intel (1x8400E, 1xQ6600) and if I didn't have so much money tied up in that fancy Crosshair motherboard, my last AMD system would be Intel too. I don't think you can really go wrong buying a reasonably high-end system but if it's within budget I would recommend the Core2Duo or Quad for sure. In the end, regardless of CPU each machine will arrive at the same goals. It's not a major decision like it used to be.
     

Share This Page

 


Loading...