Computer help - AMD vs Intel processor for desktop

[volk06]

I'm helping a family member find a low priced desktop for general computer use. No games or anything intensive, just surfing the web, email, and office products. I know a lot about computer and do my own ram upgrades but have never messed with processors.

I've always gone with intel products, i3 and i5 in my computers because they're what I've always had and never had any issues. It seems the more budget friend computers have the AMD A6 and A8 processors. Are AMD any good? Do they burn out faster?

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/hp-pavilion-...p?skuId=5228113
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/hp-desktop-a...p?skuId=5228115

Wouldn't the computer with the A8 be the better deal between these two?

Should I hold out for a deal on a computer with an i3? I can find them but they have lower RAM, which I could always put more in like:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/lenovo-300s-...p?skuId=5195901

I'm not interested in building one.

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

Originally Posted By: volk06
Are AMD any good? Do they burn out faster?

Huh? CPUs don't just 'burn out'.

I've been building computers for 25 years and I've never had a CPU, AMD, Intel or otherwise, 'burn out'.

 

[92saturnsl2]

I love AMD processors, have used them in countless PC's over the last 20 years or so. That said, if I were forced to choose between your three choices, I'd go with the Core I3.

There's nothing wrong at all with the two AMD processors you listed. It's just that the Core I3 is so much faster. Do try and find one with 8gb of RAM, you don't want to shortchange yourself there. If you can't find one with 8gb, be aware that RAM is super cheap to upgrade, whereas you can't easily upgrade a CPU without a lot of work or purchasing a new computer. Therefore, try not to skimp on the CPU because there's no going back. If you absolutely hate the idea of upgrading RAM, try and find a friend that can do it for you. We're talking $30 in parts and 10 minutes of someone's time.

Other things to note:

The AMD A6 is an ultra-budget CPU. I wouldn't recommend it except for the most basic tasks. The A8 is a good all-around CPU, nothing wrong with it. Good embedded video capabilities, just not a performance CPU.

The Core I3 is the nearest thing to a performance CPU that you will find at that price range. They're dual core, but there's a bit of horsepower underneath the hood.

If you were able to save a decent amount of coin, I'd say go with the AMD platform, as it already has the 8gb RAM, which you'll want. But the price is soo close, I have to go with the Intel.

 

[volk06]

Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Originally Posted By: volk06
Are AMD any good? Do they burn out faster?

Huh? CPUs don't just 'burn out'.

I've been building computers for 25 years and I've never had a CPU, AMD, Intel or otherwise, 'burn out'.


You did not answer any of my questions?? From what I've heard/read AMDs run hot which could result in shorter life span? Like I said, not familiar with this component, so please educate me.

 

[volk06]

Originally Posted By: 92saturnsl2
I love AMD processors, have used them in countless PC's over the last 20 years or so. That said, if I were forced to choose between your three choices, I'd go with the Core I3.

There's nothing wrong at all with the two AMD processors you listed. It's just that the Core I3 is so much faster. Do try and find one with 8gb of RAM, you don't want to shortchange yourself there. If you can't find one with 8gb, be aware that RAM is super cheap to upgrade, whereas you can't easily upgrade a CPU without a lot of work or purchasing a new computer. Therefore, try not to skimp on the CPU because there's no going back. If you absolutely hate the idea of upgrading RAM, try and find a friend that can do it for you. We're talking $30 in parts and 10 minutes of someone's time.

Other things to note:

The AMD A6 is an ultra-budget CPU. I wouldn't recommend it except for the most basic tasks. The A8 is a good all-around CPU, nothing wrong with it. Good embedded video capabilities, just not a performance CPU.

The Core I3 is the nearest thing to a performance CPU that you will find at that price range. They're dual core, but there's a bit of horsepower underneath the hood.

If you were able to save a decent amount of coin, I'd say go with the AMD platform, as it already has the 8gb RAM, which you'll want. But the price is soo close, I have to go with the Intel.


How does the AMD A10 compare? I found a HP tower that has 8gb ram, 2tb hd, and an A10-8710P processor for only $20 more than the previous ones.

http://www.staples.com/Dell-Inspiron-i3656-3355BLK-Desktop-AMD-A10-8-GB-RAM-2-TB/product_2075112

 

[92saturnsl2]

Originally Posted By: volk06
You did not answer any of my questions?? From what I've heard/read AMDs run hot which could result in shorter life span? Like I said, not familiar with this component, so please educate me.


These are all budget options you're presenting. None of them run "hot."

It is true that AMD uses more power, therefore dissipates more heat than a modern Intel processor of similar performance. But that's really just splitting hairs, as neither will get hot per se. And CPUs don't burn out, that's nonsense. All CPUs released in the last decade or two have power management and/or thermal throttling that keep them at a safe temperature in any condition.

 

[volk06]

Originally Posted By: 92saturnsl2
Originally Posted By: volk06
You did not answer any of my questions?? From what I've heard/read AMDs run hot which could result in shorter life span? Like I said, not familiar with this component, so please educate me.


These are all budget options you're presenting. None of them run "hot."

It is true that AMD uses more power, therefore dissipates more heat than a modern Intel processor of similar performance. But that's really just splitting hairs, as neither will get hot per se. And CPUs don't burn out, that's nonsense. All CPUs released in the last decade or two have power management and/or thermal throttling that keep them at a safe temperature in any condition.


Thank you

 

[Killer223]

i was an AMD fan, until i got my first core 2 duo, now i'm intel fan all the way. AMD used to run hot. but i have no recent (past 10 years or so) with them.
id say either way it'll be a good little machine.

 

[92saturnsl2]

Originally Posted By: volk06
How does the AMD A10 compare? I found a HP tower that has 8gb ram, 2tb hd, and an A10-8710P processor for only $20 more than the previous ones.


In that case, I'd go with the A10. This way you avoid the headache of needing to upgrade the RAM right out of the box. The A10 is a great all-around processor, plenty fast for all the things you mentioned. It's still not considered a performance CPU, but it's no slouch. Without researching exact model numbers, I'd say it's at least on par with the I3. The A10 is nice versus the A6/A8 because it only runs on FM2 or later CPU sockets, guaranteeing that you get at least a reasonably modern motherboard chipset. This is sometimes difficult to tell when looking at prebuilt OEM machines.

 

[92saturnsl2]

After looking up the A10 model number you referenced, that is AMD's latest A10 platform. Great deal on that machine, I'd buy that over the other three, no question.

 

[redhat]

The new Ryzen chips look promising.

CPUs don't usually die, even if they run hotter.

You shouldn't experience that within its usable life anyways.

 

[69GTX]

When I was looking to buy my desktop 4 years ago I was thinking of going with the I5. But it seemed to cost too much. The I3 seemed under- powered for the cost. I ended up going with the older Intel Core 2 Quad 8300. It had nearly as much speed as the I5 and at much less cost. It's worked great for me. You can google "processor comparisons" to see how Intel and AMD rate vs. each other for hundreds of processors. There are low end to high end for I3, I5, and I7. An I5 is not always a better CPU that an I3. Same thing for an A8 and A10.

CPU benchmarks

 

[901Memphis]

I wouldn't worry about a processor dying at stock speeds. I've only seen it one time in my life and it was a pentium 4 that died in a Dell xps gaming machine.

Intel is faster clock for clock, look at IPC speeds, I'd Ratner have the Intel all day. I used to be an amd fan but countless benchmarks and real world results don't lie.

Even if you are doing basic tasks the faster processor is better.

Sort this comparison by effective speed and see the dizzying amount of slow Intel chips that are faster than the fastest amd chips.



http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/

 

[bvance554]

AMD is my preferred CPU. I've never heard of a 'burnout' unless you consider pouring water into a case a burnout.

 

[Pop_Rivit]

Originally Posted By: volk06
just surfing the web, email, and office products.


You'll never notice a difference in any processor just doing those simple tasks. A solid state hard drive would make more of a speed difference for those tasks than any processor upgrade.

AMD makes an excellent processor, and if I were in the market I wouldn't hesitate to purchase a computer with any AMD processor available today if my tasks were limited to what you've listed.

 

[LeakySeals]

I'm no expert... I have 2 AMD laptops and a gamer PC in the house. Smooth upgrade to Win 10, nothing in the error logs. Somewhat slow decision making IMO. The AMD gamer PC was specifically purchased because it was AMD because of the graphics card (vs integrated intel). Works great. Faster CPU I guess. As a Christmas gift bought a Best Buy HP Pavilion with a quad Intel (I think celeron). Came preloaded. Hung on initial setup "getting ready" for hours and hours. Finally was able to hard power cycle my way to login and checked error logs. loaded with thermal errors, numerous COM errors which relates to the user having auth. One account, me, and its part of administrators! What a mess! Its faster now, fixed most of the COM errors that make it hang hacking the registry manually. But thermal errors and a few COM errors still exist, can't get rid of them. Tried everything. also a random brightness flicker here and there, no idea if thats the display, graphics, or something going on with my eyes..

So... My current experience is for the same price I would go with a higher end AMD over a cheaper Intel processor.

 

[tstep]

I have not been following the hardware over the last decade as closely as I used but I believe the AMD A6-7310 and the A10-8700P are actually cpus normally installed in notebooks. Without cracking the case, these may actually be notebook motherboards mounted in a desktop box.

Being a notebook processor, it likely has a power draw in the 15-35 watt range and the i3 is likely in the 50-60 watt range. All that can be verified by looking it up. Also the power management on modern cpus operates very much like an electric car. It will dial back voltage and clock speed based on demand and turn portions of the chip off. AMD does have a "running hot" reputation for the last decade mainly due to the desktop "construction core" line of cpus, but not these chips.

You indicate that the machine is a web surfing, email, office machine, so no great demand there. All these machines should perform well enough for that. Without checking cpu benchmarks, the A10 and the i3 should perform within a few % of each other. The A6 and A4 less. The A10 will have much better graphics and decode capability than the i3 as likely will the A6 with the caveat that the manufacturer is running the AMD processor with dual channel memory rather than single channel. Single channel will hinder performance significantly regardless of memory quantity especially with regard to any graphics requirement. I'd rather have 4gb dual than 8gb single.

I roll my own, so I don't buy prebuilts nor do I run the most current high equipment because it is usually overkill. If I had to choose, I'd probably go with A10>i3>A6>A4.

 

[mazdamonky]

Honestly, I would go with either an AMD A series processor with a real quad core set up. So either an A10 or A8 based processor. The Intel I3 might be "faster." Yes, the I3 will be faster for most day to day programs and in theory has the ability to multitask just as well. However the faster and multitasking of an I3 are somewhat limited. The i3 is faster in single core performance and dual core performance which applies to 80% plus of programs on the market today. The issue is the A series CPUs have 4 real processing cores while the I3 has 2 with 2 hyperthreads or emulated/fake cores. This being said, I work in IT and we buy a variety of PCs. I have moved away from I3 systems due to having considerably more user complaints about their computers lagging or being slow. We moved to A8 processors for budget computers for people who just do the basics and I5 processors for power users. I would use AMD FX processors if there were more selections available.

On top of this, I personally don't like Intel due to their business practices. They are a giant and spend more money in a year to defame AMD and keep computer manufacturers from producing AMD based computers than AMD makes in a year. They are insanely anticompetitive to a point that I find disgusting.

 

[92saturnsl2]

Originally Posted By: mazdamonky
Honestly, I would go with either an AMD A series processor with a real quad core set up. So either an A10 or A8 based processor. The Intel I3 might be "faster." Yes, the I3 will be faster for most day to day programs and in theory has the ability to multitask just as well. However the faster and multitasking of an I3 are somewhat limited. The i3 is faster in single core performance and dual core performance which applies to 80% plus of programs on the market today. The issue is the A series CPUs have 4 real processing cores while the I3 has 2 with 2 hyperthreads or emulated/fake cores. This being said, I work in IT and we buy a variety of PCs. I have moved away from I3 systems due to having considerably more user complaints about their computers lagging or being slow. We moved to A8 processors for budget computers for people who just do the basics and I5 processors for power users. I would use AMD FX processors if there were more selections available.

On top of this, I personally don't like Intel due to their business practices. They are a giant and spend more money in a year to defame AMD and keep computer manufacturers from producing AMD based computers than AMD makes in a year. They are insanely anticompetitive to a point that I find disgusting.


I agree with all of the above (including Intel business practices), except the notion that an A-series quad core is a "true" quad core design, when it fundamentally lacks a few things that make each module two independent cores. The clustered multi thread design is a compromise to make one module perform as two cores, when in fact they are not true cores at all. They share resources between them, thus quad core is more marketing than fact. This is beyond the scope of the topic of this post, however.

I try to look at the bigger picture- when integrated graphics are factored in, I truly believe you're getting more for your money with the A10 vs. I3, even if the A10 is a bit slower on the CPU side. It's the whole experience that matters and a few % CPU performance isn't something you'll be able to point out in real life.

 

[mazdamonky]

Originally Posted By: 92saturnsl2
Originally Posted By: mazdamonky
Honestly, I would go with either an AMD A series processor with a real quad core set up. So either an A10 or A8 based processor. The Intel I3 might be "faster." Yes, the I3 will be faster for most day to day programs and in theory has the ability to multitask just as well. However the faster and multitasking of an I3 are somewhat limited. The i3 is faster in single core performance and dual core performance which applies to 80% plus of programs on the market today. The issue is the A series CPUs have 4 real processing cores while the I3 has 2 with 2 hyperthreads or emulated/fake cores. This being said, I work in IT and we buy a variety of PCs. I have moved away from I3 systems due to having considerably more user complaints about their computers lagging or being slow. We moved to A8 processors for budget computers for people who just do the basics and I5 processors for power users. I would use AMD FX processors if there were more selections available.

On top of this, I personally don't like Intel due to their business practices. They are a giant and spend more money in a year to defame AMD and keep computer manufacturers from producing AMD based computers than AMD makes in a year. They are insanely anticompetitive to a point that I find disgusting.


I agree with all of the above (including Intel business practices), except the notion that an A-series quad core is a "true" quad core design, when it fundamentally lacks a few things that make each module two independent cores. The clustered multi thread design is a compromise to make one module perform as two cores, when in fact they are not true cores at all. They share resources between them, thus quad core is more marketing than fact. This is beyond the scope of the topic of this post, however.


While this is correct to an extent, there is still a physical die on the processor for each processing thread. In my experience, this has seemed more stable since its release than the Hyperthreading functionality where it is an emulated/nonexistent die. But this conversation is much more technical than the scope of this thread! A true quadcore depends largely on the person's definition. In my head, it always made sense it had 4 cores, but not 4 full caching systems which are generally thought to belong to each core, but when you think of an AMD processor in the way in which many have interpreted it, a 4 core A or FX series is still a 2 core 4 thread, 3 core 6 thread, etc. When thought of that way, then I would say Amd comes out on top a lot of times. That means an fx4300 processor should be compared to an I3 where the FX 4300 generally overpowers most I3 models in things that understand more than 1-2 cores/threads of use.