Upgrade time for me and I'm completely confused by so many conflicting opinions.
Most appear to say Intel Core 2 Duo is better at the moment, other say Athlon 64 x2.
I'm not so interested in cpu speed, I want what's best to rendering.
If my RAM is the same, will there be a difference between Intel and AMD as far as rendering goes?
AMD is quite a bit cheaper and I don't want to spend extra on a system for no benifit with Poser.
Don't want to turn this into an Intel vs AMD rant, so be brief. I'm planning to make a decision tomorrow.

I stick to AMD......It has always given good value. 
I can't pass comment about Intel as I don't  DO Intel! 

Klutz :0)

The quality of the render only depends on the rendering application, not on the CPU.
The speed of the render most certainly depends on the CPU.

Poser 7 can take advantage of multicore CPUs, Poser 6 and lower can't.

As for Intel/AMD - I've always gone the practical route, and until the Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs, that meant AMD. 
Now I'm not so sure. As far as I can see, you get about the same CPU power per dollar with AMD and Intel (after AMD lowered its prices for the AM2 range).

I would not make the decision based on the CPU alone. Well, my own preference goes towards a fast quad core machine (at the moment that would mean an Intel QX6700 CPU) but there's also mainboards, chipsets and graphics to consider.

You will want to avoid ATI graphics cards. Theyr'e good for DirectX games under Windows 32 bit, very good actually, but they're not good for anything else. Nothing to do with the hardware, but ATI has never delivered decent drivers for anything that is not  Windows 32 bit DirectX.
AMD has merged with ATI recently. ATI has made inroads into the mainboard/chipset market lately. But I don't know about stability and perfornance yet.

For an Athlon based computer I can recommend an nVidia nForce based mainboard. Good performance, good drivers, for both Windows 32 bit and 64 bit, and decent Linux support.

If you decide for an Intel based system, I recommend an Intel 975X based mainboard. Those are not cheap, but they're very good and fast, and will support the fastest Intel CPUs, including the quad cores, and they'll also support more than 4 GB of RAM. Might sound unnecessary at first, but when (not if, when) you switch to a 64 bit operating system, you'll want to make use of its ability to address enormous amounts of RAM. Especially when you do 3D stuff.

(Personal experience: I run Windows XP 64 bit on an AMD Athlon64x2 4400+ with 4 GB of RAM and Vue 6 Infinite 64 bit. I've rendered scenes that required more than 20 GB of virtual memory, scenes with several hundred billion polygons, scenes that were absolutely impossible in a 32 bit OS).

For a graphics card, there's only one choice. nVidia. The 8800 series is extremely fast (and extremely expensive), when it comes to price/performance ratio you're probably better off with a 7800 GT /7900 GT. nVidia has good OpenGL support and also has good WinXP 64 bit drivers and Linux drivers. The GT models are faster than their GS counterparts, the GTX models are faster than their GT counterparts. 

My personal "dream PC"
Intel QX6700 CPU
Intel BadAxe2 mainboard (975X chipset)
8 GB DDR2-667
2x300 GB Seagate 7200.10 drives
nVidia 8800 GTX graphics card
DVD +/- RW station
Windows XP Pro 64 bit.

Which is about the fastest PC you can build at this time. Very expensive, around € 3800 in the Netherlands, including VAT.

A good midrange system would look like this:

Intel E4300 CPU
Intel 975X based or 965P based mainboard
4 GB DDR2-533 (2x2 GB)
nVidia 7900 GT graphics card
300 GB Seagate 7200.10 drive
WinXP Pro 64 bit

or

AMD Athlon64x2 Socket AM2 4000+ Brisbane
nVidia nForce based mainboard
4 GB DDR2-533 (2x2 GB)
nVidia 7900 GT graphics card
300 GB Seagate 7200.10 drive
WinXP Pro 64 bit.

These systems will have comparable performance and comparable prices. I recommend Seagate 7200.10 drives, they're slightly more expensive than their competitors, but they're both faster and more silent.

Hope this helps and doesn't confuse you even further...

Quote - Most appear to say Intel Core 2 Duo is better at the moment, other say Athlon 64 x2.
I'm not so interested in cpu speed, I want what's best to rendering.
If my RAM is the same, will there be a difference between Intel and AMD as far as rendering goes?

Its pretty simple:

AMD 64 for single core. Intel duo/quadro for multi core. One of the new AMD X2 if you want cheaper multi cores. For P6 and below, fast single core is better then multi core. For P7 (and future versions) multi cores rule, even if they are a lower GHz.

And you most certainly, definitely wanna be interested in CPU speed. Like svdl said, AMD or Intel make no difference to rendering quality. However the speed and various models make a huge difference to render speed, and the speed affects your render quality in that you can turn on more stuff in the render options and still get a fast enough render.

svdl:

Quote - My personal "dream PC"
Intel QX6700 CPU
Intel BadAxe2 mainboard (975X chipset)
8 GB DDR2-667
2x300 GB Seagate 7200.10 drives
nVidia 8800 GTX graphics card
DVD +/- RW station
Windows XP Pro 64 bit.

I bought an ASUS P5WDH Deluxe motherboard and about 2TB of disk space, but otherwise that's what I have.  I've never been an AMD fan - although they are cheaper, and nothing is really wrong with them, I have always preferred Intel.  The QX6700 is the current big kid on the block, but that won't last forever - meaning in a fairly short time, it will become mid-stream and pretty approachable.

Ah damn, I'm jealous! I'd love to have a rig like that. I just don't have € 4000 lying around somewhere....

Well, in a while the price will drop further.  Note that according to a lot of rendering benchmarkers, e.g. Louguet here, having uber fast memory doesn't give you a very big benefit at all (1%-3% overall increase in render speed) so you can also save some money on the memory.

I've stuck with AMD chips since 1993 on the "more bang for your bucks" basis...but mine have all been pretty standard machines in the scheme of things.  All I can tell you is I've never had a moment's problem with them, and zero compatibility problems.  Like Klutz though, I don't "do" Intel, so I've no basis for comparison.

It's always been AMD here as well. They're reliable and generally rated to clock higher than a similar Intel chip. They do run hotter though, and hotter usually means more cooling needed.... which in turn sometimes means louder fans if you don't shop carefully. This fan has finally driven me nuts, it's putting out about 28db, I just bought a replacement that claims to put out 16db while moving more cfm's. We'll see about that. ;) I also agree about the nVidia video card. Try to get one with at least 256 megs of memory on it. It makes a huge difference when doing anything graphics-intensive. And don't blow more cash than you have to, price the stuff at tigerdirect.com first. You can put your own system together for about half what it would cost buying one premade with similar specs. They also ship stuff out amazingly fast, two or three days is the usual wait. Man I love them. lol

What Chip/Chipset you use will dictate what kind of RAM you need, be it High or Low density.  Low Density is more expensive,  but compatible in for Intel, VIA, and SYS, and ASUS Chipsets.  High Density only works with VIA, and SYS, but is cheaper, and, I hear, more stable.

Your biggest improvement for fan noise is to get rid of all the 90mm fans in the box and replace them with 120mm fans, including the CPU cooler.  The Zalman stuff has 120mm fans on a lot of models and takes away a LOT of noise, while losing nothing in the cooling department.

The Intel E6600 is the most powerful of the lot there in terms of pure render benchmark power, but the E6400 is 90 bucks cheaper.  How much is that ~15% or so worth to you, and how much are you looking at spending for the whole PC?  Personally I'd suggest the biggest processor you can afford, just to reduce render time.

Note that rendering at much higher quality becomes more practical with bigger processors!  :)

Thank you all for your suggestions.

Thanks pjz99, The E6600 is about $700 Aust. more expensive than the Athlon 5200 system.
Would it be $700 better, ie. noticeably better? If its just a matter of waiting a few more minutes for a render, I'll wait. I don't at present use anything like the highest quality render settings, though I am starting to use IBL with AO more regularly, which slows rendering quite a lot.

I can afford to get the E6600 or higher, but am I just paying for the fact that all new stuff is highly priced..
I remember paying $3500 for a P3 600GHZ system a few years back. Makes me want to cry.

What is the total price of each box?  This is a set of benchmark graphs I like to cite, it includes the Athlon 64 FX-62 (the 2.8GHz dual core AMD) :

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2050007,00.asp

$700 out of how much?  What is $700 worth to you in terms of time spent sitting on your thumbs waiting for renders to finish?

You really want to weep? ~lol~

13 years ago....

486 DX40 mini tower (256k cache) with 340 mb hard drive - £1446.63
Game port card - £12.74
RAM upgrade from 4 mb to 8 mb - £119.00
Panasonic CR-562 Internal CD-ROM (4 speed) - £71.56
Soundblaster 16 (OEM) - £71.56
Multimedia Pack - £105.47
Iomega 250 mb tape backup unuit (internal) - £128.79
Greyscale handy scanner - £98.84
Suncom FX2000 Joystick with throttle control - £21.74

SubTotal = £2076.63

VAT (tax) £363.41

Total £2440.04 *

*I also shelled out over a grand for my first scanner, and the associated "special" card I needed to hang it on, shortly after.

The $700 difference can easily be explained - the Intel systems have 2 GB RAM instead of 1 GB (go for 2 GB or more) and have a 7950 GTX graphics card instead of a 7600 GT. The 7950 GTX has two 7900 GPUs on board, the 7600 GT has one 7600. The 7950 is more than twice as fast as the 7600, and significantly more expensive.

The E6400 is $90 cheaper than the E6600. How much RAM can you buy for $90? Probably a gigabyte.

A 2 GB E6400 system performs better than a 1 GB E6600 system.

Oops, that's a very good point, I didn't notice the peripherals difference.  The Intel box's specs also include DDR2-800 memory, and the AMD is built with DDR2-533 memory, another significant difference in price.

It's not a good price comparison.  The AMD box is constructed with much cheaper periphs.  

• The motherboard is $100 cheaper than the intel version
• The memory is $200 cheaper than the intel version
• The graphics card is $130 cheaper than the intel version

If it were apples to apples (processor only significant difference), it would be $430 closer, or $270.  In which case I'd say it's a no brainer, go with the Intel version.

Side note, you should be very suspicious of a vendor that pitches you such a lopsided bid like that.

edit: uh, the dollar values I just gave are in US dollars, but at any rate, it's an apples to oranges comparison, the AMD box you're looking at is simply made with dinky parts compared to the Intel box.

pjz99
I don't think they're trying to sell comparative systems, just 2 different systems according to your budget.
I guess I will go with the Intel package.
So, do you think the E6600 system is good value for money?
And is now a good time to buy a duel-core now that quad-cores are here?

Heh, there are two rules about buying computers:

• It is never a good time to buy
• The price for anything will always go down a lot shortly after you buy it

I think the E6600 box is a good purchase.  I know it will beat the crap out of any of the AMD boxes you're considering, but that is partly because it has better periphs.  Once you make your decision and send the order, do yourself a favor: don't look at any prices or catalogues for at least six months, it will only break your heart.

Yeh, it's the old merry-go-round syndrome.
I'll wait till the price for what I want comes down
then the price comes down but a new wizz-bang system comes along and now you want that one.
I need to bite-the-bullet and just buy the mother.
Hopefully tomorrow.

Some other things to consider.
I thought about installing my old copy of Windows XP (32 bit) to save some money, is this sensible?
I already have 2GB of RAM on a 3 GHZ  Pentium 4, and a 256 Mb graphics card.
I've had this system for about 4 years (or is it 3?). Do I need to upgrade at all????

I do Macs, so my next one will be Intel by default (but then, a pair of Core2's working nicely together? MMMMMmmmmmm..... :) ) /P

It sort of depends on what operating system you are going to put on it.
Win2k (for those who hate DRM and like stability & minimal system resource use): Win2k does not support AMD 64-bit, there was a patch, but MS never released it. it will run with it as a 32-bit processor. if you get a multi-processor system, or a AMD multicore processor, Win2k supports them well but only 32-bit
WinXP (For those who like integrated DRM & Bloat) has a 64-bit version, and supports multicore, if you get XP professional. XP pro even supports multiple processors. So it doesn't really matter, AMD or Intel, as long as you get XP PRO.
VIsta (For those who..ah, forget it, no one with any sense would get Vista by choice).

My choice would be a Multi-processor AMD-64 system; I run Win2k, so I'm missing out on the 64-bit, but I don't have any 64 bit apps anyway. I dual boot Linux Debian with 64-bit support, so would be able to make use of multi-processors and 64-bit in linux.

Quote - I thought about installing my old copy of Windows XP (32 bit) to save some money, is this sensible?
I already have 2GB of RAM on a 3 GHZ  Pentium 4, and a 256 Mb graphics card.
I've had this system for about 4 years (or is it 3?). Do I need to upgrade at all????

Well going from a single P4 to a dual core is a nice jump in speed, but only if you have and regularly use Poser 7. P6 and below will see little benefit, and may even become slower since multicore chips are individually worse then single core chips.

WinXP 32 bit will do fine as along as you stay under 4GB RAM. You need Win XP 64 only if you get >= 4 GB RAM.

I have heard reports of P6 running slower on dual-core machines.
As I don't plan to go to P7 until they have the bugs ironed out, I may not get any benefit from an upgrade of my PC in the short term. May be a backwards step.
Oh Crap! Now I'm really not sure what to do!!!!!!!!!!

My suggestion would be to wait 6 months or at least till P7 gets a SR or two. No point in getting expensive stuff now when you cant even use it. And it will only get cheaper as time goes on.

Settled.

1 important thing with graphic cards is you want  a 256-bit Memory Interface on the card, if you get a 512mg card with a 128-bit interface you wont see much improvement over 256mb of memory on the card.
The speed of info from mother board to graphic card most important.

Friends dont let friends buy AMD right now.

But maybe later.
I'll stick with what I have and be thankful that it works OK.
Thanks guys.

Bottom line, the average user isn't going to notice a big difference (if any) between the performance of a Core2 Duo and and Athlon64  X2 system. Under the loads Poser, and other 3D applications put on a system, you will notice some difference. If your doing 3D professionally, then the extra $$ for a Core2 Duo system could easily be recouped on a large project. But, if you do 3D as a hobby, for fun, or moderately for work, then the extra cost associated with buying an Intel system may not be as important. Keep in mind, we aren't talking about huge difference in performance between the two.

AMD isn't The top performer any more, but the Athlon 64 X2 family are a very good value for your money right now.  True, if you have to have the "biggest, baddest, fastest" machine on the planet (for a couple weeks), you have to get a Core2 Duo. If you need a very good performer , and want to save some money, AMD is definitely the way to go.

Keep in mind that the whole memory speed comparison thing is like comparing apples and oranges.  The way the Athlon 64 accesses memory is much more efficient than how Intel does it, so data throughput with DDR2-533 on an Athlon would be similar to 1066 with the Intel method. In fact, even though the Core2 Duo has much better fragmented process data access/processing due to the larger processor cache, AMD still retains the lead in sustained (sequential) data throughput/processing. This is not reflected in the typical benchmark tests, as they tend to be very non-sequential, fragmented process intensive. 

I recently purchased a new AMD X2 system (laptop), and I'm very happy with it!  Yes, there are faster machines out there, but I saved a few hundred dollars on the processor, which enabled me to get a system with 2Gb of RAM and video card with 256Mb of dedicated memory.  If I went with a Core2 Duo, I would have had to settle for 1Gb of system RAM, and shared this precious RAM with a sub-par video card.  This limited RAM would have crippled the system so much that the even with  a "faster" processor it would have been painfully slow. 

Bottom line, I got a machine with a slightly slower processor (which at curret processor speeds is not a deal killer for me), but the extra benefits of more RAM and better video card, make it a more usable, and over all a better and faster machine than the equivalent priced Core2 Duo system. So, get the best system you can afford, knowing that in a month it would cost you less (maybe a lot less). With the systems you are looking at, your primary concern should be to get 2Gb of RAM (any more than that will have no benefit for Poser, which is stuck at the 1Gb thresh hold, but you need some extra headroom for the OS), and a good video card with a minimum of 256Mb RAM. Any of the AMD systems you looked at will be very very good with Poser if you have 2Gb of RAM.

Just my .00002 cents worth.

DR

PS: I'm not an AMD fan boy, I own and use both AMD and Intel systems. But I am a common sense, get the best value for you dollar/application fan boy, big time  :-)

I hate to break it to you.  AMD systems that are performance equivalent to Intel systems are more expensive.  Dollar to performance, Intel destroys AMD.  Except, perhaps at the 50-100 processor dollar price point - but that is still netburst technology.  The E4300 is going to be $113 in two months... -G

Sorry, guess I didn't make myself clear. A Core2 Duo system without enough RAM, and an integrated video card that uses this same RAM will not perform as well as a properly equiped AMD system. When your on a tight budget, you'll get better performance out of a well equiped AMD system vs a poorly equiped Intel system. Getting a higher performing processor while skimping on system components almost always traslates into poorer performance.

To get an equivalant Core2 Duo laptop, I would have had to pay $400 dollars more, or get a system with 1Gb of RAM, a GeforceGo 6150le that shared system RAM, and 120Gb hard drive. By going with a Truion64 TL56 X2, I got 2GB RAM, a GeForceGo 7600 with 250 MB of dedicated RAM, and 2x100Gb hard drives. There is no way the less expensive crippled Intel system could have handled what I needed to do (not just Poser, I'm running photogrametric, remote sensing, and geographic imaging software), and I couldn't go the extra $400 for a Core2 Duo.

Bottom Line: I got a system that is a good performer, that does what I need - very well, and saved $400 too. Sure, I can't go braging about my ultra hot system to everyone I see, but I can do what I need to do, which at the end of the day that's all I really need. 

There is little to argue here.  Your latop manufacturer was probably cashing in on name.  If you spend exactly the same amount of money - whatever that amount is - it will be faster.  The only place AMD still reigns is in the sub $100 segment and that is soon to fall as well.

EDIT: arcgis and erdas imagine?

My very first computer had an AMD K6 processor and I had nothing but troubles. I didn't know anything about computers back then and all I knew was the word "Pentium" so that's what I wanted. The sales guy talked me into an AMD telling me it's just the same as Pentium only cheaper in price.

For 11 months all I had were blue screens of death dozens and dozens of times a day. That computer was literally reformatted every 3 weeks and spent a great deal of time in the repair shop.  I kept telling them it was the processor because I had done lots of research on that one and found lots of links talking about the same problems that I was having, but the repair shop wouldn't listen to me.

Finally I took it someplace else and told them to gut it. I had asked my boy friend what components to get and he told me and he also said "don't take no for an answer if they try to talk you into something else".  After that upgrade to a Pentium 3 I never ever had a blue screen on that computer again, ever!  As a matter of fact that computer just died last month after giving me almost 7 years of service without a single problem.

I'll never get another computer with AMD in it because of that experience and since Pentium proved itself worthy and standing the test of time it's the only one for me :)  Why buy a Pinto when you can have a Rolls Royce :)

Close, ERDAS Imagine, Lieca Photogrammetry Suite, Virtual GIS, ArcGIS, TNTMips, Manifold, and some open source suff :-)

Well, I was running color orthophoto mosaics, the processing took a little over 2.1 Gb RAM, and I had three days left to do it. The hottest Core2 Duo on the planet would have choked on the mosaic process with only 1Gb of RAM. I had 80+ photos (640Mb each) to run, I tested on a 3.2 ghz P4 with 1Gb RAM, took 4 hours to process 2 photos - on a 3.8Ghz P4 system with 4 Gb RAM (not mine) it took approx. half an hour to process 2 photos, The  continual thrashing of the paging file on the hard drive would have slowed the processing to an unacceptable rate, and would have taken well over the 72 hours I had, even with a Core2 Duo.  I was able to do it with the system I got in 16 hours (color balancing and edge feathering on sinuous match lines).

A faster Core2 Duo system without the proper amount of RAM, would not have been able to do the job. But, thanks to the release of the Core2 Duo, I was able to get a nice machine that did the job at a great price (I got a great deal on the AMD thanks to Intel). If I spent the exact same amount of money on an Intel system, I would have lost the contract, because I would not have made the deadline (would have only had 1Gb of RAM). A hot processor can not compensate for continual thrashing of the hard drive because you don't have enough RAM. (Yes, I did drool over the Core2 Duo systems briefly, but I simply couldn't afford one.)

Quote - Sorry, guess I didn't make myself clear. A Core2 Duo system without enough RAM, and an integrated video card that uses this same RAM will not perform as well as a properly equiped AMD system.

Umm, so a Core2 Duo system crippled-down isn't a match for an AMD box which has been "properly equipped"? Sort of a given, truth be told... It's like saying that a new Dual proc PowerMac w/ only 128MB of RAM will get beaten speed-wise by an X2 with 2GB of RAM. Question is, how would an X2 vs. a Core Duo stack up under otherwise identical configurations, and what would the costs be for each? A site like Hexus.net or tomshardware.com would prolly be a good place to start hunting down answers in that direction, IMHO. /P

Quote - My very first computer had an AMD K6 processor and I had nothing but troubles.

I had a radically different experience with mine... and I had overclocked the unholy crap out of my K6-400. Back then, AMD's made perfect sense to me, and they proved themselves admirably... all the way up through the early Pentium4's (you know, the ones which required Rambus and all that crap?) Until the P4m's came out, I stuck with AMD's, with a P4 1.4 GHz box and a dual P3 500 as my only exceptions for a long time. My next one will be Intel-based because that's how Apple makes 'em. /P

Mine wasn't a "400", it was a 350 or 356 or something like that. Either way it was a total lemon.

*   " Umm, so a Core2 Duo system crippled-down isn't a match for an AMD box which has 
    been  "properly equipped"?  "*

Yes. What I was trying to say, and didn't do a very good job of it, was that if you're on a budget, make sure you get the needed RAM, and a good video card, then worry about the processor. 

1. Don't cut RAM to get a more expensive processor, as the RAM can give a big boost in performance.
2. You can get some real nice deals right now on AMD systems, if your willing to have a slightly slower machine (but is still very usable), which may mean that you can add more RAM and a better video card. The popularity of the Core2 Duo has prompted a few manufacturers/retailers to offer some great deals on AMD X2 systems.

Extereme Tech has a very informative article with price/performance comparisons at:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014685,00.asp

Hopefully I didn't muddy the water even more with this post, Since I'm obviously communication challenged today (I know what I want to say, but it just doesn't seem to come out right). Now I'll wander off to bed, and hope for a clearer day tomorrow :-?

Nah, s'cool. I figure w/ 3D/CG stuff, it's almost a given to put in for the processor first and foremost, then RAM, then the vidcard. HDD's can always be recycled to some extent, as can the rest of the old computer (can you tell I don't do OEM's @ home unless it's an Apple or laptop, where no other way really exists or is practical?) One can always get more RAM later, or a bigger HDD to latch into the chain. Even when it comes to Macs or OEM computers, the best way to buy one is by choosing the most powerful CPU set, but everything else is at bare minimums. Then, you get the tech specs (usually on the manufacturer's website) and buy what you need later, when you can get the cash to do so. For instance, I bought my Mac that way - a dual 1.8GHz G5 kit w/ only the barest of minimums included. Then, over the next two paychecks I got 2GB of RAM (2 - 512MB sticks at a time - same RAM as a PC... just match all the numbers and your set) to replace the 256MB it came with. A paycheck after that, I got a much bigger SATA drive to go into the 2nd HDD slot. Later, a bigger, badder video card went in. (And yes, you can do all this on a Mac, Dell, Gateway... the only exception is HP, where the RAM apparently has to be specifically blessed by HP or it may not work - at least that's how their stupid server h/w configs work... unsure of the consumer end enough to insert it as a caution here). /P

the only exception is HP, where the RAM apparently has to be specifically blessed by HP or it may not work

Thank you for the information.

I was thinking to buy HP computer.
If it is true, I should stay away from HP.

Before you jump ship entirely on HP, you may want to check around and see what others say about RAM and the particular model you're looking at getting - you may luck out. I know the RAM requirement is 100% true with their servers, but only 50% sure ab't their consumer-level products. I've seen three servers (all HP) where this is true: An older HP Netserver2 (where I first found out about it... the hard way), the DL-585 (my former employer had six of the critters - each w/ 4 opteron CPU's and 32GB of RAM per box), and the DL-380's. /P

Quote - *   *Extereme Tech has a very informative article with price/performance comparisons at:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014685,00.asp
 

Even though its getting a little dated, excellent article for the Intel vs AMD topic.  Two thumbs up!

Untill AMD get thier new proccesor out to compete with the dual core 2 an AMD 64 x 2 is faster than the intel equivalent at the moment, when AMD put thier new processor out then we will see who is faster or better.
You can spend £1000 or $1800 on a 1gb graphic card and have 2 of them with a quad processor and the fastest mother board going, but ill still take an AMIGA 500 with a video toaster anyday for video work over a pc.

Quote - > Quote - *   *Extereme Tech has a very informative article with price/performance comparisons at:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014685,00.asp
 

 

Even though its getting a little dated, excellent article for the Intel vs AMD topic.  Two thumbs up!

Agreed. That said, I cannot and will not state any opinions for or against either (because I work for one of 'em... the avatar kinda gives it away). /P

Extereme Tech has a very informative article with price/performance comparisons at:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014685,00.asp

It is interesting to note
that Athlon 64 FX-62 (2.8 Ghz  $ 825 ) is slower than Core2 E6400 (2.13 Ghz   $ 320 )          
The data are taken from the graph of 3D Rendering Scaling (Geometric Mean) in the article.
If we believe the data, Intel is much better than AMD.

What do you think?   
Am I right ?

3D Rendering Scaling (Geometric Mean)
Core2 E6400           2.13 Ghz   $ 320      about   580 second   
Athlon 64 FX-62       2.8 Ghz    $ 825     about    620 second

The bottom graph in
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014652,00.asp

Just one note on videocards: if you are running a wintel machine you have to take into account DirectX10 and that not all videocards on the market are set up to get the most out of it.  ATI is behind the curve on this one.  NVIDIA's has high and midrange cards compatible now.

Kett:

Quote - Am I right ?

Yes, in those benchmarks even the slowest Intel processors basically crush all the AMD chips.  Noteworthy is that the playing field is a bit un-level, because that article was written on 12 September, before Intel released the QX6700 quad core, which smokes them all pretty handily in nearly every category.