(2012-08-07, 23:39)assassin Wrote: (2012-08-07, 20:59)Skank Wrote: I guess the intel is way slower and no match for amd
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=...40+2.60GHz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+A6-3670+APU
(2012-08-07, 21:29)Skank Wrote: (2012-08-07, 21:26)Dougie Fresh Wrote: Well, yeah. What's the point in comparing a 65W TDP dual-core CPU against a 100W quad-core CPU?
Moreso, these kind of comparisons are not even meaningful for HTPC. Faster doesn't mean you get better picture quality or better sounding audio. It's the feature set of the CPU that matters in this regard. After a certain point, faster gets you nothing more than heat and wasted money. You need a CPU that's fast enough for the task not the fastest CPU. If CPU benchmark were the only consideration for HTPC we wouldn't need these forums.
I compare these cause there were people shouting that intel cpus are cheaper and even faster! Guess that hat isnt flying...
Not really getting what you are saying. Seems like you want to use AMD and if that's the case then so be it because as I have said they have a good option for HTPC.
But to compare a $35 dual core 65w CPU against a $95 quad core 100w CPU is really just completely missing the point.
The apples-to-apples comparison is between the A6-3500 triple core and the G530/540/620 dual core. Even then the Intel is the faster CPU for much less money.
I want to love what AMD is doing and support the underdog but there is a reason that AMD is shifting away from the desktop market and getting their butts handed to them by Intel (and has lost a ton of major execs and developers in recent months). I just think the Intel architecture is the better bang for the buck at the moment.
True
The amd triple a6 3500 is comparible with intel g530, and yes intel is then cheaper but, u then have to add a cheap gpu of 40 euro to get a slightly less gpu and then the price is thr same...
If you compare a6 3500 with intel g620, intrl is slightly faster but again you need 40 euro for less gpu. Then you have an intel with slitly better cpu but slightly less gpu but you pay 10 euro more than for the amd
If you compare the a6 3670 (which i was going to use, and some guys are saying intel could be a better match) you will need Even better than i3 2100 and even that one costs way more
So my conclusion is, if you take an amd a6 3500, it comes indeed pretty close and intel is cheaper but when you have to add a gpu its slightly the same... Or even more expensive (with g620) so not worth it
And as soon as you take an amd a6 3670 , intel is no match for amd right now...
If im wrong then give me a good comparison.... But as for now. I dont see any reason to go intel way (and i have no preference for intel or amd)
