PC upgrade - Intel or AMD?

Before you all scream 'Intel'.....

My current desktop has an Athlon XP3000+ CPU (single core at 2.16GHz). I've had it for probably five years now and it still works well enough but its getting a bit long in the tooth.

I have no problem with AMD processors whatsoever. Always had them.

There are two upgrade paths I'm considering:

AMD Upgrade | Intel Upgrade

Both options have a three year RTB warranty, which is nice. You can see that the AMD CPU is slightly faster, and £40 cheaper than the Intel. Both have onboard graphics which is OK for now. I can get a PCI-E card later. I'm leaning towards the AMD purely because of the price difference as funds are limited.

Do AMD processors run generally hotter than Intels?

I don't play any PC games and don't require 9GB of memory or a Quad Core 3 million GHz CPU, nor will I require a top range graphics card at any point in the future. A mid-level £50-ish one will do, but as I said that can wait for now.

Finally, I probably won't get either of these exact packages since it'll almost certainly work out cheaper for me to buy the bits and put them together myself. Just using them as a guideline.

Thoughts?

AMD's heat reputation stems back to the days they where competing against 486dx4's. These days the chip runs as hot as your cooler is innefficient - it doesnt matter if you use Intel or AMD, no cooler = chip fried: What matters here is noise, and it is possible to build a quiet AMD. Indeed i've an AMD system that underclocks itself when on a low CPU loading in order to further reduce heat.

Performance wise, I used to always swear by AMD on the £ per Mhz scale, these days i'm not so sure - i've not looked lately but it did seem to me that Intel where responding in that department when I did last look.

Ultimately it doesnt matter who is making the 'best' chip, what matters is who is making the best chip for the £ you intend to spend.

Also, pay careful consideration to bus speed as this is a significant factor in overall performance when doing anything multi-media. In many ways it is equally or perhaps more important than the CPU speed.

AMD have fallen way behind Intel as far as processing power goes. Otherwise take your pick, will be a big jump from your current processor. If you can get the latest intel chips they are much faster than previous gen but GPU bound in games if you don't have 2x or 3x SLI and the latest cards.

AMD's price:performance ratio is damn good, though Intel is closing the gap somewhat. That's been the case for more than 5 years though (that I can personally remember).

Personally, it's a matter of how much I want to spend. £1000+ for a computer means it'll likely be Intel. £500+ means it'll likely be AMD.

I can't say as it really makes a great deal of difference. Neither manufacturer offers any 'must have' feature, in your case.

If you wanted the fastest PC, you'd have to spend £800+ just on the CPU (Intel). I'm happy with whatever CPU generally costs less than £120 at that particular moment. Anything above that and you're well into the realm of the law of diminishing returns.

CPU's aren't that expensive. I can walk into a local store and buy a Intel Core 2 Quad Processor Q9550 with mobo for $229. Not so long ago that was about 110 quid.

4gb of 1600mhz DDR3 system ram and a 9800GT cost an extra $260 and you and you can upgrade to a really nice puter for under $500

Not sure how that compares to UK prices, but prices over came down a lot since I moved here.

I'd go INTEL, but wait until the Core i7 is fully available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_3

yeah core i7 are inpressive. But mostly if your into power computing and cutting edge games which GFK says he isn't.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/intel-core-i7-920-and-965-review/18

Impressive when you have the GPU hardware and CPU to match :) And interesting how the video cards don't make much difference at higher res till they have the CPU power to push them properly.

Intel.

best perfomance for money is intel core 2 duo (3 ghz) because if the program you are using doesnt use both cores the one core on its own is still quick. if you buy a 4 core chip you will almost never use the extra cores. in the future this will change but im taking about now. AMD are way behind which kills me because ive have AMD since the k2 range.

If you're only intrested in normal pc use then amd will be fine if it saves you money.