Switching CPU

I am planning on buying an HP DV6z and customizing it with discrete graphics and all, which comes in about $200 cheaper than a less favorable Intel based DV6t. The DV6z, however comes with an AMD chip, which to say the least, I'm not the biggest fan when it comes to heat and battery life. Is it possible to take out the CPU and replace it with an Intel chip?

 

You can't switch from an AMD CPU to an Intel CPU. The chipsets and sockets are different.

 

What he said.

Also note that even if you could, you'd make up at least some of that $200 difference by buying an Intel CPU. Just get the right CPU the first time.

AMD CPU's have their place, and there are some good ones. For the mobile market though, Intel currently rules the roost on performance, thermals, and power consumption.

 

Yep, all of the above...
Save yourself those $200 and go for the Intel chipset m8

 

You could make a good argument getting a faster hard drive or SSD will give you a more noticeable performance increase than whatever CPU you choose.

As for CPUs I think at the moment Intel CPUs are a better choice for most users. Not that the performance of AMD CPUs is bad, but they run hotter and have less battery life, which are key considerations when buying a notebook. The do cost less, which is probably their best attribute. Unless you're on a really tight budget or aren't moving your machine much, I'd say Intel is the way to go.

 

Intel= Own AMD... go for Intel mate.. every penny is worth it.. and not to mention intel processors are more powerful and less likely to overheat unlike most AMD processors which run hot.

 

In notebooks, Intel rules over AMD usually. Desktops are a totally different story...

 

actually same story in desktops : core i7= own AMD Phenon II X4...

 

i'll bet KingRaptor meant the overall thing (price vs performance). but do AMD mobile processors really overheat that much?

 

yup... most do..

 

sean473, although you may have some good posts, but stop defaming AMD. Thanks!

OP.
As of now, yes Intel has a better solution for mobile market than AMD, but in desktop world it is a different play. If the OP wants that info, let him ask, if not, then dont post such things as Intel pwns AMD or the such.
There are tons of variables to consider, and in a desktop those variables are a lot more flexible than on a notebook.

Now, please, stop saying AMD sucks (because that is what basically the message you are giving), and take into consideration many other variables, such as usage, branding (we all know that HP Pavilions are not known for being ice cold to the touhch), budget, and GPU/HDD combo. There are tons of factors that influence.

But in this case, I will say Intel is the better way to go.

 

AMD just puts more effort to keep up on pace with intel (on desktop class)
since that they have limited resources compare to intel , so yea their laptop processor development is quite neglected
but if AMD can apply the same technology from their desktop class to laptop (X4 phenoms in laptop) that would be WOW ... low cost high performance laptops...weee

 

While I'd agree that the Intel CPUs offer better performance at the top end, most general computer tasks don't need it. Since AMDs cost less and offer ample performance they offer better value.

 

intel high-end = benchmark purposes?
i dont see most people need that power , but saw them as a bragging rights for the benchmark score

 

Well, the latest Opterons from AMD, which nobody has mentioned, performs very well, and can offer ample performance (read: overkill) for users.

Indeed in the mobile market AMD has been left behind, but with Tigris/Caspian they re willing to get back to the game, with low cost, high performance, and same 45nm.

 

But i thought the Intel Xeons own the Opterones?

 

Xeons are also a lot more expensive. Compare Opterons to C2Q, and I think the balance might go to the AMD size (performance/price).

But, that is all of topic. Back to the OP's question, I suggest Intel as of now (unless you are on a really tight budget and you can get an AMD II+4200HD)

 

Google review comparisons...?

 

http://techreport.com/articles.x/17005/7
Those are agains Xeons. They are below, but the upper AMD ones are on par with the mid Xeon and the highest AMD is quite high.
So basically value for money, they are a good way to go IMO.

 

If you need the best, then by all means get the Intels, but 99% of people don't need top performance, which gives AMD the edge value wise.

 

It depends on what you wish to do.

Until recently, a lot of the Xeons were extreme power hogs in server-space; Opterons could do the job with far less heat and power consumption.

Note that not everything is about performance. These days, data centers need it, but they focus heavily on energy usage, both in wattage consumed by systems, and in heat dissipation, since high heat means more energy consumed by running beefier environmental controls, or running the same ones more often.

Intel's server bus architecture has been incredibly limiting for sometime. This should change as new server chipsets for the Nehalem-based Xeons emerge, but it has kept AMD systems in the game.

Finally, go to the desktop market. You just don't need Core architecture for all that much in most households, and until recently, DDR3 was far more expensive. AMD has just released a quad-core CPU for $99. It costs less than Intel's budget Core2 Quad CPU's (e.g., Q8200), and offers something they don't at that level: hardware virtualization, required for XP-mode in Windows 7.

AMD is still in the game on many levels. You have to look at it from more than just raw performance numbers.