should i move to amd or stay with complicated intel.

W

Wesley1357

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
374
is it worth to go and buy a new intel cpu now. or do you guys think i should get an amd instead, amds are beyond 3.8ghz now, good/bad idea?
 
Wesley1357 said:
is it worth to go and buy a new intel cpu now. or do you guys think i should get an amd instead, amds are beyond 3.8ghz now, good/bad idea?
Click to expand...

What AMD chip is @ 3.8GHz? This question is really a personal preference, but if you game more then anything, go AMD.
 
newls1 said:
What AMD chip is @ 3.8GHz? This question is really a personal preference, but if you game more then anything, go AMD.
Click to expand...

xx00+ rates them over 3800mhz... (compared to intell) good cooling you might be able to get there as an oc... (like cascade... maybe.. :p) havent really kept up with it... but yeah.. amd for games... more so with an x2,(in the sence you can dedicate a core to nothing but the game.. thoguht you could do this with the high end intell chips aswell... its still general held that amd is better for games....)

thought i dont know if intell chips are all that complicated... they make it pretty simple... with amd.. if you go the enthusiast route, the bios settings can be quite confuseing... not that it cant be figured out...

thore
 
AMD for Gaming. Intel for Muti-Tasking. Thats all that can be said about AMD vs Intel. Well Intel is also good at gaming maybe about 10 fps less then with the AMD. I like Intel not just cause i got one but its boards is more stable then AMD's. And i dont care about 10-15 more fps then the other guy. I still kick @$$. "Its not your hardware that turns you into a killing machine its about your skills." said by a good friend of mines.
 
ReDgUaRd008 said:
AMD for Gaming. Intel for Muti-Tasking. Thats all that can be said about AMD vs Intel. Well Intel is also good at gaming maybe about 10 fps less then with the AMD. I like Intel not just cause i got one but its boards is more stable then AMD's. And i dont care about 10-15 more fps then the other guy. I still kick @$$. "Its not your hardware that turns you into a killing machine its about your skills." said by a good friend of mines.
Click to expand...
You might be right, but the fact of the matter is INTEL's top end chip either the 670, or the 3.73Ghz EE, is only compariable to an AMD 3500+ when it comes to games. The 3500+ Is AMD's mainstream chip (to the price that is), so if you take AMD's top end chip, either the 4800x2 or the FX57, there is no comparison is the performance differance with these chips when it comes to game. AMD really has both ends covered, if your going to multitask, AMD's X2 chips ARE FAR FASTER THEN INTEL's, if your going to GAME ALOT, AMD HAS THIS BEAT AS-WELL. Bottom line is, SWITCH TO AMD, you wont be sorry. Here is a link to the AMD vs INTEL dual core chips performance differences, read this artical, it is rather funny.http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077.html?tag=cnetfd.sd
 
Wesley1357 said:
is it worth to go and buy a new intel cpu now. or do you guys think i should get an amd instead, amds are beyond 3.8ghz now, good/bad idea?
Click to expand...

It depends on what you are going to do with the computer. I have two new systems (1) Athlon 64 3200+ Venice and (2) Pentium 4 630 based, both with 1GB DDR RAM's. I like both. I use AMD system for photo/video editing and Intel for office/data analysis work (mainly because of software compatibility issues - yet to find one with the AMD system though). I don't see any difference as such between the two in terms of multi-tasking (althougth L2 caches are 512KB vs. 2MB). I don't think AMD is "still" a gaming CPU. You choice sould depend on what you plan to do with your new system. As I heard, an AMD Opteron will be good for anything (never used one yet though).
 
vsrdan said:
It depends on what you are going to do with the computer. I have two new systems (1) Athlon 64 3200+ Venice and (2) Pentium 4 630 based, both with 1GB DDR RAM's. I like both. I use AMD system for photo/video editing and Intel for office/data analysis work (mainly because of software compatibility issues - yet to find one with the AMD system though). I don't see any difference as such between the two in terms of multi-tasking (althougth L2 caches are 512KB vs. 2MB). I don't think AMD is "still" a gaming CPU. You choice sould depend on what you plan to do with your new system. As I heard, an AMD Opteron will be good for anything (never used one yet though).
Click to expand...

You are nuts! You dont think AMD is a gaming CPU? The facts show that AMD is FAR better @ gaming, and there X2 chips are better @ multitasking PERIOD. Did you read that link I posted in my above post?
 
vsrdan said:
As I heard, an AMD Opteron will be good for anything (never used one yet though).
Click to expand...
An Opteron is just a renamed Athlon 64.

The only real difference is that the entire Opteron line has 1mb Cache (Per Core), and they can overclock better, and from what has been said they run hotter.. but this one runs just as cool as my Sempron 2800+
 
newls1 said:
You might be right, but the fact of the matter is INTEL's top end chip either the 670, or the 3.73Ghz EE, is only compariable to an AMD 3500+ when it comes to games. The 3500+ Is AMD's mainstream chip (to the price that is), so if you take AMD's top end chip, either the 4800x2 or the FX57, there is no comparison is the performance differance with these chips when it comes to game. AMD really has both ends covered, if your going to multitask, AMD's X2 chips ARE FAR FASTER THEN INTEL's, if your going to GAME ALOT, AMD HAS THIS BEAT AS-WELL. Bottom line is, SWITCH TO AMD, you wont be sorry. Here is a link to the AMD vs INTEL dual core chips performance differences, read this artical, it is rather funny.http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077.html?tag=cnetfd.sd
Click to expand...

I just bought a 3500+ after testing my Bud's rig for a week. Games will be its main use. With that said; Even a cheaper 2.8C kicks the shit out of Multi-tasking *most optimized apps. Premiere Pro 7, Windows Movie Maker, LAME with an Intel Patch, most of Roxio and Nero's software, half of Creative's, MS Windows Media Player 10, Multi-Thread apps of ALL KINDS and yada yada. They also overclock about 800MHz on air. Then you can get pretty good (even if is NOT the best) mulit-tasking for less than $200 LOL!

The one big end AMD doesn't have covered is VOLUME that creates lower prices and real competition. Now, you might not be sorry but your wallet will be ;)

Donnie27
 
actually, an Opteron is an a64 with far longer testing prosess. The Opterons are mainly Server processors, but the 144/146/165's that overclock so well are 939, not 940, like most Opterons (the 2xx, 4xx, and 8xx series). That, and they all have 1mb L2 caches
 
Donnie27 said:
I just bought a 3500+ after testing my Bud's rig for a week. Games will be its main use. With that said; Even a cheaper 2.8C kicks the shit out of Multi-tasking *most optimized apps. Premiere Pro 7, Windows Movie Maker, LAME with an Intel Patch, most of Roxio and Nero's software, half of Creative's, MS Windows Media Player 10, Multi-Thread apps of ALL KINDS and yada yada. They also overclock about 800MHz on air. Then you can get pretty good (even if is NOT the best) mulit-tasking for less than $200 LOL!

The one big end AMD doesn't have covered is VOLUME that creates lower prices and real competition. Now, you might not be sorry but your wallet will be ;)

Donnie27
Click to expand...
You got it ;)
 
RaphaelVinceti said:
actually, an Opteron is an a64 with far longer testing prosess. The Opterons are mainly Server processors, but the 144/146/165's that overclock so well are 939, not 940, like most Opterons (the 2xx, 4xx, and 8xx series). That, and they all have 1mb L2 caches
Click to expand...

I know and looked at the Sc-939s Opteron 170 and 175. Seen their prices lately?

Donnie27
 
newls1 said:
You are nuts! You dont think AMD is a gaming CPU? The facts show that AMD is FAR better @ gaming, and there X2 chips are better @ multitasking PERIOD. Did you read that link I posted in my above post?
Click to expand...

What I meant was that AMD is not ONLY a gaming CPU, but it is also good for other tasks, too.
 
Donnie27 said:
I know and looked at the Sc-939s Opteron 170 and 175. Seen their prices lately?

Donnie27
Click to expand...

I got my 165 a month ago for $305 and have been humming along at 2.6Ghz with no issues. It was all about timing with the dual core opty's :(.
 
kirbyrj said:
I got my 165 a month ago for $305 and have been humming along at 2.6Ghz with no issues. It was all about timing with the dual core opty's :(.
Click to expand...

Yeah, hindsight is 20/20. That's why I just go with a simple 3500+ now, then look at Dual Core next year.

Donnie27
 
Intel processors are generally stronger workstation chips (most of the time anyway), but Intel processors can also make for an enjoyable gaming experience as well. Wait for Cedar Mill, buy some good cooling and overclock the shit out of the chip. Cedar Mill should hold you over until Conroe and Merom arrive.
 
The Doc said:
Intel processors are generally stronger workstation chips (most of the time anyway), but Intel processors can also make for an enjoyable gaming experience as well. Wait for Cedar Mill, buy some good cooling and overclock the shit out of the chip. Cedar Mill should hold you over until Conroe and Merom arrive.
Click to expand...

When is an Intel processor a stronger workstation chip? 2002?
 
to the OP

looking at your sig I would suggest that you stick with what you have now. If you really want to upgrade you should get an AMD dual core cpu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top