-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3.00GHz v Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 LGA775 2.66GHz
- Thread starter Teki187
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 826
- Location
- Manchester
Its a bit of a non starter, the Core 2 E8200 is far superior if you overclock it.
Well i've always loved AMD's and ATI cards, so i kinda feel like im betraying them by having Nvidia and Intel.
I just want to find out if getting a AMD/ATI is at all possible in terms of a upgrade for high end gaming.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 826
- Location
- Manchester
A phenom @ 2.3 ghz is a nice CPU, definitely, if you take into account its price.
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,287
AMD has good price/performance ratio for everything.
CPUs lose due to not being as moverclockable as the Intel ones. At stock values the difference is not as high as people make it out to be. And if you game at high res i doubt it even plays that much role anyway.
CPUs lose due to not being as moverclockable as the Intel ones. At stock values the difference is not as high as people make it out to be. And if you game at high res i doubt it even plays that much role anyway.
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,287
I would buy their "low end" stuff to be honest, maybe its because i am kind of an amd fboy and dont wanna see them go down. Where performance really matter i would buy intel (main set up is an intel one, with amd gfx card).
My old rig back home(other country) has problems, when i cold boot it it doesnt detect the hard disks and it takes a whole lot of time and restarts to detect them and boot. If i dont manage to fix it, i am thinking of replacing it with a low end amd rig. 780G is lookin sweet, either coupled with the new energy saving X2 or Black 5000+.
My old rig back home(other country) has problems, when i cold boot it it doesnt detect the hard disks and it takes a whole lot of time and restarts to detect them and boot. If i dont manage to fix it, i am thinking of replacing it with a low end amd rig. 780G is lookin sweet, either coupled with the new energy saving X2 or Black 5000+.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 171
- Location
- Hertfordshire
I totally agree, People say im mad for sticking with AMD for now but I'd rather save the money i'd spend on an intel and put it towards other parts.
Intel are good CPU's but I think you pay more for the name these days.
With the way things are looking for AMD anyway they'll be bought out and we wont have these kinds of discussions
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
amd = less heat, lower energy consumption, cheaper. depends what people are looking for
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
the only issue with the phenom is 2.3Ghz is MORE THAN enough for quad core games or multiple core using games. for games that will only use 2 cores properly 2.3Ghz is a "tiny" bit limiting, but most phenoms seem to do at least 2.5Ghz with ease. Mine does 2.7Ghz at stock volts on stock heatsink(haven't got anything am2+ compatible heatsink wise and spare at the mo. I'm going to try and rma the system though as the gigabyte 790fx board is horrific, its barely stable and lots of other people have found the same.
I would wait a few weeks, the B3 stepping which will have the TLB errata fix in and by all accounts should overclock better is going to ship late this month or early next month.
EVERYONE who says C2D chips are faster is correct, everyone who says they are better is wrong. You can't feel the difference between a C2D, a C2Q, a phenom or a X2 as long as they are all at say 2.6Ghz in gaming and 99% of applications, you just simply can't and anyone that says otherwise is upset about their epeen. I've had pretty much all of them so far. Sure an Intel chip right now will for sure give you higher benchmark scores, but in game theres not a lick of difference, maybe 1-2% here or there, but most games are gpu limited, and by most we're talking 99.9999999% or them.
Frankly a £60 790x chipset board and a £125 quad is something intel CAN'T match as yet. Probably not in the future either as they ramp up cache/cores with each new release so the cores aren't getting really any smaller. 45nm isn't in massive production yet for Intel and the large cache means the chips aren't cheap, Nehalem is going to be an even bigger core. £125 vs £160 is fairly simple maths for chips that in game will feel 100% identical.
A triple core may or may not be great, in the very few games that show a tiny increase in performance with quad over dual core, most likely a 3rd core would give the same improvement. It depends on pricing, but if you could get a triple core amd for the same price as an Intel dual core and the B3 stepping gives them the overclocking range into the 3-3.5Ghz range then they become very attractive chips.
Nothing wrong with the 3Ghz X2's either, most overclock a decent amount still, quite a lot hit 3.4-3.5Ghz which again is more than enough for almost all games released to date.
I would wait a few weeks, the B3 stepping which will have the TLB errata fix in and by all accounts should overclock better is going to ship late this month or early next month.
EVERYONE who says C2D chips are faster is correct, everyone who says they are better is wrong. You can't feel the difference between a C2D, a C2Q, a phenom or a X2 as long as they are all at say 2.6Ghz in gaming and 99% of applications, you just simply can't and anyone that says otherwise is upset about their epeen. I've had pretty much all of them so far. Sure an Intel chip right now will for sure give you higher benchmark scores, but in game theres not a lick of difference, maybe 1-2% here or there, but most games are gpu limited, and by most we're talking 99.9999999% or them.
Frankly a £60 790x chipset board and a £125 quad is something intel CAN'T match as yet. Probably not in the future either as they ramp up cache/cores with each new release so the cores aren't getting really any smaller. 45nm isn't in massive production yet for Intel and the large cache means the chips aren't cheap, Nehalem is going to be an even bigger core. £125 vs £160 is fairly simple maths for chips that in game will feel 100% identical.
A triple core may or may not be great, in the very few games that show a tiny increase in performance with quad over dual core, most likely a 3rd core would give the same improvement. It depends on pricing, but if you could get a triple core amd for the same price as an Intel dual core and the B3 stepping gives them the overclocking range into the 3-3.5Ghz range then they become very attractive chips.
Nothing wrong with the 3Ghz X2's either, most overclock a decent amount still, quite a lot hit 3.4-3.5Ghz which again is more than enough for almost all games released to date.
For a low cost platform, you can't really beat the AMD 780G. It's probably the most likely of the AM2 platforms to eventually support AM3 processors and you've got PCI-E 2.0 in there. It's about as future proof as you can get with PC hardware. No SLI or Crossfire though and I think it's limited to mATX boards.
As for gamers, unless Supreme Commander is your game of choice, there's not a lot out there that is significantly CPU limited by one of the faster X2s.
Ask again in a month or two and it'll have probably changed. nVIDIA should have an intel-based low cost chipset with PCI-E 2.0 for by April.
As for gamers, unless Supreme Commander is your game of choice, there's not a lot out there that is significantly CPU limited by one of the faster X2s.
Ask again in a month or two and it'll have probably changed. nVIDIA should have an intel-based low cost chipset with PCI-E 2.0 for by April.
Tell that to my E2200
I think (as some wise fellow above me has quite rightly stated) that the difference between the amd and c2d chips of the same clock speed only differ enough for the most pedantic of gamers to complain.
I also feel a bit like i've sold my soul to buy an intel chip after being an AMD man for so long. But at the same time, if they had successfully produced a chip capable of 3.0ghz stable for 50 quid, I wouldn't be in this position. Slip ups in cpu design/production just arent acceptable when you're already 2nd place to a silicon behemoth like intel.