AMD Vs Intel

AWPC · 13 Feb 2006 at 15:50

Raikiri said:
Then why do you have intel if you admit AMD ar ebetter "out of the box"?

As you don't seem to be overclocking, at least not enough to justify an Intel

Because a 670J + 7800GTX512 is more than enough to game @ 1920x1200 with full details on anything.

When the time is right & games demand it will either get some phase cooling or a 955XE. No point overclocking an already fast system just to say I get xyz more FPS.

Someone else is always gonna have more than you no matter what you spend. Pointless exercise unless you are stuck with a low budget for cheaper hardware & need to overclock to maintain a constant FPS.

Constant 30FPS in any PC game is all that is required for ultra smooth gameplay. Please someone tell me why on earth does anyone need more than that.

easyrider · 13 Feb 2006 at 16:04

what intel do is.

release a new socket 775

then chipsets

915
915G
915P
915GV
925X
925XE
945
955
975

so many chipsets so much money making!

meaning you had to buy a whole new mobo to support dual core on its release if you had bought a 915/925 chipset mobo on the sockets release.

All you do with AMD is flash your bios for dual core!

Intel suck!

They're dual core cpu's are power hungry under performers and anyone who games in any capacity would not choose an intel rig.

Metalface Mark · 13 Feb 2006 at 16:43

My natural affinity is with intel, however im with AMD at the moment. Once the new chipsets come out, ill probably switch back again though

toucam · 13 Feb 2006 at 16:45

What if you don't play games at all. So apart from "gaming is faster" or "better oveclocking", is there any other arguments of why AMD rig is better than Intel? The majority of computer buyers don't play games and don't care about games the same with overclocking, they do other things on their computer. So I assume anyone works in multimedia, video and music will surely stay away from AMD? And AMD isn't that much cheaper compare to Intel either.

smids · 13 Feb 2006 at 16:54

toucam said:
What if you don't play games at all. So apart from "gaming is faster" or "better oveclocking", is there any other arguments of why AMD rig is better than Intel? The majority of computer buyers don't play games and don't care about games the same with overclocking, they do other things on their computer. So I assume anyone works in multimedia, video and music will surely stay away from AMD? And AMD isn't that much cheaper compare to Intel either.

For Dual Core, the X2 beats all of Intel's offerings, regardless of usage.

For single cores, AMD's are faster in terms of gaming, rar'ing and music coding but Intel's are faster are video encoding and have the benefit of HT technology which means Intel's are superior in the single core market, especially with the 600 series processors.

easyrider · 13 Feb 2006 at 17:03

toucam said:
What if you don't play games at all. So apart from "gaming is faster" or "better oveclocking", is there any other arguments of why AMD rig is better than Intel? The majority of computer buyers don't play games and don't care about games the same with overclocking, they do other things on their computer. So I assume anyone works in multimedia, video and music will surely stay away from AMD? And AMD isn't that much cheaper compare to Intel either.

Well I do far more multi media stuff than game.

I had a 3.4ghz P4 on a 925 xe chipset and quite frankly when I needed to upgrade my mobo to get dual core goodness again.That was it with intel for me.They had had enough of my money. :mad:

I got a dual core AMD and it trounces my p4 rig in everything it does, and the mobo etc...was half the price of the intels 945/955 offerings.

also having run a single core AMD also it just rung rings around the intel setup it replaced.

Martynt74 · 13 Feb 2006 at 17:11

I'm going to Intel soon as far as i can tell their newer chips are looking good and have no cold bugs. Which is why a lot of big overclockers are swaying intel again

beh · 13 Feb 2006 at 18:43

Healthy competition for the win.

gamesaregood · 13 Feb 2006 at 19:44

AWPC said:
Constant 30FPS in any PC game is all that is required for ultra smooth gameplay. Please someone tell me why on earth does anyone need more than that.

Why spend a bomb on a high end intel chip when u can save a bomb with a lower end AMD chip which does the same things :confused:

chex · 13 Feb 2006 at 21:18

*which does the same things better.

Intel does *one* thing better than AMD right now, for more money, as far as single cores go.

AMD X2 right now >>> anything Intel.

And no AMD owners arent quaking in their boots, no one has die hard loyalty to a corporation (I hope). At the end of the day AMD and Intel want only your money, AMD has a better product in *general* RIGHT NOW. Anyone who can't see that is blinded by unnatural love for the intel badge.

Overlag · 13 Feb 2006 at 21:27

AWPC said:
Intel all the way

If your an enthusiast & have the tech know how the recent Intels give almighty performance with the appropriate cooling + high spec ram + psu.

AMD are quicker in games out of the box but when overclocked/tweaked the Intel6 & 9 series CPUs are mighty quick & also better multitaskers.

670J @ 7.6Ghz http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=41696&stc=1&d=1135911731

955XE @ 6.6Ghz http://www.nordiccrew.com/crotale/6609.gif

The extreme 1333-1600 FSBs you can hit with the 955 & 975X chipsets are able to keep up with a Xfire setup. Obviously you need a lot of PSU + exotic cooling but for ultimate performance no matter the cost its gonna be Intel

so you recommend a slower, more expensive product that is also a lot hotter and great at wasting loads of your power (think electric bills.......)

WHY do you recommend a product that has all the con's and no pro's???/

if you can afford a cooling setup for a p4 at 7.6ghz you can afford cooling to get a FX at 3.6-4ghz....and that will be MILES faster too... But then you want to compair overclocked intel products to default/standard AMD's dont you

Martynt74 · 13 Feb 2006 at 22:35

In Intel's favour you've only got to look at most benchmarks and see that their new chips win. Why people keep sticking with the old "intels are slow at everything" i dont know.

Superpi - Show me an FX chip that can even touch the Intels new offerings
3Dmark 01 - Its Dothan mainly kicking ass and dominating.

Only reason 03/05/06 are dominated by AMD's is because Intels SLI setups are terribly performing at the moment, I feel once these get sorted it'll be different.

Plus AMD are hardly the cheapest option nowadays aswell with the FX57/FX60 options

smids · 13 Feb 2006 at 22:51

P-M isn't exactly an Intel chip though...

TBH, the P-M is great but not a desktop chip, it's their laptop chip and I can't wait for Intel to utilise it properly. I mean the Pressler is a joke. 65nm, so what? They've done nothing for heat or power. Bring on the July offerings.

matt100 · 13 Feb 2006 at 22:57

Marvt74 said:
snip

**puts on best northern accent**

leave it marv! it's not worth it!

Seriously though, why are we even bothering to discuss it?

Anyone noticed the OP hasn't posted in this thread since they left the timebomb ticking?

easyrider · 13 Feb 2006 at 23:02

^^^^^^agreed^^^^^^ it is a silly thread and I should never of allowed myself to get involved

smids · 13 Feb 2006 at 23:25

matt100 said:
**puts on best northern accent**

leave it marv! it's not worth it!

Seriously though, why are we even bothering to discuss it?

Anyone noticed the OP hasn't posted in this thread since they left the timebomb ticking?

To use a cliché - Hook, line and sinker

Overlag · 13 Feb 2006 at 23:38

Marvt74 said:
In Intel's favour you've only got to look at most benchmarks and see that their new chips win. Why people keep sticking with the old "intels are slow at everything" i dont know.

Superpi - Show me an FX chip that can even touch the Intels new offerings
3Dmark 01 - Its Dothan mainly kicking ass and dominating.

Only reason 03/05/06 are dominated by AMD's is because Intels SLI setups are terribly performing at the moment, I feel once these get sorted it'll be different.

Plus AMD are hardly the cheapest option nowadays aswell with the FX57/FX60 options

yes but intel wont even release there best CPU into the desktop market.... sad news really....

AWPC · 13 Feb 2006 at 23:43

gamesaregood said:
Why spend a bomb on a high end intel chip when u can save a bomb with a lower end AMD chip which does the same things

What AMD CPU supports DDR2 and also gives the same 3D rendering performance as a 670J for £450 + allows multitasking whilst playing games/surfing the web?

Raikiri · 13 Feb 2006 at 23:46

AWPC said:
What AMD CPU supports DDR2 and also gives the same 3D rendering performance as a 670J for £450 + allows multitasking whilst playing games/surfing the web?

None support DDR2 yet, they don't need to as they don't suffer the same problems when running a devider.

Oh, and the answer without counting the irrelevent DDR2 is the opteron 170 for a whole £100 less

smids · 13 Feb 2006 at 23:47

AWPC said:
What AMD CPU supports DDR2 and also gives the same 3D rendering performance as a 670J for £450 + allows multitasking whilst playing games/surfing the web?

We haven't got too long to wait now

.