• 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 Vs Intel

AMD.....

Cool - got a 3000 A64 that runs passive on the stock cooler here when idle.

Fast - well at least for gaming anyway.

Most overclock amazingly - my 1.8ghz opteron does 2.9ghz on air and others do upto 3ghz.

Cheap - this opteron set me back £107 and it clocks higher than an FX 57.

Intel?????

I haven't owned an intel since my celery 400. :p
 
speeduk said:
AMD.....

Cool - got a 3000 A64 that runs passive on the stock cooler here when idle.

Fast - well at least for gaming anyway.

Most overclock amazingly - my 1.8ghz opteron does 2.9ghz on air and others do upto 3ghz.

Cheap - this opteron set me back £107 and it clocks higher than an FX 57.

Intel?????

I haven't owned an intel since my celery 400. :p
Click to expand...

pentium m does that tbh, and the earlier argument that its not a desktop CPU is a non-starter, XP-m's anyone ?


edit: anyway we have all fell for it again, this must be at least the 10th intel Vs AMD threads in the last 6 month, i bet IwantanewPC is sat chomping popcorn as we speak :p
 
Last edited:
Overlag said:
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 :o :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No one is denying that AMD are better for gaming out of the box + power consumption is worse although Speedsteep + EIST + TM2 helps a lot in this respect by cutting volts whilst the CPU is idle. Why do AMD fans blindly ignore that recent Intel 6 + 9 series have more overclocking potential which serious enthusiasts have embraced for almost a year now because they can get the sort of performance Intel originally designed the chips for. What AMD CPUs have up to 100% overclocking potential. Please someone tell me the real world difference between using a high end AMD vs Intel CPU in games outside of artificial benchmarks. That extra few % is noticeable right! What AMD CPU for the equivalent price gives the same multi tasking performance as Intel whilst still playing games.
 
AWPC, I just answered that

And we all know they can overclock brilliantly if you can cool them, but I have seen opteron and 3000+ chips hit 100% OCs as well.
 
AWPC said:
What AMD CPU for the equivalent price gives the same multi tasking performance as Intel whilst still playing games.
Click to expand...

an opty 165 running at 2.8ghz on its stock cooler would trounce a P4 930 even overclocked to 3.8ghz the same 800mhz overclock.

both cost around the same.

your 100% oc statements are fine and dandy but you fail to mention the cost of the cooling required.

defeating your arguement about price and cost.

BTW would a p4 930 at 3.8ghz be ok on its stock cooler if we were matching price for price?

dont think so.

Me thinks that 800 mhz overclock on the p4 930 would make the intel a tad to toasty imo.
 
winner.jpg


calm down dear.. it's only a central processing unit!
 
Yeah i forgot about the venice the 3000+ Winnie WR is about 3.4ghz.

That was in the past though, new AMD's suck since they have the cold bug :p
 
Maybe so, I'm not denying that the pentiums are great CPU's. But for the average user with air cooling the AMD is a far better choice
 
easyrider said:
an opty 165 running at 2.8ghz on its stock cooler would trounce a P4 930 even overclocked to 3.8ghz the same 800mhz overclock.

both cost around the same.

your 100% oc statements are fine and dandy but you fail to mention the cost of the cooling required.

defeating your arguement about price and cost.

BTW would a p4 930 at 3.8ghz be ok on its stock cooler if we were matching price for price?

dont think so.

Me thinks that 800 mhz overclock on the p4 930 would make the intel a tad to toasty imo.
Click to expand...
Actually the 165 costs £30 more. 9 series have had copper on their stock HSFs for a while and can handle large overclocks as long as you dont mind the increased fan noise. The 4MB L2 cache makes a big difference for apps when multitasking.

Any extreme overclock obviously requires an expensive solution.

Show me an AMD CPU which costs the same or very close to Intel and has the same ultimate overclocking potential.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what AMD price equivalent can rip DVDs/music/encode video whilst gaming without causing any lag in windows.

I can even play a game in a window, browse the net & rip/encode music/video with a still smooth system.

I am not doubting that AMD offer better gaming performance, cooling, value for money.

Why dont you AMD fans just admit that Intel have higher overclocking potential & are better multitasking CPUs.
 
AWPC said:
Actually the 165 costs £30 more. 9 series have had copper on their stock HSFs for a while and can handle large overclocks as long as you dont mind the increased fan noise. The 4MB L2 cache makes a big difference for apps when multitasking.

Any extreme overclock obviously requires an expensive solution.

Show me an AMD CPU which costs the same or very close to Intel and has the same ultimate overclocking potential.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what AMD price equivalent can rip DVDs/music/encode video whilst gaming without causing any lag in windows.

I can even play a game in a window, browse the net & rip/encode music/video with a still smooth system.

I am not doubting that AMD offer better gaming performance, cooling, value for money.

Why dont you AMD fans just admit that Intel have higher overclocking potential & are better multitasking CPUs.
Click to expand...
AWPC, sorry but every single REVIEW site on the internet say the X2 is better at about 75% of things over the Intel. And yes, miy rig can do that too...
 
AWPC - so you can see it this time, you wanted to know what AMD can game as good as the 670 and multitask. Answer = opteron 170

Now, as for overclocking I have shown you a link to a 100% OC :)

I have seen 66% OC's on 144's with stock cooling, how many 3ghz p4's do 5ghz on stock cooling?
 
AWPC said:
Actually the 165 costs £30 more..
Click to expand...

not from where i'm looking ;)

£30 is nothing anyway the cost of a cooler you would need for the intel ;)
that intel cooler sounds like a hoover on full.No one would put up with that.




AWPC said:
Show me an AMD CPU which costs the same or very close to Intel and has the same ultimate overclocking potential.
Click to expand...

Its relative though.

Because of the architecture of the two cpu's a 800 mhz oc on an opteron is worth far more than on the intel.So therefore you have to overclock to higher speeds on the intel to reach the performance that of the AMD .

so what if a 930 can be overclocked to 4ghz.
I would rather have a opty at 3ghz

it would be faster.
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...
whats so good about DDR2???

intel need DDR2, not AMD... i doubt there will be much improvement on AM2

as raikiri said, there IS a better choice on AMD's side, you just "choose" not to see it
 
AMD has a great processor for every situation.
Athlon 64
Athlon 64 X2
Opteron

Add that raw processing power with great price & you have a clear winner. AMD for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom