• 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.

main differences between AMD and INTEL?

Exactly - the i7 is better designed since at 2.67GHz it can beat the 955BE at 3.2GHz in every area by a big margin except for some games.

I've always said the 955BE is more cost effective for gamers. In other areas, it's just a matter of whether you wanna spend more to get more. Your statements that "the 955 BE is equal to or out performs the Core i7" and "the 955 BE is VERY close to the i7 920, usually surpassing it in real world tests" is absolute crap though.

And you've been told that the i7 is better, i've been told that the 955 BE is better and there's nothing either of us can do about that.
Click to expand...

Oh so you'd prefer to just accept what you've been told instead of doing some research yourself? That's obviously why you're talking rubbish then.
 
I'd say far more importantly, why the hell not overclock if it's easy and safe?

Do I get more power? Yes.

Is it free? Yes.

I can't help but think it's an overclocking forum...you won't find many that agree with you.
 
DragonQ said:
Exactly - the i7 is better designed since at 2.67GHz it can beat the 955BE at 3.2GHz in every area by a big margin except for some games.

I've always said the 955BE is more cost effective for gamers. In other areas, it's just a matter of whether you wanna spend more to get more. Your statements that "the 955 BE is equal to or out performs the Core i7" and "the 955 BE is VERY close to the i7 920, usually surpassing it in real world tests" is absolute crap though.

Oh so you'd prefer to just accept what you've been told instead of doing some research yourself? That's obviously why you're talking rubbish then.
Click to expand...

By a big margin? Not at all, in the games it is better at it's only ever by a few frames, which isn't really that important and you're simply not going to notice it when you're in the game itself.

Why would it be worse in other areas? Web browsing, video editing etc. It doesn't add up, gaming is used to see the top end of a processors abilities, but those benchmarks wouldn't change for less intensive challenges.

No, i've done the research. And you said it yourself, that's exactly what YOU'RE doing. Not i. As for talking rubbish, i am not. I can back up my statements with evidence.
 
Superewza said:
By a big margin? Not at all, in the games it is better at it's only ever by a few frames, which isn't really that important and you're simply not going to notice it when you're in the game itself.

Why would it be worse in other areas? Web browsing, video editing etc. It doesn't add up, gaming is used to see the top end of a processors abilities, but those benchmarks wouldn't change for less intensive challenges.

No, i've done the research. And you said it yourself, that's exactly what YOU'RE doing. Not i. As for talking rubbish, i am not. I can back up my statements with evidence.
Click to expand...

Go on then, show us your evidence

You're making yourself look more and more foolish, if you re-read your posts in one youre claiming the 955 beats i7, in another you're accepting the i7 wins but only marginally, you're arguing with yourself

Gaming is not generally very CPU intensive, where as video encoding is, therefore for CPU strain video encoding is more taxing than gaming, thats why in this area i7 will trounce 955, no arguments.

I agree that on the point of gaming, theres not much in it and given cost factor then yes 955 makes more sense to a lot of people than i7 does, however people who do more than just game will want i7 as it IS betterr, then theres the people who are brand loyal and will stick with intel over AMD or vice vers no matter what (and NVidia vs ATI too)
 
Superewza said:
I may not be able to put together a graphics card with clay and wire in my back yard, but i understand the basic principle of two cores is better than one. If you're only using one graphics card then the performance will be better on a board with this chipset than one without it. I rest my case.
Click to expand...

Please explain to me how a 700pts in vantage card can assist a 12000+pts card in rendering a game using either AFR or SFR multi GPU rendering mode...

By the time the integrated card has built 1 whole frame, the main GPU will have built around 8-10+ frames which means you either have to discard the entire work load of the integrated GPU or suffer very jerky game performance.

or you could kick in SFR mode and get the integrated GPU to render a postage stamp sized area of teh screen... and if that area of the screen happened to get busy... it will pull performance down to its knees completely compromising the main GPU's performance...
 
The 2 big main differences is simple value for money AMD are much cheaper then Intel! that simple intel are mostly aimed at the high end market... while amd are more aimed at the low end value for money market.
 
Last edited:
It's all down to how much your willing to spend, both companies get the tasks done at a sufficient standard. I've used Intel for 6 years and i'm now moving over to AMD for one simple reason, it's within my budget.

So, if AMD and Intel are both within your budget, go with the one you prefer the most.
 
Last edited:
Zerolimitz said:
The 2 big main differences is simple value for money AMD are much cheaper then Intel! that simple intel are mostly aimed at the high end market... while amd are more aimed at the low end value for money market.
Click to expand...

AMD Black Edition Quad is highend without the inflated price.
The performance is not lowend in the slightest & the mentally of 200MPH AMD car being slow is getting silly just because there is a 225MPH Intel.

They are both fast.
 
I hate this type of question. It's akin to asking someone which is better vanilla ice cream or chocolate, lol.

Everyone has their own opinion. Right now, Intel have it with the i7 in performance terms, but as always this will flip flop over the years to come. Whats the point in this argument?
 
When I had a lot of disposable income (which I no longer do due to kids) I would simply get the best of everything. Nowadays my money is more limited. So my view is that you should look at the overall package within your budget. For example, an I7 would mean less money available on the graphics card. So in this case a PII would be a 'faster' machine... not because the PII is a faster processor but because it would leave you more money to spend on a faster graphics card, memory, etc.

Pretty simple really - Get an I7 if you have lots to spend on the CPU but get a PII if money is more limited.

Personally I'm a real fan of stuff from the MM where you can get a far better overall system for the same money, regardless of manufacturer.
 
howiepoohs said:
Over the years I have found AMD the poor man's Intel. I have found the chipsets which support them a little less than stable. I used to be an AMD person all the way until the Core 2 Duo/Quads came out and surpassed AMD by quite a margin. Now when I build a work PC with a AMD processor/chipset they give me the most trouble. I have a feeling VIA are to blame though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it hasn't really been true for ages that AMD chipsets are dodgy. My first rig was an Athlon XP and had a VIA chipset which was pretty terrible - not stable, overclocked by about 2% and I eventually had to replace the board just to get a USB modem to work.

Since then they've improved a lot, though. I had an Abit board with the nForce2 chipset - possibly the best board I've ever had. And the modern AMD chipsets are very good too. I'd still probably slightly favour Intel platforms for stability, but that's probably based on nothing but familiarity.

No doubt, the i7 is the better CPU. There seems to be this suggestion that the AMD is 'better for gaming' - it's not. It might be better value, but the i7 is still faster in just about everything. It's a matter of whether you're willing to pay the premium for that. Seeing as most games these days are GPU-limited, the AMD is a pretty sound choice for a pure gaming rig.
 
Yeah have to take consideration of other factors as well.
Performance shouldn't be judged by the CPU alone.

As we all know, AMD favours ATi and intel favours Nvidia (current king of the GPU market).
Intel based motherboards also utilizes ddr3 tri channel memories whereas AM3 can only use DDR3 dual channel rams.

There is no contests really. It's all about how fat your pocket is, and whichever side you lean against. Me for example have an i7 920, but because I prefer the thought of being able to upgrade more economically in the long run, I will be building myself an AMD based rig for myself and passing my intel to my brother :p
 
na AMD 955 is not better than i7 not anywere near, they are about the same as LGA755 give or take in a few things as a platform.

they shine in gaming but I7 also shines
 
Final8y said:
AMD Black Edition Quad is highend without the inflated price.
The performance is not lowend in the slightest & the mentally of 200MPH AMD car being slow is getting silly just because there is a 225MPH Intel.

They are both fast.
Click to expand...


granted they are both fast but that still doesnt change that amd are low end value for money yes they have AMD Black Edition Quad which is great for games but now compare that to other tasks? see where im getting at dont get me wrong amd are awesome value for money and yes gaming wise they are up there with the rest but still they are value for money and thats what there market is aimed at.

then again the way i look at things is high end being the best of the best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom