Please help me decide between AMD and Intel

AdladUK

AdladUK

AdladUK

Associate
Joined
6 Jan 2007
Posts
1,509
Hello,

Bearing in mind that I will do absolutely no overclocking, and that the main purpose will be for gaming, which of the following should I choose:

AMD Option
Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6000+ 3.00GHz - Approx. £95
Gigabyte GA-M57SLI-S4 nForce 570 SLI - Approx. £50
Total = £145

Intel Option
Core 2 Quad Pro Q6600 2.40GHz - Approx. £150
Abit Fatal1ty FP-IN9 SLI - Approx. £70
Total = £210

So roughly £60 more for the Intel route, but would the performance increase be there (if not overclocking)?

One other thing... Do the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th cores on the Intel kick in when the 1st if fully used?

Thanks :)
 
quad quad quad! all the way!

the 3 extra cores are used by seperate programs. newer programs are being made which use more than one core, and the amount will keep increasing, so a quad is better for futureproofing.

also, with one core, you used to have to close all programs before running a game to make sure it would run the best it could, with a quad, you can leave loads of programs running in the background, and because they are all on seperate cores, you can run a game and get the same frames per second as if you had closed all the backgroud programs.

I think it works by running a new process on the core with the least already deligated to it, so all cores are as evenly matched with work as possible.
 
Okay thanks. So a game will only use 1 core? In that case wouldn't the AMD be the better choice?

Since the AMD cores are clocked at 3GHz, and the Intel at 2.4
 
Well that is true, but games like crysis were 'meant' to use more than one core of a multi-core processor. The demo apparently didn't, don't know if the proper game did. Like young said, more and more software is oging to be brought out that will utilise multi-core cpu's, and this includes games.
 
That used to be the case but there are a number of games already released that use multi-core (Supreme Commander for example) and plenty games in the future will make use of multi-core CPU's.

I say go the Intel route.
 
I'd go the AMD route here. while some make some use of the extra cores, don't forget that the AMD is already a dual core, so you'll still be taking advantage of that feature in those games. The extra 600 MHz and the cheaper price make it work for me. Use the £65 and either save it for your next upgrade or put it toward a faster graphics card.
 
you have to remember that you cant compare different processors by their clockspeeds, and AMD 64 @ 3GHz, is not the same as a Intel Core 2 Duo @ 3GHz. You used to be able to compare processors this way, not anymore. I'd suggest googling some comparisons.

EG, my laptop has a pentium 4 @3.6, and my desktop has a Core2Quad @3.6 and there is no comparison at all!!!!
 
Yes that's a very valid point. I guess I'm stuck in the past

So which do you think is faster when comparing core by core? AMD @ 3, or Intel @ 2.4?

I've tried searching for a few comparisons but not had much luck. Being as the X2 is "old" now, and the Quad is brand new
 
Well AMD it is then :)

Since I won't be overclocking, and it seems most single applications/games don't support 4 cores at the moment any way
 
I'm really not sure, probably the AMD would be the faster, BUT the core2Quad overclocks brilliantly. I've got mine up from 2.4 to 3.6, but thats with an aftermarket cooler and decent case. I think you could overclock it to 3 - 3.2 with the stock fan.

Please dont be put off by overclocking, I only got my computer 3 weeks ago, and I now have a computer a hell of a lot faster than I did when I got it!

this forum will help you out with any overclocking questions you have, and there are plenty of guides to get you going.

back to the x2 vs x4 core argument, I find having a quad lets you use your computer much more freely and stress free than with my single core laptop, you can open programs and forget about them, and the computer keeps its responivness. Its generally more comfortable.

the intel chips are being produced to run more efficiently than AMDs, so overclocking is unbelievably easy to do without having to start watercooling for example.

totally up to you though, if you want to stick at stock, then maybe the AMD would be better for you.

Try to weigh it up by thinking about what you use your computer for, if its for photoshop , video encoding etc, quad core would be good. if its for word, internet and gaming, the amd might do...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom