-
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.
Why does everyone say that 'AMD' is better for gaming?
- Thread starter Virdi
- Start date
Man of Honour
pegasus1 said:
So are you saying he doesn't win very often?
You see, I think that if he went on any similar top spec machine he would be just as good or bad. I am a 1000% positive that the differences on a benchmark program wouldn't make a blind bit of difference in the real world.
Apparently he does win a lot but the prize money is nothing compared to sponsorship from the likes of Intel and Abit.dmpoole said:
There is a very noticable difference when encoding a video with even a modest pentium 4 beating a top of the line AMD (even x2) and a £100 A64 being noticably faster at editing a photo than a £500 Intel chip.
Try playing RTW on a Celeron D and then tell me processor type doesnt affect performance.
Man of Honour
pegasus1 said:
Do you think that when he gets home he locks his bedroom door and gets his AMD machine out so that he can go even faster?
I have stated twice in this thread - 'similar spec machines' not a celeron D is just as fast as a FX60.
dmpoole said:
you're sounding v much like an intel fanboy.
And if i was being paid by Intel would I say no? heck no.
AMD is cheaper, and faster, what more do you want? You want real world difference - you go home with more money in your pocket than if you buy intel.
Especially if you buy an opteron
dmpoole said:
He probably does.
How do you define similar specced. A cheap Pentium would be the same spec (prob better) as my 3700SD if i used it for video editing.
You cant go by clock speed, cache or instruction sets so you have to use benchmarks and depending on the benchmark, intel or amd will be faster.
Man of Honour
chex said:
Funny.
I have 3 AMD machines, 1 Intel and a laptop with a Celeron D.
I just don't believe the hype of any machine.
From what I've read fat owns both intel and AMD machines. When playing at cpl he obviously uses intel because they are the head sponsor of it.
For an intel and AMD system to have a relatively indistinguishable gaming experience the AMD system would most likely cost less.
And its hard to say that benchmark performance doesn't translate into gaming performance. If you get more marks your likely to be able to run with more fps, at an increased resolution, and with higher quality settings. AMD have consistently out performed intel in gaming benchmarks of recent.
For an intel and AMD system to have a relatively indistinguishable gaming experience the AMD system would most likely cost less.
And its hard to say that benchmark performance doesn't translate into gaming performance. If you get more marks your likely to be able to run with more fps, at an increased resolution, and with higher quality settings. AMD have consistently out performed intel in gaming benchmarks of recent.
Personally I have owned the following CPU's:
Pentium 4 3.00Ghz Northwood, AMD Athlon 64 3000+ 939, AMD Opteron 144 939
All at stock clocks I saw no noticeable difference. None felt slower nor faster. However when overclocked it is a different kettle of fish. I would agree that going A64 has its advantages due to power consumption, thermal output and price to performance.
Mul
Pentium 4 3.00Ghz Northwood, AMD Athlon 64 3000+ 939, AMD Opteron 144 939
All at stock clocks I saw no noticeable difference. None felt slower nor faster. However when overclocked it is a different kettle of fish. I would agree that going A64 has its advantages due to power consumption, thermal output and price to performance.
Mul
