Intel vs. AMD

[the_Meaze]

I was under the impression that AMD was better for gaming computers. However after reading a lot of the builds in these forums it seems that people tend to lean towards the intel core 2 duo processors. Does it really matter?

thanks

[Cricket]

The current Intel processors have a slight performance edge over their AMD counterparts now. This will probably change in the future as the performance crown has been going back and forth over the years.

For a gaming computer you want to get the best video card your budget allows.

Cricket

[the_Meaze]

Thank you for the quick response

[HAL9000]

I agree with Cricket, I think the AMD/Intel debate has been a moot point for some time and you can use whatever you prefer. If you are into gaming, you'll want to soak your cash into the video component.

[Katreat]

I agree with the others, Intel has a slight lead in pure speed right now, which is likely why people are leaning that way, but overall it really wont make a major difference in the performance of your build. Both companies have extreamly effective high end processors and for gaming it is really more about video than CPU, within limits.

Actually, what is most recommended is a moviing target. Intel leaped to the lead with their C2D offerings a year or so ago and AMD has been a bit slow at catching up. So Intel has become the most recommended. Before that it was AMD. What will happen tomorrow is anyones guess. AMDs new offerings have closed the gap considerably so currently you really wont go wrong with either.

Kat

[metzger385]

AMD is going to be releasing 45nm quad cores at 95watt ratings as well. Should be out by the end of this year hopefully. Might be something to wait for.

Metz

[Masaki 7-11]

Seems that they'll be releasing the 45nm quad cores at 95watt ratings around November, but will only have clocks of around 2.6GHz. The strange thing is that they're planning on having 12 core server processors out during the first half of 2009, seems like a big jump from quad cores. AMD should be able to have better processors to compete with Intel once they get the K10 dual cores out, should be able to pass the 3.0GHz barrier and should be a good improvement in performance over the current dual cores.

[gods_son_is_me]

To speak in lamest terms, though, AMD tends to be MUCH cheeper than Intel though, when comparing similar speed chips. That is mostly how they (AMD) have been able to continue to be competitive all these years. There is another processor out there. Starts with an A. They should be some decent competition for AMD and Intels lower end chips.

[Masaki 7-11]

Originally Posted by gods_son_is_me To speak in lamest terms, though, AMD tends to be MUCH cheeper than Intel though, when comparing similar speed chips. That is mostly how they (AMD) have been able to continue to be competitive all these years. There is another processor out there. Starts with an A. They should be some decent competition for AMD and Intels lower end chips.

Normally the company which has the slower processors has the lowest price, when Athlon 64 X2 came out, you could get a higher rated (clock speed) dual core Intel processor for almost half the price. Are you referring to the ARM processors? They are pretty good on the low end, but aren't X86 compatible, so they're not competing with AMD or Intel. The new Isaiah from Via may provide some competition to AMD and Intel on the low end, at least with AMD's Geode processors and Intel's Atom processors.

[gods_son_is_me]

Yeah, it was Via. And yeah, this foriegn exchange kid had a lapper with a Via chip. 1.8 Ghz. Pretty good for a laptop from Africa.

For as long as I can remember, I always saw AMD as cheaper, and Intel was always faster and mostly better. And then AMD was better at overclocking...

But all of the views have sence changed. Like someone said uptop, these 2 always change.

[Pcfreakske2000]

Originally Posted by the_Meaze I was under the impression that AMD was better for gaming computers. However after reading a lot of the builds in these forums it seems that people tend to lean towards the intel core 2 duo processors. Does it really matter? thanks

@the_Meaze : I had a AMD for years and I liked it, but now I have an Intel Core 2 Duo.

I built the computer myself now and it's working great.

Here are my current system specs :


Case : ANTEC

Motherboard : ASUS P5K SE/EPU

Processor : Intel Core 2 Duo ( E6550) @ 2,33 Ghz

Memory : 2 GB DDR2

Graphics Card : ASUS EN9600GT ( NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT ) PCI Express card with 512 MB GDDR3 on board.

Harddisks : 1 HD 160 GB SATA II and 1 old harddrive from my old computer, also a SATA harddisk 160 GB

[Chris16v]

Ive allways used AMD. Stick with what I know, I think they are great.

Ive got a Phenom 9850 Black edition just now. Overclocked it to 2.8ghz easy as pie. Goes like stink. Ive heard over 3.0ghz is no problem.

[glc]

My E8400 goes like stink without even overclocking it.

[shadowpr]

My processor doesn't stink at all.....

Guess I can't be in the club.

[Katreat]

Originally Posted by shadowpr My processor doesn't stink at all..... Guess I can't be in the club.

I have never even considered sticking my nose in there to see what it smells like, what am I missing

Kat

[Pcfreakske2000]

So, do I have a good system ( see the system specs that I posted earlier ) ?

[liambl]

For gaming I think people think the CPU plays a bigger part than it actually does. I chose the Athlon 64 X2 5600+ because it was only $150 where the nearest performing Intel was nearly $250 (E6550). The motherboard was also a lot cheaper for the same capabilities. With this CPU I get pretty much the same FPS in games with my 9600GT than if I had a quad core or faster dual core like an E8500 (RTS games probably an exception).

[Chris16v]

Well my new build certainly allows me to play games such as Supreme Commander alot more smoothly which are big resource hogs.

However 1st person shooters such as CoD4 plays much the same due to me having the same video card.

[liambl]

As I said, RTS (Real Time Strategy) like Supreme Commander, CNC3 ect usually require faster processors than FPS (First Person Shooter) games.