Amd Vs Intel*

Discussion in 'Gaming' started by pimpy101, Jan 24, 2006.

  1. xlink

    xlink GR's Tech Enthusiast

    Posts:
    8,050
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004

    not by a ton, but it does. and when you consider the fact that it runs cooler on less energy at about 1/3rd the price you really have to think... netburst is dead and intel knows it. again, their new proc series is based off the PIII which somewhat closely resembles athlons so it won't be so drmatic in the future.
     
  2. Spectre257

    Spectre257 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Why bother getting a rebadged FX-53 when you can get an FX-57 which you can over clock anyway :huh:

    You dont just go around calling people retards just because of a small mistake :eek:

    Anyway the only thing PC mags say are holding the computer back is the CPU, it also shows in benchmark tests the framerates all seem to hit a ceiling when the high-end cards we're tested :|
     
  3. gh0stz

    gh0stz Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    ok fine, 30 fps doesn't make a difference when you already have 180fps. but i never said what fps you began at, and there is a significant difference between 30 and 60 fps.

    64x2 3800+ is 2 3000+ cores. running @ 2.0 ghz each.
     
  4. Namrac

    Namrac Well-Known Member

    Age:
    29
    Posts:
    1,738
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Spectre, I would get the 4000+ because it costs a good $500 less.
     
  5. WFCxT-time

    WFCxT-time Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    338
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    USA
    The 4000+ is a single core processor ... hes talking about a dual core one ... thats why it costs more. And it is not $500 less because the 3800+ X2 is well under $500 ... so your saying that the 4000+ is free?
     
  6. Namrac

    Namrac Well-Known Member

    Age:
    29
    Posts:
    1,738
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    We weren't comparing the 3800+ vs the 4000+, we were comparing the 400+ to the FX-57.
     
  7. xlink

    xlink GR's Tech Enthusiast

    Posts:
    8,050
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    the FX 57 is 1100$ the 4000+ is 330$ (about 750$ diference) I don't think you can really compare them. and he is asking about the best processor, right now the sweet spots for bang/$ are the 3200+(165$) and the x2 3800+(310$)
     
  8. Namrac

    Namrac Well-Known Member

    Age:
    29
    Posts:
    1,738
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Way to completely misinterpret what I said... I was comparing the FX-57 and 4000+. The 3800+ had nothing to do with it. And last I saw, the FX-60 was $1100 and the FX-57 was in the $800 range. Although that may have been the FX-55.
     
  9. WFCxT-time

    WFCxT-time Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    338
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    USA
    Even though you said that it still doesn't make sense ... you're comparing a single core processor to a dual core one. It's like comparing apples to oranges ... if you get what I mean ;)
     
  10. Presto

    Presto Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    117
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006

    that and Celerons are underpowered PoS CPUs... I have two rigs, one with the specs in my sig the other is a Shuttle PC using an AMD 64 x2 3800+ 2gb OCZ ram and a BFG 7800 used for gaming at lan parties or when fridns come over. I use the Intel rig for photoshop premier and other "work" type programs mostly. How ever I do use it for games. To be honest dispite the SLi and faster CPU the intel rig performs worse then the AMD rig in games. EQ2 I can run at Extreme Quality in 24 man raids on the AMD and on Intel im getting crappy FPS at High. Kinda pissed me off at first but oh well.
     
  11. xlink

    xlink GR's Tech Enthusiast

    Posts:
    8,050
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    semprons are better than athlon XPs, Xps are crap. While I am on the subject though, Celeron Ds are even crappier because netburst need L2 Cache and celerons are cheaper because they have little. FYI athlon Xps overheat almost as bad as the current P4s.

    Also, P4s don't have to work twice as hard no where near twice as hard as non-netburst procs, the diference isn't that dramatic. I would take a 6GHZ P4EE with 2GHZ FSB over an Athlon 3000+ anyday(assuming cooling was provided and I had the appropriate ram)
     
  12. WFCxT-time

    WFCxT-time Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    338
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    USA
    I would too ... but then I would sell it and buy an AMD processor :D
     
  13. Dluzion

    Dluzion Senior Member

    Age:
    30
    Posts:
    1,341
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    i need a review

    i have

    amd athlon 64 but 3500+
    asus motherboard
    1gb ram
    200gb hd
    40gb hd
    nvidia gfx 128 card

    i had

    p4 2.80a
    inter motherboard

    other things are the smae
     
  14. xlink

    xlink GR's Tech Enthusiast

    Posts:
    8,050
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    the 3500+ will rape the P4 in gaming and quite a few things like most graphics applications. the P4 may be SLIGHTLY ahead for general use, but you won't notice it unless it has good FSB and high clocked ram for it(800mhz or so total clock speed and up because netburst sends data in bursts not much one moment a shidload the next so t needs a lot of bandwidth for the moments when it sends a shidload).

    also, how much L2 cache does it have if it only has 512kb then it is partially disabled because netburst needs about 1 or 2mb cache.
     
  15. Mr. Clean

    Mr. Clean Well-Known Member

    Age:
    26
    Posts:
    1,208
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Location:
    United States
    I like both, but I use Pentium.
     

Share This Page