AMD Processor vs Intel Processor

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sh0r_ty said:
U talked about the AMD's running hotter than the P4 but with the release of the Prescot that would seem to no longer be the case. AMD has got no better in the department but P4's have got worse

Both AMDXP line and P4 line have mobile versions, which are really popular. Intel mobile chips run cooler. a bonus for Intel, even if it cant compete with the A64 line. that's just fact, not bias lol.
 
well i bought it! 2600 dollars well spent :)

Memory: 1 GB
Video card: Radeon X800 XT (wanted the platinum, but the pops wouldn't shell out the extra 100 bucks, oh well.)
hard drive: RAID 0 240 GB (120GB x2)
Sound card: Creative Audigy 2ZS
Monitor: 17" LCD
Processor: AMD 3500+
mobo: VIA K8T800 Pro
PSU: 480W

All packed into an Alienware :) can't wait until i get it! Doom 3/Half-life2 here i come!
 
this is a topic where noone will give you an honest answer. all amd users will say amds are better and all the intel users say intels are better.
Umm not hardly. If you look on page two I gave him a fine explination of the two as did 4W4K3, although in mine I blatantly I like AMD better. Regarding cooling you gotta remember Intel has real fat pipelines carrying that clock speed where as AMD has more shorter compact pipelines. This allows for AMD to do more calculations per cycle than Intel and also since Intel has those fat long pipes for those bigger clock speeds then they can remain cooler. The fact that AMD can do more per clock cycle makes up for the fact that Intels run a little cooler which like I said is simply because AMD does more with 2GHz than Intel would. It would take ATLEAST 2.5GHz Intel to compete with 2GHz AMD, this depending on which chips you use of course.

I'm not a 'hardcore gamer with extreme watercooling setup for overclocking' either. I got the XP-Mobile which runs at lower voltages, has a higher temp die of 100C compared to most desktop chips are 80-90C. The result in running lower voltages are lower temps. The chip is stock 1.8GHz but I'm running 2.5GHz at 28-30C Idle at depending on if I have my fans on full blast or not it might hit 40C which is WAY below what the chip would normally face stuffed inside a laptop.
 
oh gee not another one of these. Look Nvidia or ATI: Amd or Intel; its all personal preference. Its all in what you want and like. really one is better than the other in diff thigs and they all actually line out to be the same really so just anybody get what you want.
 
personally I like Athlon 64's better than Pentium 4's, and Pentium 4's better than Athlon XP's

the Athlon 64's don't really run hot, I would say 45C is about average with stock cooling

Pentium 4's own the Athlon 64's when it comes to decoding, .zip and .rar files, calculations, and whatnot, but the Athlon 64's get better gaming performance than Intel's CPU's, and that's why a lot of people like AMD, because most of what they do is games

BTW nice comp Snake-Eyes

the X800 XT is bound to give you really good gaming performance, even if the 6800 Ultra beats it in a lot of benchmarks

the 6800 Ultra with 800 core sounds really good too, I wonder if video cards will get over 1GHZ?
 
apokalipse said:
the 6800 Ultra with 800 core sounds really good too, I wonder if video cards will get over 1GHZ?

im sure they will. i know memory passed 1000MHz a while ago. and overclocked i think some card can do 1000MHz with extreme cooling. can't recall a pic though...
 
P.P. Mguire said:
hince nvidia 650 core. anybody remember that one?

i believe that ran at 250MHz correct? My 9200 runs at that speed...wonder what core it is...

EDIT: nope, uses the RV280 core. o well
 
Dang seriously guys we need to stop these threads. They are startin up everyday, mods you guys should compile a good thread and post it at the top and lock it so new people and people inquiring could read it. And let us be done until something radically new comes out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom