AMD Processor vs Intel Processor

[waynejkruse10]

thats pentium duel core i think. if i were getting another system i would get the same as i already have as it absolutly owns. if i could get a gig of ram i would but get the 3200+ winchester core definitly as it owns in so many ways btw the A8N rocks and AI tech is so sweet when im playin codname panzers it beefs up my system and i get more cpu power and as the 3200 is such a good oc'er this combo ownz. get it now

Sorry, i got willamette confused with winchester.

 

[Apokalipse]

the Willamette is the Pentium 4's first core. then there is the Northwood and Prescott, the Prescott being the latest

the Winchester is the Athlon 64's latest core, and is 90nm instead of 130nm. the other 2 cores are the Clawhammer and Newcastle, the Clawhammer being the first

 

[waynejkruse10]

Thaks for clearing that up Apokalipse

 

[VIII]

Wooo go Pentium!
My comp is mainly for games and for schoolwork when I can fit it in but I use heaps of programs like ps, VB n shiz.
a friend has an amd, i have a pentium. we have more or less the same setup.. hes a full amd whore wheras im not too bothered. We swapped computers for one round of doom 3 lan and naturally he over exaggerated and "couldnt wait" to get back to his precious AMD lol, but I really noticed no difference between, of course I was happy to get back to mine to (he has a crappy CRT Vs. my LCD =D)

I personally have never owned an AMD (i've only ever owned 2 PC's myself, im 16 incase u couldnt guess lol) so hell yeah im biased without right and would reccomend a p4 to anyone. I think the 64 bit is overrated and was over hyped by ALL pc magazines.. but from the only experience i've really had I'd say in gaming there isn't a whole lotta different.. but if ur gona pay top dollar for ur comp with all the top shit if its jut for games then uve got issues.. computers are the future (duh) and im hopin my life isnt gona be a game

 

[Snake-Eyes]

you really shouldn't say "crappy CRT," because most CRTs are known to have better response times than LCD, which in turn makes them better for gaming.

Also spending money on something you enjoy doing, like video games for example, does not mean you have issues. some people pay top-dollar for almost any thing they can. if they want it to work efficiently, they pay top-dollar. if they just want it to work, they buy whatevers available.

 

[waynejkruse10]

VIII, your sig is really long

 

[4W4K3]

you really shouldn't say "crappy CRT," because most CRTs are known to have better response times than LCD, which in turn makes them better for gaming.

Agreed, you have to spend BIG bucks to get a half decent LCD screen. the cheaper to intermediate ones "ghost" in gaming almost 100% of the time. but hey if you can afford it, then go for it. i would prefer a nice CRT to a cheap LCD.

 

[VIII]

99% of people, no matter the quality, whove owned an LCD wont go back to a CRT.. mines only a $500 one but id still take it over a top of the line CRT

 

[4W4K3]

99% of people, no matter the quality, whove owned an LCD wont go back to a CRT.. mines only a $500 one but id still take it over a top of the line CRT

well of course you wouldn't...it's a $500 LCD (what i meant by "big bucks") I imagine it doesn't have any problems that a cheap $250 LCD would.

also what you might not know..is 99% of people have no idea what pixel pitch means for an LCD, or even brightness, contrast ratio, or the response time. they jsut see a 19" LCD and see it's more expensive than the CRT and its thinner...and just assume it MUST be better. Then they get it home and it's all shadowy and the corners are dim and in games its all ghosty.

I bought a flat panel CRT a good time ago and still use it. My mom and dad both have 19" LCD's, and i can honestly say my screen is alot crisper, and lots brighter than either of there $300 monitors. I think when you get into the ~$400 range and up the LCD's really shine though. Below that i wouldn't really consider one unless it was on sale or maybe a very good rebate or sumthin'.

just my opinion of course...even cheap LCD's have there advantages (save space, easier to tote to a LAN, less power consumption...stuff like that)

 

[Codeine]

I dont understand how people can bash CRT... First LCD max resolution is 1200/1200. Most LCD's have 1200/700, while most CRT have 1600/1200+. Personally i cant stand when people bash CRT, becasue they are soo much better then LCD.

If your watchong LCD from a angle, then the monitors coloring starts to get all shady. Plus CRT has alot more depth. All the shadows and glears in video games just look so much better. Again even better with that 2000/1600 resolution. While they have better quality, they still cost less. I mean why even go LCD, is size really that important? I mean what would you guys rather do. Spend 800$ on a 19inch LCD with 1200/1200 resolution, or spend 800$ on a 22inch CRT with 2000/2500 resolution?? Its pretty obvious witch is the better choice.