AMD Processor vs Intel Processor

[Apokalipse]

Oh and btw here is a benchmark comparison between the intel and AMD. BAsically the Intel beats AMD in most non-gaming tasks and actually with this new processor as you can see in the gaming benchmarks it is almost right on par with the AMD. So I think the processor I linked you is the best choice for gaming and multitasking or whatever else.

http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/processorsmemory/0,39024015,39189912-7,00.htm

not trying to bash Intel, but:
the Athlon 64 3200+ is less than $200, compared to the 64-bit 3.2 at just under $300
the Intel is either on par, or doesn't perform as well
it emulates 64-bit, making it much slower when it does process 64-bit code

Intel needs to:
cut down on price
realise that clock speed isn't everything - they have done with Pentium M's, but haven't done with their more important line of processors (pentium 4's)
include native 64-bit support
release a processor that is more competitive in gaming, then gamers will find Intel more attractive

 

[waynejkruse10]

Then Intel will be just like AMD but with different naming!

 

[efd753]

1. hey dude, i used consoles just as an example or people defending their product, what part of that don't you understand... chill out dude, i don't care what console you buy or what games you like...

2.my point is that you can get a better chip for your money if you go with AMD since they have performance just as good or better than Intel for a lower price....

3. Don't talk unless you owned an AMD and an INTEL and saw the difference. You probably never had an AMD before, so all your statements are opinions with no backup.

4. If you have a good vid. card in both AMD and Intel, that doesn't mean the FPS would equalize, it would actually make an even better difference since AMD works better with the card and making more than 1-10 FPS better.

Hey Pc Boy i do own a AMD is the Amd 64 3000 939 i just bought it a month ago i went amd cuase 64 sounds better but i would of went intel too but had to have 64 in the name of my cpu. 64 isnt important right and it wont be for a logn time. I just wnated to be cool and say i have an 64 bt processor.

 

[dale5605]

cool

 

[Panther5060]

Hey Pc Boy i do own a AMD is the Amd 64 3000 939 i just bought it a month ago i went amd cuase 64 sounds better but i would of went intel too but had to have 64 in the name of my cpu. 64 isnt important right and it wont be for a logn time. I just wnated to be cool and say i have an 64 bt processor.

efd753 kill some typos or please be quiet. I agree with many of your statements but I had to read them 3-4 times through before I could understand WTH you were saying.

 

[kboy]

That's a great list!!!!!!!!

 

[glasseye]

What's UniGraphics or whatever the thing was that required 2gb RAM? DO NOT get a 4000+ it offers a horrendous value per $

 

[FadingTheory]

All upper end processors offer horrible performance at the dollar. If you want to have the most cost efficiant CPU, buy a bag full of PII's for 15 bucks on ebay.

But, in any case, I think the sweet spot in processors is the 3.2 GHz (3200+). Right now anyway.

 

[str8lazy]

3200+ doesnt run at 3.2 ghz.... Anywayz, why is this topic still alive I figure that it would have died months ago...

 

[Apokalipse]

I think he just meant that the 3200+ is about the same as a Pentium 4 3.2GHZ