AMD Processor vs Intel Processor

[waynejkruse10]

thats got some asus specififc features though

 

[Apokalipse]

yup, that's Asus specific. it doesn't have GDDR3 though

 

[SHOCK3R WOLF]

I mean, `is it that bad not to get a 6800 GT or Ultra, i mean, i been running Medal of Honor (i know its not a heavy game) on my FX5700 128Mb, with not problem!. Lets say i play something heavy like Doom 3, i'm i gonna miss a lot of frames. And in a month or so i'm planing to buy another video card of the same, amd put it next to it with the SLI.

 

[Apokalipse]

when the 7800's come out, only the GTX will support SLI

 

[pc_boy]

...so wait for the next gen vid cards... unless you'll die without one right now...

btw, interesting how this thread got here..

AMD RULEZ YOUR FACE!!!!

 

[SHOCK3R WOLF]

I'm not sure if i could ask this, everybody that has an Athlon 64, has anybody tryed the new windows, and i'm not talking about XP x64.
thats besides the point, pay attention to this: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1477437&CatId=0 now, it says that it has Intel® Extended Memory 64 Technology (EM64T) is it actually a 64-bit from intel? and i don't think its a scam, because this is what i found in the microsoft website: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/upgrade/default.mspx its telling you that you could run Windows XP Pro x64 Edition in either AMD Athlon 64, AMD Opteron, Intel Pentium 4 with EM64T, or Intel Xeon with EM64T. Now if they steped up with the 64-bit cpu's, how come they didn't advertise it? anybody, please

 

[blacktop89]

i hardly call that hard facts AMD is better. most gamers run AMD because they can't afford Intel rig's and want the best performing rig they can have that fits there budgets.

I would have to disagree with this statement. These prices were taken from Newegg on 6/21/05. Prices are based on the cheapest processors.

Athlon64 3000 (newcastle) - $146
Intel P4 3.0ghz (prescott) - $172 $26 more than AMD

Athlon64 3200 (venice) - $190
Intel P4 3.2ghz (prescott) - $209 $19 more than AMD

Athlon64 2800 (newcastle) - $121
Intel P4 2.8ghz (prescott) - $164 $43 more than AMD

Athlon64 3400 (newcastle) - $228
Intel P4 3.4ghz (prescott) - $274 $46 more than AMD

I would hardly say that the differences in these prices would deter someone from going one way or the other, but that's just me. Especially if building a $1500 or more system. Also, if you look at the gaming benchmarks that were done using these processors, the differences in performance are always very small. Based on processor alone, one would not be able to notice a significant performance increase in gaming.

And yes, AMD is almost always ahead of Intel in the gaming benchmarks when using their latest processors.

 

[pc_boy]

Also, if you look at the gaming benchmarks that were done using these processors, the differences in performance are always very small. Based on processor alone, one would not be able to notice a significant performance increase in gaming.

DUDE, are you F#(king KIDDING ME????


:amazed:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2330&p=2

IN YOUR FACE!

 

[blacktop89]

DUDE, are you F#(king KIDDING ME????


:amazed:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2330&p=2

IN YOUR FACE!

Well, I guess what I meant was actual gameplay. When you get up to that high of frame rates, you can't tell a difference in performance. If you were going from 30 fps to 60 fps, you probably could tell. But from 90 fps to 115 fps.....I seriously doubt you could tell any gains for your actual gameplay.

 

[Apokalipse]

in gaming, AMD's CPU';s are cheaper AND perform better. that's why people get them
however Intel's sell really well, because peopole know the name Pentium.

Pentium 4's do, however, win when encoding, and when running programs reliant on maths (like SuperPi)