I need processor help! <3

[WolvenASE]

Alright, it's time to buy a new computer. I'm not savvy, so I searched up whether AMD is better than Intel, and site matched up a pentium 4 640(3.2 ghz) with a AMD Athlon 64 3500+, and the AMD pulled ahead with a higher average FPS.

So I go to Ibuypower.com, and I click on a generic Gamer PC and I'm looking at processors.. and I notice that they have dual core processors out: [939-pin] AMD® Athlon-64 X2 4800+ CPU w/ Hyper Transport Technology. I googled this, and it said that the two processors have 2.2 ghz and 2.4 ghz. Does that mean that together, they produce 4.6 ghz?

Also, is AMD truly better than Intel? I thought that the 3500+ and such was 3.5 ghz, but I learned that was not the case. xD.

So does the dual core processors stack their processor speed(because if not, 2.4ghz for an AMD athlon 4800 is disappointing!)? Should I look into a dual core processor, or stay with just a regular one? And also, what AMD processor would run games like CS:Source and WoW godlike?

 

[Alex81388]

The 2.2ghz and 2.4ghz are two completely seperate chips...each with two cores. The site you looked at just sucked at explaining things.

Each of the AMD X2 Processors have two cores inside, so really you can imagine two processors in one, but its not quite THAT great.

Everyone here will say that for about everything but video encoding and related applications, the AMD chip is stronger. Especially for gaming. Hands down AMD kicks ass in gaming. The 3500+ is there to say that comparibly to Intel, it is like a 3.5ghz chip. But its way to complex to look @ it like that.

You can still get away with single core VERY easily, and if I were you, I would just pick up a chip like the AMD 64 3500+ personally. It will handle any of the games you throw at it, right now games really only look towards the video cards (which kind of sucks), but put your money towards your video card as opposed to your CPU.

 

[Tyler1989]

Alright, it's time to buy a new computer. I'm not savvy, so I searched up whether AMD is better than Intel, and site matched up a pentium 4 640(3.2 ghz) with a AMD Athlon 64 3500+, and the AMD pulled ahead with a higher average FPS.

So I go to Ibuypower.com, and I click on a generic Gamer PC and I'm looking at processors.. and I notice that they have dual core processors out: [939-pin] AMD® Athlon-64 X2 4800+ CPU w/ Hyper Transport Technology. I googled this, and it said that the two processors have 2.2 ghz and 2.4 ghz. Does that mean that together, they produce 4.6 ghz?

Also, is AMD truly better than Intel? I thought that the 3500+ and such was 3.5 ghz, but I learned that was not the case. xD.

So does the dual core processors stack their processor speed(because if not, 2.4ghz for an AMD athlon 4800 is disappointing!)? Should I look into a dual core processor, or stay with just a regular one? And also, what AMD processor would run games like CS:Source and WoW godlike?

No it it does not equal 4.6 it equals 2.6 for one and 2.4 for the other.

You cannot directly compair AMD and Intel with Ghz becuase they run on different instruction sets so AMD will do more with a lower Ghz. AMD is trully better than intel and are the current kings of both 64 bit and duel core processors currently.

also do not use the site you were try newegg.com it's much better.

 

[WolvenASE]

Okay. Someone also told me that 3500 was the equivalent to 2.2 ghz, but it can easily stand toe to toe with an intel 3.8 ghz. Considering if the above statement is true, would that mean that if a game would have the minimum reqs of say.. 2.0 ghz, that it would put alot more strain on the AMD rather than the Intel because it has 3.8 ghz? If what I said wasn't true, please correct me. Thanks for all of your help, I appreciate it!

 

[Tyler1989]

You seem to be a gamer if this is so do not even look at an Intel Processor.

No intel has a complex instruction set and cannot do as much per Mhz or Ghz.

AMD has an more simple instruction set and can do more with less Mhz or Ghz.

Both Intell fall under the category of complex not simple but AMD is simpler than intels set. This is based off what I was told by my instruction several years ago so please fill in the gaps.

 

[Alex81388]

Okay. Someone also told me that 3500 was the equivalent to 2.2 ghz, but it can easily stand toe to toe with an intel 3.8 ghz.

That statement kind of contradicts itself...


An AMD 3500+ which I believe does 2.2ghz, will handle a game with a spec of 3.0ghz easily... if you must look at it like that.

 

[WolvenASE]

Yeah, this is going to be a Gaming PC.

Anyways, so I get that AMD can do more with the ghz it's alotted, thanks.

But does that mean that if I bought a game that's minimum processor speed was 2.2 ghz, and I had an AMD that ran at 2.2 ghz, would it run without a problem where as an Intel processor would?

Also, is there anyway I can find out what certain AMD builds' (like the 3500+) equivalency is to processor speed(2.2 ghz, 2.8 ghz, etc.) And if you could reccomend me an AMD processor(dual core or not, doesn't matter) that you think is -really- good, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

 

[Alex81388]

Yes, that is what we are saying. An Athlon at 2.2 is way better than an intel at 2.2

 

[CrimsonGX]

would that mean that if a game would have the minimum reqs of say.. 2.0 ghz, that it would put alot more strain on the AMD rather than the Intel because it has 3.8 ghz? If what I said wasn't true, please correct me. Thanks for all of your help, I appreciate it!

No, because all/most games minumum requirements are based off Intel's Ghz, for AMD they usually say 'or equivalent'

So if the game required, say, 2.2 Ghz Intel, you'd need an AMD proccessor with a P-rating of about 2200(and the AMD would probably run it slightly better than the intel), such as the 2200+ Sempron, which runs at 1.5 Ghz.