Which processor is better for a gaming desktop?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep and to me AMD is the best and that benchmark is dumb because what were they running it on a 32bit benchmark there is a resone they call it 64 because it runs best on 64 bit apps and hey who knows we might skip this whole 64bit time period and go staright to 128 bit i would waste time or money on a 64 bit cpu nore would i waste time or money on and intel system they SUCK so badly like i said before if you get a intel your conforming
you might as well sell your box and buy a compaq or a dell
 
The 64 bit processor is totally unnecessary right now. There is no reason to buy it. Also the p4 processors are really just crap, they cost more, and arent as well made as the athlon. The athlons can beat the pentiums at a slower clock speed easily, and sometimes they are as much as half the price of a pentium.
 
miller said:
The 64 bit processor is totally unnecessary right now. There is no reason to buy it. Also the p4 processors are really just crap, they cost more, and arent as well made as the athlon. The athlons can beat the pentiums at a slower clock speed easily, and sometimes they are as much as half the price of a pentium.

Not quite true there friend:confused: Athlon XP's are much more efficent than P4's which makes them great for non gaming stuff like applications, but P4's rule gaming and just about 2/3 of the benchmarks againest Athlon XP's;)

You right though that they are a much better price/performance ratio and are great for a budget PC;)
 
are you wanting to oc?? are you going to oc with the stock cooling or with upgraded cooling...? the p4 2ghz "c" can oc 600 mhz above stock with standard hsf... btw amd 64 isnt that good becuase not much is compatible with it...
 
n00b's ... its alot more complicated then Intel's better then AMD or vice verca. Both companies have there weak and strong points (Intel high frequency thats good for encoding etc.) (AMD preforms more tasks per clock cycle which ultimatley slows down the frequency but high performance is seen during some applications). Now I believe the 64bit technology is useless as of now and is more or less a marketing ploy because the average user is going to think "hey more bits its gotta be better" which in case is not exactly true. No programs designed today are in need or are designed to take advantage of the 64bit processor and I've seen benchmarks that show significantly lower results vs a 32bit processor. People that decide to have a biased view of the world are at a significant disadvantage as being able to understand both sides would be to your advantage in understanding.
 
They should make it a rule in the English Book of Rules.

1) The phrase "AMD vs Intel" should never be used in a sentence.
2) The phrase "Which processor is better" should also never be used in a sentence.
3)Failure to comply with these rules will thus banish you to a far away planet where flying monkeys rule the land.

And so what if AMDs run hot? Sometimes I wake up with a craving for eggs, so I pop off my side panel and cook eggs on my skillet/heatsink. :p:p:p:p:p

Have a nice day :)
 
i_krayzie_i said:
n00b's ... its alot more complicated then Intel's better then AMD or vice verca. Both companies have there weak and strong points (Intel high frequency thats good for encoding etc.) (AMD preforms more tasks per clock cycle which ultimatley slows down the frequency but high performance is seen during some applications). Now I believe the 64bit technology is useless as of now and is more or less a marketing ploy because the average user is going to think "hey more bits its gotta be better" which in case is not exactly true. No programs designed today are in need or are designed to take advantage of the 64bit processor and I've seen benchmarks that show significantly lower results vs a 32bit processor. People that decide to have a biased view of the world are at a significant disadvantage as being able to understand both sides would be to your advantage in understanding.

Finally someone pointed it out ... What Deadguy n' other's who are pro P4 ,need to understand is that .. the GHz of a processor is not all that matters ...
The point is that an AMD handles many more instructions in one clock cycle than the p4... This is what differentiates the 2 processors..
So basically if a P4 needs 4 clock cyles to finish an instruction ..the AMD can fininsh the same in 2.
This is why they are compared on different scales like AthlonXP2800+ runs at 2.1GHz ..yet it is comparable to the P4 2.8GHz

As for the heat issue that guys have been pointing out to .. it's not alwayz bad .. i'm running my processor with a stock HS n' have no problems at all .. The typical die temps for anAMD are much higher for an AMD than for a P4 .. infact a p4 would melt out at temps like 60°C ..where as an AMD can handle temps like 80°C too

But then .. the arguement continues ..........:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom