AMD vs Intel

[idiotec]

OK, how about a constructive, non flame to his post...

Firstly overclocking needs some seriously good cooling. Never use fans for overclocking. Use liquid nitrogen or otherwise water to cool your systems as you probaly already know.

This is just wrong. LN is for extreme benching only and is not even close to a 24/7 solution. Water cooling is great, but still not a necessity. Depending on the chip, you can get a great OC on a good air cooled system.

Secondly, we are only at the start of the 64bit, dual core era. Most applications and even games are single core oreintated. Some tests indicated single core processors being faster than a dual core counter-part. This depends on your applications you use but you will never see the full flight of the dual core processors until all or most applications are made for the dual core processors.

There is truth to this, but that still doesnÂ’t mean itÂ’s too early to be buying dual core processors. They still do great at just general multitasking, and as programs develop theyÂ’ll just get better.

AMD vs. Intel, you will not be able to tell which is best over a long period of time. For example when the centrino and extreame edition processors came out, Intel was considered best and intel where very secretive about their products. Right now AMD is considered best leading the way for the dual-core processors and AMD are very secretive right now while Intel are open about their Octo and Quad core predictions.
Some will take sides and like AMD over Intel just because they use AMD more. I must also say that AMD generally does better at office applications but is also far better at mutiple processors at the same time posting faster speeds than its Intel counterparts. Intel for now does better at single thread applications rather than multithread applications athough in most tests I've looked at, AMD is better in office applications. Intel's processors right now are more for music coding, video playing, - simple tasks - web searching.

Where to start... First centrino is a mobile platform, a combination of chipset, processor etc, and I donÂ’t see how it is relevant to any of the discussion hear.

Second, when did IntelÂ’s EE processors make them the best? The EEÂ’s, like the FX series, IMO, are just ridiculous wastes of money, never a good choice for anyone who cares at all about budget.

Third, AMD has done a better job with their dual core processors, but I don’t see how they’re “leading the way.” Intel actually came out with a dual core desktop CPU first and has a whole line of them just as AMD does.

Fourth, you say AMD is better at multitasking, where does that come from? Not considering the X2Â’s, but talking single core to single core, that is actually the main spot where Intel did have the lead in this last round.

Thirdly, gaming computers need a faster hard drive speed for better performance. It is better to use a SATA 10k drive or perferably a SCSI 15k drive for your fast information access. Yes it does cost more but you will notice the difference. A 7200rpm drive is a miniumum requirement for the gamer.

The 10k drives are nice, I have one, but you definitely don’t “need” it. I do notice a difference over map loads and stuff, but you will most likely notice no effect at all in game play.

Also another comment on OC'ing - Intel's processors are generally better for it. Toms Hardware guide overclocked a 3.2 ghz processor to 5ghz using liquid nitrogen - this is not advised to be done but it is a fun project. Another fun project they did would be using 8 gallons of vegetable oil to cool their computer. No fans, silently running, working perfectly.

Wow, Toms hardware got to 5Ghz! The world record is over 7Ghz, so what’s the point. It still is no reflection of what “overclocks better.” AMD’s clocks are completely different than Intels, so comparing in straight speed doesn’t make sense. The fairest comparison is % overclock. Let’s say you have an Intel stock at 3.4, and you OC it to 4.6. Then you have an AMD clocked at 2.2, and OC it to 3. Both are about a 35% overclock, even though the Intel is running at much higher frequency’s.

For gamers or anyone looking to upgrade, a dual PCI-E motherboard is a must. If looking to get the best system, dual 7800gt's or better will give ultra high graphics at around 60fps on average on Doom3.

A must!? Any single 7800 series card is just fine. SLI has a horrible price to benefit ratio. Currently buying a higher end single card solution makes much more sense than a dual card solution.

For those who look to upgrade, I would personally wait a bit. Maybe upgrade to a socket 939 motherboard and FX53 processor but the new fx60 processor is just too expensive when the earlier Fx models work just as well. With AMD models, you can generally take 500 - 1000 off their model number to show their potential clock speed. For example the 4800+ model you would quite easily overclock to 4ghz although with normal work load it runs at around 2.6ghz.

First, I think any FX series card is a rip off. Recommending someone buy an FX53 is just absurd.

Second, what is this OC potential crap? What is a 4800+? Do you mean the X2 4800+? Because if you think you can “easily” get to 4Ghz with that chips, um, good luck. The WORLD RECORD for the X2 4600+, which has the same stock frequency as the X2 4800+, is 3.65Ghz. So how can getting to 4Ghz be “easy?”

I don't mean to make a big deal about this, but I would hate for some noob to come in and read his post and walk away thinking there is any truth to it. See, I'm just trying to do a good deed

 

[Nitestick]

good deed done lol, that about sums it up. that is constructive i was just saying (despit the fact i'm not a mod lol) that this could get out of hand fast knowing the tendency of some members at TF to pounce and flame a guy for days straight on a thread

 

[reggie_da_man]

I didn't really mean to flame, sorry if I offended you lamedog. I just meant to correct. Some of your stuff is wrong but that's why your a member of Tech-Forums... to learn! Sorry again if I offended.