Difference between AMD and Intel

Status
Not open for further replies.
intel doesnt use hypertransport its hyperthreading and C2D is the big winner right now using less heat and power, also intel has found a new way to block off electron leaks on the die(so yeah in like 2-3 years we're going to be seeing 60-80% increase in clock speed), in building there isn't really much difference except in the sockets but C2D will give you more bang for your buck considering whenn a $200 6300 mops the floor with AMD's $2000 FX-62 i know it doesnt cost that much lol. Same thing for setting up except intels sem to be better with nvidia while amds are more suited for ati since amd bought it
 
Forgot to say but even after AMD lowered their power consumption the E6300 is built on 65nm while the AMD is built on 90nm therefore the C2D still wins regardless. Did i mention theres 2MB cache in the E6300 and only 1mb in the 4200 x2 for the same price?

Any other reasons why AMD wipes the floor with C2D at the lower price range?

Btw by no means am I a fanboy. I buy whatever is the fastest at the time. I actully prefer AMD to Intel in all honesty but right now C2D is king. And AMD wont release anything to beat it untill at least the 2Q of 07 if not the 3rd.
 
e6600 still kills fx62 intel all the way baby. and waiting will always keep you waiting for the longest time you wait something comes out, then you wait again because you hear something better is 6 months away. just jump in whenever you want, i jumped in with quad slieven though i knew G80 was coming in six months so what stuff always gets outdated
 
Ive started quite a war off here lol. And by the way my "second question" was what i meant at the start. I dont really want to know about performance etc. Only the differences in setting them up :D
 
hitchface said:
I don't know about the Core 2 Duo.

Exactly, You don't know. So I suggest you learn before making such bold claimsl. You've been embarrassed enough in this thread, and I basically threw your entire "AMD has better price/performance" argument out the window in this thread.

Chris_PC said:
Ive started quite a war off here lol. And by the way my "second question" was what i meant at the start. I dont really want to know about performance etc. Only the differences in setting them up :D

Whenever you make an Intel vs. AMD topic, expect a war. And it didn't help that you didn't make your original question clear. In any case, its just one of those things that you don't do on a forum.

As for your question, it was already answered a while ago. There is no difference in setting them up. As long as you get compatible components, everything else should be the same.
 
hitchface is nothing more than a fanboy hwo needs to learn that amd isnt on top anymore.

i keep reading his postts about how amd is a cheaper faster build but he doesnt know what he is talking about a good am2 board is about 150 bucks the same as the ds3 whitch can overclock the 180 buck core 2 to 3.4GHz

i ****ing hate fanboys

AMD HAS LOST RIGHT NOW GET OVER IT DILLHOLE
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom