Intel or Amd - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > New Systems | Building and Buying
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 09-27-2005, 05:24 AM   #1 (permalink)
Fig
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 52
Default Intel or Amd

Intel Pentium Processor Extreme Edition 840 w/ HT 3.2GHz 800MHz FSB - Dual Core
or
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 with HyperTransport Technology

on the alienware site it says that the amd cpu listed above is the "The Ultimate Gaming CPU!" but the amd system is cheaper then the intel.


and if anyone has some info on the sli video cards, all i can seem to find is nvidia, I have always preferred ati. is there any word on sli compatible ati cards?
__________________

Fig is offline  
Old 09-27-2005, 05:32 AM   #2 (permalink)
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 83
Default

It is a tough one but I like AMD duel core systems (can't renember if they have em yet :S)more then Intel but I have not built many systems
__________________

Hawk is offline  
Old 09-27-2005, 06:55 AM   #3 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
PZEROFGH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,553
Send a message via AIM to PZEROFGH
Default

get the AMD X2 processors

ati does not yet have sliable cards or their crossfire
__________________
Hmmm?
AIM/Xfire - pzerofgh
PZEROFGH is offline  
Old 09-27-2005, 06:56 AM   #4 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
PZEROFGH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,553
Send a message via AIM to PZEROFGH
Default

get the AMD X2 processors

fx are not dual core
__________________
Hmmm?
AIM/Xfire - pzerofgh
PZEROFGH is offline  
Old 09-27-2005, 06:57 AM   #5 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, WY, USA
Posts: 226
Default

Ok Yes AMD is cheaper, this is well known. With AMD you get more bang for your buck just because they are cheaper, and many people here, including myself, prefer AMD. I would stick with AMD even if they werent cheaper, thats just a nice bonus. And AMD is also supposed to be better in gaming then Intel, I read the reason once but cant remember the specifics. If you want a more future proof processor you could get an AMD X2 (dual core). In my opinion the FX series is a little too expensive. And if you plan to overclock they arent really worth all the extra money because you can overclock a regular San Diego or Venice to FX speeds pretty easy I beleive. Overall I would say get an X2, I think the most expensive X2 is still cheaper then the FX-57.

And SLI... SLI is just a nVidia thing, ATI has Crossfire but Im not sure if thats really hit the market yet, I think it has but I havnt been hearing much about it. Either way, ATIs crossfire looks like it will be much better then nVidia's stupid SLI. SLI is a big waste of money, so unless you just have money falling out of your pockets then dont get SLI, just get one GOOD card like a 6800GT/ULTRA or a 7800 and dont waste the money on another card just to get like 5% more performance. I know your thinking "well if its two graphics cards, it must DOUBLE the performance right?" Well it dosnt. And the funny part is, the only time you even USE the second card is in a game that actually supports SLI. So many times your better off just having one good card thats supported everywhere instead having two mediocre cards that you think are giving you a big boost in performance when your really losing out every time you play a non-sli game.
Tro1086 is offline  
Old 09-27-2005, 07:16 AM   #6 (permalink)
Fig
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 52
Default

The game im building around is cod2 which has an option for dual cards, so would there be a big improvement with this game?
Fig is offline  
Old 09-27-2005, 07:26 AM   #7 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, WY, USA
Posts: 226
Default

No, even games that support SLI dont see an improvment big enough to make it worth the money of a second card. If you have the money to spend on SLI, just get a 7800GTX, that still cheaper. SLI is a rip off.

Dont waste so much money on two graphics cards when you know there gona get outdated and your going to have to buy a new card down the road anyway. When DirectX 10 comes out all our DirectX 9 cards will be old news and youll need a DX10 card to play games to there fullest potential. So spending 600-800 dollars on graphics cards right now is just stupid. If technology didnt keep progressing and you could just keep whatever you buy now forever, then sure buy two 7800GTX's and SLI them, but its just a waste when there gona be outdated in the not so distant future, then you just have 800 dollars worth of graphics cards sitting in computer parts junk box in your basement, and noone will want to buy them cuz there outdated, so... BIG WASTE OF MONEY.
Tro1086 is offline  
Old 09-27-2005, 07:48 AM   #8 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,013
Send a message via AIM to DJ-CHRIS
Default

AMD is far better for gaming.

Right now games are only single core, making the FX-57 the best. However the X2 4800+ is slightly slower, but is two processors in one, so when games support multiple cores (FEAR will on october 18th) we will be set.
DJ-CHRIS is offline  
Old 09-27-2005, 07:12 PM   #9 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,289
Send a message via AIM to timmer
Default

wow are u seriuos FEAR is gonna support dual core thats sweet.go dual core it really doesnt matter just get a extrame edition or a x2 there both great. i personaly am a intel fan but everyone else here likes amd as u can se but i like a intel
__________________
Intel p4 HT 3.0GHz
1 16x Toshiba dvd burner
2 sticks of corsair ddr2 533mhz 512mb
GeForce Fx 6600GT
Asus P5LD2
HD AUDIO
480W thermaltake
timmer is offline  
Old 09-27-2005, 07:22 PM   #10 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,327
Send a message via AIM to Flanker
Default

EDIT: I noticed that this post has all my CPU knowledge in it, lol.

You're lucky. I have recent benchmark scores for both processors. I'll post them later.

The EE 840 isn't a bad processor at all. Infact, with HT, it can handle 4 threads at a time. But that won't help you very much with gamimg at all for 2 reasons. One: Its a Pentium 4-based processor. Inherently, Pentium 4s aern't as good as AMD Processors during 90% of tasks which include gaming. Two: Its a dual core processor. No game currently supports Dual Core processors. However, when games with Dual Core support come out you'll benefit. You still suffer from it being a Pentium 4 though.

As for the FX-57; Its your best bet in the world for a gaming processor. There is no Intel Processor that can match the FX-57 when they're both at stock speeds. Even if a processor could match it in normal tasks, AMD processors excel in gaming because of their shorter pipelines, so the FX-57 is hands-down the best processor for gaming right now.

AMD's Dual Core processors, the Athlon 64 X2s, are better than Intel's Dual Core processors even at tasks that single-core Intel processors are better than AMD processors at (Did I lose you? Basically there is no way the Dual Core Intels can outperform Dual Core AMDs). This is because the 2 cores in the X2s can talk to eachother much faster than the 2 Intel cores can. The difference is something like, the Intel cores have to communicate over 12 inches while the AMD cores are right next to eachother and have to communicate over maybe a millimeter or less. Ofcourse thats not the exact difference, but its a pretty good example. ALSO, the X2s aeren't as starved for memory bandwidth as the Pentium-Ds and EE840 are.

If you're building a future-proof computer, or a computer that will last a long long time, you should get a Athlon 64 4800+. It has 2, 2.4Ghz processors and it costs somewhere around $880. Since Dual Core games will most likely come out in the next couple of years, you'll want to have a Dual Core processor on hand.

So, all in a nutshell; Go for AMD for gaming and get either a FX-57 for today's games, or get an X2 4800+ for future games (it will also run present games magnificently, even with only one core being utilized. It'll be like a Athlon 64 4000+).

Sidenote: If you're good at overclocking, you don't need to buy those processors. You could buy a FX-55 ($800-something) and overclock it .2 Ghz and make it a FX-57. You could even buy a Athlon 64 3700+ ($260) and overclock it .6 Ghz (not too hard) and turn that into a FX-57. There will be no difference between the FX-57 @ 2.8Ghz and the 3700+ @ 2.8Ghz except that the FX-57 will have unlocked multipliers.

Same goes for Dual Cores; You could buy a slower X2 processor and overclock it to 4800+ speeds. Watch out for the L2 cache though, you want the 1MB L2 cache versions.

Thats only if you're good at overclocking though. If you're not, don't bother.
__________________

Flanker is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.