Who said the Intel can't beat AMD in gaming?

[waynejkruse10]

yeah, i still need to say something along the lines of this to my friends/people asking about my cpu:

Person: Whats your cpu?

Me: Athlon XP 2200

Person: An Intel Athlon XP 2200?

Me: (sock horror!) No, a AMD Athlon XP 2200+

Person: So, that means it runs at 2.2ghz

Me: No, it runs at 1.8ghz, overclocked to 2.0

Person: Haha, that sucks, its only runs at 2.0, my p4 runs at 2.4

Me: (Thinks to self) I cant be bothered to explain that my Processor's Multimedia and Arithmetic benchmarks smash a P4 2.4B, even it beats 2.8B (just)

Wayne

 

[DJ-CHRIS]

I know how you feel.

EDIT: Most of the time i dont do PC comparaing, because it used to make my PC look bad, and now i just feel sorry for everyone.

 

[pcspecialist]

Hrm..let's see...If you ask any PC gamer if they would choose either AMd or Intel, i promise you 95% of them would say AMD because it owns Intel in gaming. Plus, AMD overclocks a lot higher than Intel. Just look at the XP 2500+ Barton core. It can overclock to 2.2GHz, and probably even higher. That 2.2 GHz is an XP3200+, which i currently have. But all in all, AMD is superior to Intel. No questions asked.

 

[DJ-CHRIS]

Actually I believe intel overclocks more.

Sure you can get a new SKT 939 AMD to 2.6ghz and the mobiles up around that too. After that speed, usually they become unstable and nothing can help it.

Intel's, you can raise much higher much easier as long as you can handle th heat. In many cases, you need liquid nitrogen though

 

[waynejkruse10]

i dont think its unstable at those temps, ask nubius

 

[CntdwnToExtn]

this is almost as bad as megadeth vs metallica....wow....

 

[Nubius]

Hrm..let's see...If you ask any PC gamer if they would choose either AMd or Intel, i promise you 95% of them would say AMD because it owns Intel in gaming. Plus, AMD overclocks a lot higher than Intel. Just look at the XP 2500+ Barton core. It can overclock to 2.2GHz, and probably even higher. That 2.2 GHz is an XP3200+, which i currently have. But all in all, AMD is superior to Intel. No questions asked.

Intels generally OC more...they have to..a 200MHz OC for an AMD would be like a 400MHz OC for an intel. They have those fatter longer pipelines so they allow for a lot higher MHz OC's but it seems like it's 'empty clockspeed' to me. You gotta OC an Intel quite a bit before you notice a difference whereas AMD you get 500MHz increase and you notice a nice boost.

Sure you can get a new SKT 939 AMD to 2.6ghz and the mobiles up around that too. After that speed, usually they become unstable and nothing can help it.

I got screenshot of it at 2.7GHz completely stable and benched in Sandra. Gives a 3.8GHz a run for it's money in the arithmatic and a 3.4GHz in the multimedia. Temps were fine too.

2.8GHz I could get to boot, but nowhere near stable, even maxed out my boards Vcore trying to get it stable with 2.225vcore. Temps were still below 50C

If I had phase change no doubt 3GHz would be cake

EDIT: Oh yeah, and I've seen articles on the 3500+ winchester and newcastle hitting 2.7GHz on air. The newcastle barely hit 2.7GHz while the winchester hit almost 2.8GHz

 

[FoxyLoxy]

wow, its like a ton of broken records in here

I hear ya, but its psychology, if you get a group of people in a room who agree on something, they discuss it, they WILL leave more convinced of that thing. Not that I disagree about AMD vs... whatever, but its a lot of the same.