I know, I know...but i just gotta ask

[melcher88]

I know that I'll probably get a lot of bad replys for this same REPEATITIVE post, but I figured I'd ask for my own sake to get a few last opinions before purchasing parts-

AMD Athlon 64 3200+

or

Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz w/ Hyper Threading

They're both about the same price and I'm trying to build a budget gaming PC. What do you all recommend?

Thanks

 

[Von Theron]

Everyone will tell you for a gaming pc get the Amd 64. Plus its cheaper by like 5 bucks lol

 

[drprince89]

yea amd 64 for gaming no one will beg to differ.

 

[beedubaya]

Nobody at this forum prefers Intel for gaming, in fact if you hang with gamers too much, you'll realize that "Intel" is a dirty word lol.

 

[lazerman]

Once you go amd, well I can't think of a catchy phrase at the moment, but imo, AMD>INTEL.

 

[heavywx]

I have 3 intels (2.8ht, 2.6ht and 2.26) and have no problems with gaming.

 

[lazerman]

Try using an AMD 64 for gaming, you will love it.

 

[ohGrFreak]

I will quote myself from another thread I responed to: "my first AMD was my last AMD" Maybe it was just my chip, an Athalon XP 2400 266FSB, but it was utter poop.

 

[melcher88]

I have a few more questions about the AMD to Intel comparison.
What exactly is the difference between the two. How does being a 64 bit help so much? All I've bought is Intel (i guess due to them owning most of the market), but I'm seriously considering AMD. And if I were to get the Intel with hyperthreading instead of the AMD, how much of a decrease will i see in speed (if any) in not only gaming but in other processes?

Thanks again for all who replied

 

[Nubius]

an Athalon XP 2400 266FSB, but it was utter poop.

besides the horrible mispelling...I have the Athlon XP 2400+ 266FSB in my system right now....have had it for a while and through 2 different mobo's. I've had no problems with it.

I have 3 intels (2.8ht, 2.6ht and 2.26) and have no problems with gaming.

No one said you'd have problems with gaming, we simply say AMD will serve you better for it

And back to the thread owners questions. AMD's do more instructions per clock cycle than Intel, hence why they don't have high numbers in the clockspeed section like Intel. Intel uses 3.4GHz!!! as a marketing strategy basically for those who don't know about AMD, all they would see is an expensive ass 2.4GHz processor and think "what a rip off!". The 64bit is meant to do twice as many instructions, but as of yet there isn't an OS (besides linux I believe) that takes advantage of the 64bit chip and their are no programs out there to fully take advantage of the 64bit chip so I believe it'll be a while before it is the norm. Don't get hung up on a fancy term like 'Hyper-Threading'...once again it's something else that people don't know fully what it is or what it does so it seems like it's a super great option not features anywhere else. I believe it's the Opteron by AMD that has 'Hyper-Threading' like abilities. You wouldn't notice much of a difference. It's all in nanoseconds. Personally I'd get the Socket 939 AMD64, but seeing as how they are expensive as hell....I'd wait until prices go down. You don't need a 64bit chip or the 3.0Ghz 'Hyper-Threading technologically advanced Intel' either to have a bomb machine.

I'd say if you've gone with nothing but Intel then atleast give AMD a try. You'll find that they make some great chips and they are out to make the best CPU's for the customers. Intel is busy marketing and selling their CPU's to people like PeoplePC customers and Dell owners who don't know crap about PC's. AMD seems to take their sh!t serious