keneso
asked on
AMD vs Intel
I need a fast comparison, and if AMD is good for gaming; given equal speed, of course.
Thanks
Thanks
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Callandor
From previous discussions, Athlons and Durons are better performance and value up to 2.4GHz. The Intels with 800 FSB get better at that point up to the new 64-bit processors. Things are up in the air at that point, with AMD and Intel trying to outdo each other every month.
Okay, here's the quick explanation. (well...quick by my standards).
The AMD chips run on better architecture, this is their strength. They lack in Clockspeed. That's why the Athlon XP processors have everything in performance numbers, such as 3000+ etc when they really mean 2. something GHz. They have an FSB around 333 or 400 depending on what the chip is and the mobo. The durons...well...let's stay away from the durons =). This is something they call quadspeed architecture, I don't want to go into that but basically they pipeline better and solve problems a bit faster.
I personally perfer the Athlons
1) price
2) On my benchmarks (ie, whether the games lag or not on two similar machines with the CPU being the difference) I've seen the Athlon XPs beat the P4s.
3)price
For the Intels, well, the P4 HTs with 800MHz FSB are pretty damn good, problem, price. Also, a lot of machines won't use that FSB for the whole way depending on the chipset (I remember a certain VIA chipset screwing up...at least I think it was VIA).
My reccomendations for a gaming CPU?
Well...if you have the money...the Intel P4:with Hyper Threading EE (extreme edition) would be sweet, the thing has 2MB L2 cache (huge).
Otherwise I'd go with the Athlon 3200+, it's a good price
http://www.pricewatch.com
and there are some awesome boards for it, I like the ASUS boards meself.
As for the 64-bit chips? well..chip (AMD 64), I would hold off. the big advantage is a 1600MHz FSB, but they won't become completely useful (and the price won't drop) until a 64-bit version of windows comes out (pretty soon apparently, a beta is almost ready).
Final verdict: Athlon 3200+
The AMD chips run on better architecture, this is their strength. They lack in Clockspeed. That's why the Athlon XP processors have everything in performance numbers, such as 3000+ etc when they really mean 2. something GHz. They have an FSB around 333 or 400 depending on what the chip is and the mobo. The durons...well...let's stay away from the durons =). This is something they call quadspeed architecture, I don't want to go into that but basically they pipeline better and solve problems a bit faster.
I personally perfer the Athlons
1) price
2) On my benchmarks (ie, whether the games lag or not on two similar machines with the CPU being the difference) I've seen the Athlon XPs beat the P4s.
3)price
For the Intels, well, the P4 HTs with 800MHz FSB are pretty damn good, problem, price. Also, a lot of machines won't use that FSB for the whole way depending on the chipset (I remember a certain VIA chipset screwing up...at least I think it was VIA).
My reccomendations for a gaming CPU?
Well...if you have the money...the Intel P4:with Hyper Threading EE (extreme edition) would be sweet, the thing has 2MB L2 cache (huge).
Otherwise I'd go with the Athlon 3200+, it's a good price
http://www.pricewatch.com
and there are some awesome boards for it, I like the ASUS boards meself.
As for the 64-bit chips? well..chip (AMD 64), I would hold off. the big advantage is a 1600MHz FSB, but they won't become completely useful (and the price won't drop) until a 64-bit version of windows comes out (pretty soon apparently, a beta is almost ready).
Final verdict: Athlon 3200+
amd=fast and tend to overheat more then intel
intel=stability
p.s. i like more AMD for gaming and it's more hot then intel but with proper cooling, it my best choice.
intel=stability
p.s. i like more AMD for gaming and it's more hot then intel but with proper cooling, it my best choice.
ASKER
>>Now what?
It's better the GeForce, or Radeon?
Just kidding ;)
Thank you both.
Phoenix92x,
Please take a look here.
I went on to read Callandor's first link, came back accepted the comment, and saw the rest.
I was temted to wait for AlbertaBeef to give him the points, but what the heck Callandor's timing was good ;)
It's better the GeForce, or Radeon?
Just kidding ;)
Thank you both.
Phoenix92x,
Please take a look here.
I went on to read Callandor's first link, came back accepted the comment, and saw the rest.
I was temted to wait for AlbertaBeef to give him the points, but what the heck Callandor's timing was good ;)
ASKER
Phoenix92x,
sorry, forgot the link
http://oldlook.experts-exchange.com/questions/20937363/For-Phoenix92x-and-Francois-IT.html
Francois_IT,
you too please go to
http://oldlook.experts-exchange.com/questions/20937363/For-Phoenix92x-and-Francois-IT.html
sorry, forgot the link
http://oldlook.experts-exchange.com/questions/20937363/For-Phoenix92x-and-Francois-IT.html
Francois_IT,
you too please go to
http://oldlook.experts-exchange.com/questions/20937363/For-Phoenix92x-and-Francois-IT.html