Curse

Teh Diablo · May 14, 2006, 05:07 AM // 05:07

I'm trying to decide if I should go with an Intel Processor or AMD Processor.

What do you guys think?

lord_shar · May 14, 2006, 05:45 AM // 05:45

Very loaded question lol!

For desktop gaming and future expandability, AMD's 64-bit processors are the safer bet.

For laptops, Intel Pentium-M's/Core Duo's are usually better when it comes to uptime and power management.

Suggestion: Wait for the new intel Conroe cores coming around ~July. Once you see what that chip has to offer, then decide between the two.

Lurid · May 14, 2006, 07:15 AM // 07:15

Similar ideas here aswell....

Desktop Gaming - AMD's preferably dual core, for future use.
Laptop - Pentium M

If your willing to adopt first gen of something, which can be like opening pandora's box in some instances, then Conroe first gen or AM2 first gen may be for you. It also depends on budget and whether or not you'll be overclocking when decisions come into mind....

Overclocking Dual Core = AMD Opteron 165
Non-Overclocking Dual Core = AMD X2 3800+

Overclocking Single Core = AMD Opteron 144 or 146
Non-Overclocking Single Core = AMD Athlon 64 3200+

If your not overclocking, or really in any instance, don't bother with anything higher than the X2 3800+. If you really feel as though the cache size is justified by the prices, then go with an Opteron 165 in both instances.

Teh Diablo · May 14, 2006, 07:40 AM // 07:40

I come to find that AMD alot more expensive, which isnt good. And I'm not a hardcore gamer, so it wouldnt be that best to go with AMD? I really only play GW and DoD:S, some CS:S and HL2 here and there.

Kahpnar Balsys · May 14, 2006, 07:46 AM // 07:46

Why do you need to update if your current system runs the games you want?

Matsumi · May 14, 2006, 07:51 AM // 07:51

I've usually stuck with AMD processors for a long time now for various reasons.

Teh Diablo · May 14, 2006, 07:57 AM // 07:57

They dont, cause my dell has like pooped out on me, and I'm tired of all the problems with it cause its 1 thing after the other ever since this 1 problem started. So I'm gonna build my own computer.

prencher · May 14, 2006, 08:00 AM // 08:00

Conroe isn't coming until september, not july.

You'll definitely want to get a dual core with 64bits if you upgrade though. At the moment that means an AMD64 X2 or an opteron.

Seef II · May 14, 2006, 09:34 AM // 09:34

Conroe will be released in July. That means Dell and HP and the OEMs will get it. Retail box availability is unknown, but if Intel doesn't want an egg in their face they'll have it in July.

Right now, I suggest AMD, though AM2 is coming in about 2 weeks. Pentium D 950's not at a bad price at all right now either.

prencher · May 14, 2006, 09:56 AM // 09:56

That must've been a change of mind recently then.. All I've read has said september for conroe.

Chris1986 · May 14, 2006, 10:32 AM // 10:32

AMD has ruled the gaming chip scene for the past ~2 years and counting.

So, yes AMD..

I'll be picking up the X2 3800+ shortly.

TB_ · May 14, 2006, 11:34 AM // 11:34

With the current benches of the new AMD stuff being so way below par id wait till the Core 2 chips are out and then choose. Especialy as youll want the latest tech to go with vistas APIs and such.

Cybergasm · May 14, 2006, 03:42 PM // 15:42

AMD's are useful for far more things then just gaming, especially when compared to the Intel. I'm sure you've all heard the following explanation flogged to death; while Intel focuses mainly on creating steroid induced GHz numbers, AMD's focus is the way it deals with threads sent down from the top of the architecture chain.

If you've ever looked at schematics for a new AMD X2, you'll see the care they have placed in working with the various commands it has to work with. Here is a nice illustration;
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Ha...x2-4200/2.html

So while, in theory, Intel can deal with commands faster, AMD does it in a more organized fashion. So while Intel chips can get bogged down with hundreds of commands, AMD's usually can't. I hope that helps a little, and that I explained it correctly.

This capability makes it the top choice in all program developing, ripping, burning, website development, etc...

To your question;
I would say go with a current Gen. AMD dual-core. The next-gen. ones will be so expensive, its not worth the wait. I also doubt you'll need all that power. I actually doubt you'll even need a dual-core, however, its something I always recommend due to the arriving advent of dual-core programing, as well as the fact that it kicks ass, even if you don't ultra-task 24/7.

It does stay that for laptops Intel is king.

EDIT:
TB, can you elaborate on how AMD's are below par?

Lurid · May 14, 2006, 04:12 PM // 16:12

Quote:

I come to find that AMD alot more expensive

No, usually AMD is less expensive. By a fair margin.

Quote:

With the current benches of the new AMD stuff being so way below par

Quote:

TB, can you elaborate on how AMD's are below par?

He's talking about how AM2 vs Conroe, AM2 is getting stomped. Which seems to be quite true. Though I can't reccomend just jumping on the new tech bandwagon. As there are alot of issues most do not consider until they've plopped down their money for something that barely works. Not to mention how much money first gen adopters have to shell out X_x

Loviatar · May 14, 2006, 04:18 PM // 16:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teh Diablo

I come to find that AMD alot more expensive, which isnt good. And I'm not a hardcore gamer, so it wouldnt be that best to go with AMD? I really only play GW and DoD:S, some CS:S and HL2 here and there.

i have found AMD to be much cheaper for the same level of performance which is not necessarily the same clock speed.

Cybergasm · May 14, 2006, 04:25 PM // 16:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurid

He's talking about how AM2 vs Conroe, AM2 is getting stomped. Which seems to be quite true. Though I can't reccomend just jumping on the new tech bandwagon. As there are alot of issues most do not consider until they've plopped down their money for something that barely works. Not to mention how much money first gen adopters have to shell out X_x

So true - its like being the first to recieve a vaccine for a potentially deadly virus.

The thing about AMD is that they are really slow workers, which is why they beat out Intel this generation. Intel finished their dual-cores in six-months to have them on the market, while AMD spent about 2 years (correct me if im wrong here) on theirs. One could also interpret this as the sole reason AMD was better this generation, and now that Intel has had time they're kicking but.

Either way, I find AMD's benchmarks have always sucked comparative to Intel, but real life performance always seems to be better. When buying processors I preffer to listen to user reviews then look at numbers. Of course, I run the risk of the user being a moron

Teh Diablo · May 14, 2006, 09:16 PM // 21:16

Every dual core amd processor ive seen is $300+ :/

Teh Diablo · May 14, 2006, 09:41 PM // 21:41

Here's a processor I picked out. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103539

Here's a mob I picked out.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103539

But I'm deciding on a nvidia sli or ati crossfire. I like ati and all but people say nvidia is better and more expensive.

Lurid · May 14, 2006, 11:04 PM // 23:04

Yes, every AMD dual core is indeed $300+. Though they're quite worth it, as they spank the same priced or lower priced Intel dual cores, draw less energy, produce less energy, etc....

Don't go with a single core CPU, if you do then get either a 3200+ or an Opteron 144, as the extra cache for a normal user is nowhere near justified, when compared to the performance it offers vs price. ATI is fine, nVidia is fine. They just like Intel vs AMD have their ups and downs, one wins one day the other the next. IMO the best cards out right now for normal users are:

6800GS - $200
X800GTO2 - $200
X1800XT - $300
7900GT - $300

Crossfire and SLI are completely overhyped, the only real way its justified is when your gaming on extremely high resolution screens that are larger than most televisions. Whatever you do, do not go SLI or Crossfire with two cheaper less powerful cards in order to "improve performance" because the price of the two cards are more than a better GPU, and the better GPU will spank the two shitty cards.

Btw, that link is to two 3700+, not a single one and a mobo. I suggest you also read my PSU guide, not to force it on you or anything, but it seems like a good idea as most overlook the PSU. Which is arguably the most important piece of a system.

Cybergasm · May 14, 2006, 11:42 PM // 23:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurid

Btw, that link is to two 3700+, not a single one and a mobo. I suggest you also read my PSU guide, not to force it on you or anything, but it seems like a good idea as most overlook the PSU. Which is arguably the most important piece of a system.

Who'd argue that? It's like saying the engine is less important then the battery... people have died because their batteries died in the middle of rush hour highway traffic, yet they still had the engine. Yes, a morbid example, but its the most clever thing I can think of now