Curse

Aera · Dec 07, 2007, 02:08 PM // 14:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retribution X

AMD if I'm not going for really high end. Intel if I am.

Intel has a faster processor, but AMD is just better at multitasking.

And AMD's suck at overclocking.

Orly?

That depends on the motherboard as well, and seeing as how AMD is better with temperatures, how are they worse than Intel?

fenix · Dec 08, 2007, 02:36 PM // 14:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aera

Orly?

That depends on the motherboard as well, and seeing as how AMD is better with temperatures, how are they worse than Intel?

The Core2Duo E6600, which most people have, is VERY good for overclocking, and can easily hit 4ghz without too many changes, can be bumped up to 8ghz with a new power supply and better cooling, and has been OC'd to 24ghz by 2 guys in Italy. Also, AMD are worse with temperatures, they explode when the fan stops working...

Lord Sojar · Dec 08, 2007, 03:29 PM // 15:29

This question is so irrelevant anymore.

If your at all informed with the current PC market, you would be foolish to go with AMD in any situation except servers.

Intel's core architecture has proved again and again and again that they just have more money then AMD, and will crush them again and again. I really really wanted AMD to beat Intel, I did. But the truth is, it just isn't going to happen this year or next. 2009, who knows.

AMD is currently there as a buffer. AMD's prices are low, which will keep Intel's prices low as a result. It is bad for AMD, good for the end consumers. But as far as performance goes, Intel is king, at almost every single price point.

Not only that, but Intel's new Hi-K technology coupled with the 45nm die shrink enable them to just keep stomping on AMD. While it is unfortunate to see AMD in this position, it is no fault but their own. They were overconfident, despite their K8 architecture aging so fast. By the time they started R&D for the K10 (which is a great approach, but still a step behind), it was too late. Intel's Core architecture has been dominating AMD since day one of its launch.

I hope the future for AMD is brighter then it has been these last few fiscal quarters, but they need some serious product and a whole new PR approach to accomplish that.

@Fenix.

Intel will never dominate the graphics card field. nVidia is going to bury what hope they had for that happening. nVidia is the most up and coming technology company right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

The Core2Duo E6600, which most people have, is VERY good for overclocking, and can easily hit 4ghz without too many changes, can be bumped up to 8ghz with a new power supply and better cooling, and has been OC'd to 24ghz by 2 guys in Italy. Also, AMD are worse with temperatures, they explode when the fan stops working...

Any processor will cease functionality if the cooling fan stops (and the clock speed is outside passive cooling range)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aera

Orly?

That depends on the motherboard as well, and seeing as how AMD is better with temperatures, how are they worse than Intel?

This argument is irrelevant, considering each processor has a unique thermal envelope to meet, and that difference means that if an Intel runs a little hotter in some scenarios, that was because it was designed that way. The Pentium (aka Netburst) archetype was a poor design, we all know that. Citing their thermal thresholds is silly however, considering we now have Core.

fenix · Dec 09, 2007, 01:40 PM // 13:40

I agree, nVidia is easily the best at the moment, as the new cards have been out-performing ATI, who are the closest competitor. I think Intel will make some good GPU's, but they won't compete with nVidia, because nVidia are just too good. Intel have the money to make good ones, but they will focus on CPU's more, as they have in the past.

As for cooling, the video someone posted on page one (too lazy to check the name at the moment :P) shows that taking off the Cooling fan simply caused the Intel CPUs to stop functioning, whereas the AMD ones started smoking and melted... but yes, it is irrelevant for the most part, as you wouldn't be taking off your cooling fan, and if it does stop working your CPU will do the same regardless. But it is nice to know that it won't melt and burn

C_MON · Dec 10, 2007, 12:09 PM // 12:09

Wow! That video from tom's hardware is almost 10 years old. It's totaly useless to compare todays CPUs with it. Also, if you buy a dual core CPU for around $100 it doesn't matter if it's intel or amd because at that price they give you almost the same performance for the same amount of money. But intel does win if you want a quad core or want to overclock.

Alperuzi · Dec 10, 2007, 12:21 PM // 12:21

2 years ago before Intel's Core CPUs emerged AMD was king, so I got an Athlon X2 3800+

Today I would get an Intel, but AMD Phenom is just beginning to appear on the market so if its cheaper and delivers similar performance to Core Quads, I'd get that.