Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
whats better AMD or INTEL
demonslyer
Member Posts: 84
in Hardware
what would be a better overall processor to get? a AMD CPU or INTEL? and if u no of any good processors please tell me the name of it
Comments
Intel is going to be the more powerful ones these days but more expensive
AMD has many that are not quite as powerful as Intel ones but they are cheaper.
Really just going to depend on how much you wish to spend.
Here's a convienient link for you:
Intel Quad Core Processors @ Newegg
If the link works as intended then the list will be sorted by lowest price first. That's $185 at the moment for the OEM Q6600 or $190 for the retail. The price jumps noticably from there.
I can't give a similar link for AMD because I have no idea what their latest processor is. Their website, as usual, is uselessly corporate.
Laters
I dont know WHY people suggest buying quad cores, but DON'T BUY THEM!
No games need more than 2 cores. What will you do with a quad(4)core? That processor is designed for office stuff. Making programs run better, faster, etc. Not for gaming.
Well, if you're a photoshop freak and Fruity Loop addict, I'd guess you could go with the quad, but for now..Stay with Intel core 2 duo or AMD 6000
Tell me what you all think of this deal?
www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp
I'd go AMD, but if you want a nice cheap Intel go with the e8400
-Caz
Here's the thing, get a quad core, that will make you prepared for when they do start making games with quad core support. Also its good for if you are running a lot of apps at once like suggested before.
The UT3 engine (thus any game made with UE3) makes use of quad core processors, as does Crysis.
http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/236/Tim-Sweeney-Talks-UT3-Tech
Beyond two cores or hardware threads, UE3 performance continues to scale up, as the additional threads accelerate physics and decompression work. However, not all scenes are performance-bound by such things, so there are diminishing returns as you go beyond 4 cores.
In other words, anything above 4 cores would be wasted on this particular engine, but 4 cores will be happily used. Hopefully one of the titles using UE3 is worth running, unlike UT3 itself...
Crysis is also confirmed to take advantage (and run best) on a quad core processor in a 64bit O/S:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/98121-13-crysis-confirmed-runs-quad-core
What kind of performance difference will we see in Crysis between Single/Dual/Quad/ core processors?
You will see a large performance increase on multi-core processors, especially regarding the worst case frame rates during intense action sequences allowing the player to experience a more stable frame rate through out the whole game. A quad core system should provide the best gaming platform for Crysis.
What technologies, effects, enhancements etc. will we see in Crysis with the use of the multiple core processors?
The most significant enhancement is the increased frame rate but it doesn’t stop there. Multi-core systems benefit from being able to generate much more complex visual particle effects using the additional cores to offload the work from the main game code.
Other titles will or do make use of quad core processors as well.
Not to show ya up, just saying. Quad cores are now supported and this support will only improve from here on out.
edit: More general info: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600_8.html
2nd edit: I just discovered that the Source engine supports quad cores as well, so Half Life 2, Episode 1 & 2, Portal, and Team Fortress 2 all make use of quad core processors. Coolness.
Intel can run a bit faster in some scenarios.... AMD in others.... which ones is more costeffective... I was a believer that it was AMD... but that reality turns into a myth in the last few years....
The simple answer to your question is that Intel are better but AMD are cheaper. As for the quad Vs duo debate. Duo is fine for most games at the moment but the industry is catching up, if you want to be a little bit more future proofed go for quad.
The simple answer to your question is that Intel are better but AMD are cheaper. As for the quad Vs duo debate. Duo is fine for most games at the moment but the industry is catching up, if you want to be a little bit more future proofed go for quad.
If only more of the industry embraced 64bit. I'd suggest Intel if you intend to get a quad core, AMD is great for the price but the phenom was a disappointment; the benchmarks were horrible compared to to intel processors for a little more cost.
Intel will handle 1 program faster, but if your like me and like to multi task a lot amd does that better. Also overall a better deal imo.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Other way around actually
AMD has more pipes but they are long and thin ( excellent for single applications ) Intel has less pipes but they are short and fat ( better for multi-tasking )/
Heres you an article to look at to help you determine the differences between dual core and quad cores in games. This also includes AMDs phenom
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/1
Cedd