Intel for gaming?

Namrac

· #3 · Feb 21, 2006

AMD CPUs are much better for gaming than intels.

Save

Mr. Mumbles

· #4 · Feb 21, 2006

AMD's have superior gaming performance, although the margin is fairly smalls, its still a noticable lead.

Save

Crimson_Blade

· #5 · Feb 21, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpardaHK

I would say Intel is more for Media, AMD is better at gaming.

-Sparda

why do u say so?;
isnt intel's HT technology suppose to make games run like a charm?

p.s. As far as i know (i could be wrong), I dont see AMD with any special features that are integrated within their products
_____________________________________

Save

cmass

Discussion Starter · #6 · Feb 21, 2006

yes, yes, yes, I know AMD is better for gaiming, but for example, I cant play BF2 because my Athlon is 1.4Ghz, but it has the preformance of a 1.7Ghz (XP 1700+) and the game doesnt reconize that! so if I get a Athlon 64 3500+ (2.2 ghz), ill have to upgrade in a year because the requirements for a future game is 2.5 Ghz. So, ya, the only reason I was looking at Intel was because of this.

Save

S

sccr64472

· #7 · Feb 21, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmass

yes, yes, yes, I know AMD is better for gaiming, but for example, I cant play BF2 because my Athlon is 1.4Ghz, but it has the preformance of a 1.7Ghz (XP 1700+) and the game doesnt reconize that! so if I get a Athlon 64 3500+ (2.2 ghz), ill have to upgrade in a year because the requirements for a future game is 2.5 Ghz. So, ya, the only reason I was looking at Intel was because of this.

Your information is incorrect. A game's specifications isn't dependent upon processor speed, it's merely a guide as to what you should have. If it suggest an Intel 1.7 ghz, your processor will work just as good. (slightly better,in fact)

Save

ckp64

· #8 · Feb 21, 2006

Gaming performance is dependent on GPU more than anything else.

Save

Mr. Mumbles

· #9 · Feb 21, 2006

Go by AMD's model number, a 3500+ is roughly equavalent to an intel p4 at 3.5GHz.

Save

SpardaHK

· #10 · Feb 21, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by sccr64472

Compare the latest processors from both companies and explain to me how Intel is for media.

Im talking about how you see Intel used more for things like Media like 3dmax, photoshop, etc... As with Mac why do you think Intel moved in with Mac, well the money but yeah lol. I mean you can use AMD for media but not as fast as a Intel would. Its just how it feels for me and how i look at the world of Intel CPU's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ckp64

Gaming performance is dependent on GPU more than anything else.

Not as much as you would think. I mean yeah the GPU does alot of the work with gaming but with out the CPU what are you going to do, also where do you think the GPU will be running with the CPU and with a CPU (like AMD) you can see why you would want that CPU than some thing else game's run better in my eyes with AMD. I have used both AMD and Intel so you dont think im some AMD Fanboy.

-Sparda

Save

Strider_2001

· #11 · Feb 21, 2006

Intels will run games like a charm..I have a P4 3.0 GHZ and a 6800GT GPU and run games smooth as a babys bottom....However a comparable AMD 3000+ chip is just ahead of the P4...Just because a company is bigger does not make it better or in the lead...

Save

Crimson_Blade

· #12 · Feb 21, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strider_2001
Intels will run games like a charm..I have a P4 3.0 GHZ and a 6800GT GPU and run games smooth as a babys bottom.... However a comparable AMD 3000+ chip is just ahead of the P4. ..Just because a company is bigger does not make it better or in the lead...

the first bit sorta contradicts to the 2nd part (shown in bold);
and you didnt exactly explain "How" and/or "why"?

Save

Namrac

· #13 · Feb 21, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimson_Blade
the first bit sorta contradicts to the 2nd part (shown in bold);
and you didnt exactly explain "How" and "why"?

He was saying that intels run games just fine, but a comparable AMD model runs it a little bit better.

Save

kn00tcn

· #14 · Feb 21, 2006

2.3ghz P4 - 34fps average HL2bench
2.4ghz AMD - 49fps average HL2bench

plz....

sure mobo & FSB changed so... original test with closer to original fsb, 1.6ghz amd STILL beat the p4 at 2.3ghz by a few fps

4

Save

Strider_2001

· #15 · Feb 21, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimson_Blade
the first bit sorta contradicts to the 2nd part (shown in bold);
and you didnt exactly explain "How" and "why"?

Is what I am saying is my Intel P4 3.0GHZ and 6800GT will run any game you throw at it just fine...

However if I had an AMD 3000+ CPU (Which is comparable to the Intel P4 3.0GHZ) with the same 6800GT GPU then the AMD would bench slightly better and run that game slightly better.

People sometimes get to caught up in the numbers game of the speed of the CPU...Why do you think intel went for such high cpu speeds...

Say you got the adverage Joe that does not know crap about crap and he wants to buy a new machine...
He then sees a P4 3.0 machine and right next to is is an AMD 3000+ running at say 2.2 GHZ....They are the same price so Adverage Joe is going to be like sweet Im gonna get the P4 because the speed is higher so it performs better...NOPE...it would have been smarter to get the AMD 3000+...

But that is how the market works...It targets impulse buyers that dont know much of what they are doing and dont think the salesman is going to help you out because all he wants is his commision check.

Save

pablo420

· #16 · Feb 21, 2006

I'm happy with my 2.8 64 Bit CPU @ 3.2

2

Save

A

aweir

· #17 · Feb 21, 2006

The major advantage of AMD is having its integrated L2 cache and its on-die memory controler. This enables AMD to be better at accessing ram without the need for rediculously large amounts of L2 cache. There is less latency with the cpu/ram communication...which makes it better for gaming.

Save

Strider_2001

· #18 · Feb 21, 2006

that and it does 9 ops per cycle instead of 6 which is the cause to be able to run at lower clock speeds and produces less heat

Save

Jori

· #19 · Feb 21, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6600Gt1047
If you want intel, i would save up for a presler and overclock it to 3.2

Wow.. that would be pointless. A pentium 4 at 3.2 is slow, dual core or not dual core lol..

But yeah about that media thing... Comparing fastest processors to fastest processors, AMD wins overall in multimedia, and gaming.

But I would recomend getting a AMD, they overclock very good for cheap, and will turn out to be more than enough for anything.

Save

Ropey

· #20 · Feb 23, 2006

I have not had a processor (AMD or Intel) on stock since the days of the 386 so I can't really speak of the Intel 3.2 @ 3.2.

I can however speak of the Intel 3.0 over clocked to 4.0 and married to an X800Pro flashed to X800 XT PE @ 460/1220. There is not a game that I can't play and play well with that machine. My sig is my gaming machine but sometimes I still get on the server (Intel reboots less often for me on 24/7) and play Quake4/F.E.A.R. and I have no problem with those games. I built my sig machine so that I could lie on my back and play on my 40" LCD rather than sit close to a 19" one and to play these games in 1600 X 1200 or 1280 X 1024 the box needed more GPU oomph than the X800.

Benchmarks on 3D give AMD the lead and it is a fair lead over the P4 but in real life it is quite hard to tell the difference. I say that if I hooked the X800 to the 40" screen and tried to run Quake4 in high res with full eye-candy (or F.E.A.R.) there is a difference but how many people use 40" screens? The final result, if the box plays the games you play with acceptable eye candy (to you) and liquid frame rates then it is fine and numbers don't matter at all.

That being said, if one ran in 1024 X 768 with a X1900XT or 7800GTX I don't think there would be a huge discrepancy between the new AMD or Intel.

R

Save