which processor (AMD/Intel) do you think is better for playing games? i am going to build a computer for gaming only and i wanted to know which you guys thought would be better. i heard that AMD processors were better for games.

Do a scearch here on AMD VS Intel.

I assure you results will be plentyful. We currently have an active thread on this disscussion.

ok. sorry for posting this again. admin can delete this if they want.

Trying not to bring the dead again but Intel has the slightest performance advantage over AMD now.

Neither of them are better for games; it's just a matter of preference. I kinda was obsessed with AMD for awhile and now I am going to run an Intel rig just because I feel like it. A lot of Intel boards have some nice features not seen on AMD boards, like Intel OTES cooling for MOSFETs.

AMD IS THE WINNER

I tell u man.Always go for AMD if u are a serious Gamer.
Actually the AMD has its built in 3d NOW Technology which simply blows away the INTEL SSE2 technology.I have seen many gaming cafes that were fed up by the performance of intel pcs and they switched to AMD.I also studied a lot of reviews and comparisons before buying my pc.And finally got the soultion:

AMD IS THE BEST FOR GAMING

And for Video card always Prefer ATI (Believe me)

^^^That's fanboy-tastical!^^^

i dont like ATI =) Nvidia is my choice. i think i might go with an AMD tho depends on what i can overclock

Re: AMD IS THE WINNER

How do you back up those statements? Because a PC place switched to AMD, all of a sudden it's better and the world dominator?

They could have switched for several reasons, 2 major being:
1) Needed new computers.
2) AMD is CHEAPER than Intel.

and video card wise, a new conflic arises... ATi vs nVidia:
They both manufacture good cards but just because one of them is at the top for the moment doesn't mean that one of them is better for good. Just like nVidia made it's comeback with the GeForce FX 5900 ultra.

I would love to hear an explanation of the new technologies that AMD has came out with and if they apply to the 32 bit architecture. If you speak of opteron, hammer, or other 64's, yes you may be correct but you blow money on that stuff. 64 wont be mainstream for a couple years so why bother blowing an extra $1,000 on a system that isn't even very necessary for the most computing now.

2.4c and 2.6c are great overclockers, easily achieving 250mhz fsb. so they o/c to 3.0 and 3.25 respectively. and because of the 250mhz bus, it can handle more bandwith. MSI 848P mobo has been pushed to 300mhz bus and 350 if you can find an unlocked engineering sample. if you want dual channel ddr, the Abit IS-7 is a good choice. add in some sticks of pc4000 ram and you got urself a killer system

thanks for the help. here is what im going to go with.

intel 2.4 or 2.6 (800fsb) oc'ed to 3 ghz/ or just the 3ghz 800 fsb
gigabyte mb
kingston hyper x ddr 3200
nvidia fx 5600 ultra 256mb
S ATA 80 gb HD

sound good?

I've overclocked my AMD all the way up to 3.2GHz (not Intel speed rating).
2.2Ghz = 3200+
3.2GHz = 4xxx+

I wont leave it all the way up to the 4000's cuz it's extremely high for conventional air cooling. Right now it's a 2.5GHz, a good and steady level with conventional cooling.