Intel or Amd?

On another note, intel is releasing Penryn or w/e it is called later this year on a 45NM process, and It will be more overclockable and use less volts because of some new high metal K+ or something gate.

Yeah

But you do have to agree with my last post right ? Come on there is no real reason to argue except for what I stated.

I never once said i don't like intel. When it comes down to it no matter what i say the core 2 duo is and will be the most fastest cpu for desktops at this present time.

But as JimShady23 stated

Is what ive been trying to say. Intel will be ahead of AMD bout 1-2 years than AMD will bring out an even faster CPU that will be ahead of intel for 1-2 years, and than intel will take the lead again, and it will always continue to be like this. Just because core 2 duo is a lot better than amd64's doesnt mean AMD is finished. When the AMD64's where released they gained a lot more performance over pentium4 cpu's than what core 2 duo's do over the AMD's 64 but intel managed to stand there grounds.

I'm patient, i am willing to wait for the r600's and the new torrenza to come out so i can see what they a truly like.

But like i also stated, im not against intel. I just dont like it when people speak rubbish about something they dont even know, or if they do they show no signs of backing it up.

I like both companies. For a hardcore gaming rig go with the Core 2 Duo, for a mid range system go with AMD because of lower prices.

Or you can simply just go a for mid range cpu like AMD and get fast graphics card and lots of ram. Even the mid range cpu's can handle the fastest of graphics card. There is no need to get a core 2 duo to obtain over 100fps its worthless and a waste of money as you will not tell the difference between a mid range cpu obtaining 60+ fps and a core 2 duo obtaining 100+fps.

As for overclocking, there is no need for it. My m8 has an AMD64 3700+ non-overclocked with a 7900gt and he can get 50+ fps on ghost recon advanced warfighter with max graphic settings. My X2 5000+ is a lot better so ill be able to get around 60+ and thats all you need. Whether or not AMD does bring out a faster cpu than core 2 duo i wont be getting it for some time. I've seen X2 5000+ overclocked to over 3.6GHz which is very fast in my opinion.

It doesn't really matter between AMD or Intel. Intel is better ATM, but in a way they sort of deserve to be because they got slapped around by AMD for 2 years before now. But you never know what the future will hold.

This article says that Barcelona will be 40% faster than Clovertown, however it also reminds us that Intel said that Woodcrest would beat AMD's chips by 40%. So you never know.

As for the never ending 60FPS vs 100FPS debate, my personal opinion is that there is a difference. In one given second, if 60 frames are shown vs 100 in that same second on a different computer, there is not really a noticeable difference.

But if your AVERAGE FPS in a benchmark or game is 60FPS vs AVERAGE of 100 for another system on the same benchmark or game, the system that got 100FPS average would be better because it would have fewer "lows" or times when the FPS dropped low.

So assuming every single second in the test was NOT 60FPS, but the average WAS 60FPS, vs another system with an average of 100 FPS, the other system would obviously be preferable, and would offer a better game play experience.

Sorry for the somewhat badly worded post :stickout:

Good point MetalX; the human eye cannot see past 60FPS, so when you see that person who says they can see the differece, they are lying, or seeing things. That's why I don't care as long as my computer it getting 60fps

I never said there was a difference, i was telling you that its pointless to get a cpu that can get 100fps when you can get a cheaper one that can get 60 you wont know the difference as 60 fps has a blur effect so you don't notice the difference when it goes any higher. I mean i play some games at 30fps and I'm fine with that if i can get 60 I'm happy anything above 60 i honestly don't care cause i wont notice it.

I'm not saying AMD "will" bring out a better cpu. And for all I know there might no longer be an AMD. As THIS article says that there is a rumor that AMD might be bought out by another and richer company. But i believe that AMD are better at keeping there promises than Intel. So I'm hoping that "Torrenza" or "Barcelona" whichever one you wish to call it will be on the markets by 2008. With this years games coming up you will be needing powerful cpu's and quadcore will be needed for good performance. Crysis has already been said to utilize two processing cores, so another two would be quite handy.

Here is my link to Intels Penryn
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2915&p=3

Read the "Final Words" F1N3ST

Please quote your point i fail to see it.

:dead: Everyone seems to have misread my point... I said there IS a difference between 60FPS average and 100FPS average... Oh well :stickout:
It's funny how many people end up posting in these AMD vs Intel or Nvidia vs ATi/AMD threads Everyone always gets so mad too...

It states that "By the middle of this year, AMD will launch its next-generation microarchitecture that will hopefully be a far better competitor to Intel's Core 2 processors.", you wont believe this.

Intel also stated in 2003 that by 2005 it will have a 10.2GHz cpu, its 2007 and they have barely made a 5GHz cpu, click the link below, its proof.

"-->INTEL 10.2GHz<--"

As you can see, Intel likes to make crap up.

As for Intel's 80 core processor. Its not that big of a deal. Intels not the 1st to make 80 cores or more

"-->READ<--"

And this was in 2004. So its comes to no surprise that Intel made a 80 core processor.

In this article, it states that Intel won't have the 80 core processor available to the public for atleast another 3-8 years.

"-->READ<--"

So why you compared it to AMD

is beyond me. AMD makes cpu's that work for desktops and notebooks. Intels 80 core processor does "NOT" work in desktop or notebook computers (yet). But if you wanna try stuffing a big *** 80 core processor in your motherboard, good luck mate.
And AMD are planning to merge cpu with gpu, something i havnt read intel planning on doing yet, maybe because theyre not good enough.

"-->READ<--"

And as for:

I didn't misread you point. Most midrange cpu can handle very powerful gpu's and obtain 100FPS on average, when I said average of 60FPS I was mainly talking about future games, i apologise for not making myself more clearer, but by that time AMD and/or Intel will have made cpu's that can obtain even higher frame rates, so there is no big of a deal to go for a high range cpu when all you will notice in better performance will be maybe 1-2 less stuttering. Why would you spend $50 or more just for that, it seems a little ridiculous. But for those who dont play games, and are more into movies and 3d programs, than well i suppose you would want to go with the faster more high end cpu

Point taken. And for both of you guys if you wanted crazy amounts of GFLOPS/TFLOPS, use your GPUs dammit! ATi's X1950XTX has over 2TFLOPS and I imagine the 8800GTX beats that, so if you want pure TFLOPS, just look at the GPUs!

Whether it's Intel or AMD, the GPUs have the CPUs PWNED when it comes to pure floating point ops.

Did i get Jyped buying a pentium D 940

LOL why is everyone going batty over the "my choice is better than yours" thing? I would love both companies to compete as aggressively as they can because in the end, it would only translate into better technology and more price cuts being available for me i.e. the consumer. Hmm... considering that, keep the fight on you guys! =D

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103772
3GHz 6000+ for $600. What a complete rip off. All the reviews show the 6000+ a good match up for the $315 2.4GHz E6600. You would have to love AMD more than you like you money to buy that. The best OC I've seen with it is 400MHz. A $160 E4300 will wipe the floor with it with out breaking a sweat.

I hope K10 comes soon because this spring looks bad for AMD,



Quad core for the price of the 6000+?

A Celeron 430 @ 1.8GHz for $49...what a rip off . Even if it has 512KB L2 Cache...

It probably has the Core Architecture, wouldnt suprise me, same goes for the Pentium. And intel dosnt feel like buying a GPU company like AMD did, right now AMD is beat in the CPU and GPU market.