Intel or Amd?

[_FAKE_]

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.

 

[MetalX]

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:

 

[tifc8lraz]

As for the never ending 60FPS vs 100FPS debate, my personal opinion is that there is a difference.

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

 

[_FAKE_]

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.

 

[F1N3ST]

This thread sucks. I see some opinions and very few links. If you guys want to have a proper argument you should be quoting benchmarks of different types, and price, include release date if necessary.

Right now very little in this thread holds any water because nobody is backing it up. Links to articles really don't even count because its pretty rare that anyone (esp the one that disagrees with you) is going to click through the link and read. So link it, and quote it. Then use what you quoted to make your statement.

Also why must someone be on 1 side? Sticking with AMD just because you don't like Intel is a stupid argument to take in here.

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

 

[_FAKE_]

Read the "Final Words" F1N3ST

 

[F1N3ST]

Please quote your point i fail to see it.

 

[MetalX]

: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...

 

[_FAKE_]

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

I have yet to see AMD hit 1.28Tflops Let alone one.

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:

Everyone seems to have misread my point... I said there IS a difference between 60FPS average and 100FPS average... Oh well

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

 

[MetalX]

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.

 

[Shano55]

Did i get Jyped buying a pentium D 940

 

[Rage_3K_Moiz]

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

 

[Mirob]

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+?

 

[tifc8lraz]

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

 

[F1N3ST]

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.

 

[_FAKE_]

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.

WTF are you talking about. It has already been proven that ATI/AMD's R600 are far better than nvidia's 8800GTX. And even if nvidia does bring out a 8900GTX it still wont be much of a match against the fastest of R600 gpu's. And by mid this year and in 2008 AMD are going to bring out far better cpu's. Dont you read the articles online F1N3ST??? And it doesnt matter if Intel bring out an upgraded version of the core 2 duo. They are only saying they are, and i have proven to you that Intel like to talk crap. And for what ive read on "Penryn" It's not a significant improvement on the core 2 duo. The new AMD cpu's provide up to 40% more performance than the core 2 duo (if what they say is true) not to mention that its only a 32bit quad core. Intels best are 64bit quad core, which should be better. So if AMD can pull of making a 32 bit cpu thats faster and better than AMD's 64bit processors and Intels core 2 duo 64 bit processors, just imagine how crappy the core 2 duo will seem when AMD makes a 64bit version of there new cpu's.

 

[halo71]

I think somebody(s) needs to get dates and get out from behind the computer for a bit! Arguing over which CPU is better is like arguing over which cut of meat makes the best steak! Rather pointless when it is all up to personal taste.

 

[nickslick74]

I like your analogy halo!

 

[JimShady23]

Um

WTF are you talking about. It has already been proven that ATI/AMD's R600 are far better than nvidia's 8800GTX.

Not saying your full of crap cause I havnt looked for any info on the subject, but can you post me a link showing a benchmark between the 8800GTX and the R600 in a production state card ? And Im not talking pre-release paper benchmarks either...CARD TO CARD IN THE SAME SYSTEM is what I want to see...

Edit: I did a quick search and this is all I came up with. It seems like a very bios article favoring ATI (just by some of the comments) but it does show the R600 ahead in mosts games....although this it does not show the 40-60% performance gain over the 8800GTX that everyone hyped that the R600 would do....Plus there where many variables in this test such as drivers. http://level505.com/2006/12/30/the-full-ati-r600-test/1/

So I dont know how credible this article is.....So anyone with a better one please post it because my curiosity is high now..

 

[Sharkfood]

Not saying your full of crap cause I havnt looked for any info on the subject, but can you post me a link showing a benchmark between the 8800GTX and the R600 in a production state card ?

The only feasible theory on this is that the R600 has been touted by AMD marketing to have full 512bit memory interface vs. the 8800's 384 bit.

This should effectively provide a massive increase in memory bandwidth, which can then be assumed to yield better performance in things constrained by memory bandwidth.

Of course, we have no idea of the firm/solid ROP/PS/VS or overall architecture, nor the clock speeds nor memory... so the only real solid thing we have is the above marketing fluff. Without the other details, it's a fairly safe assumption but really not solid enough to go off.

 

[tifc8lraz]

Note that benchmarks are in for the R600 (X2900XTX)...somehow :suspiciou ...

 

[MetalX]

I think somebody(s) needs to get dates and get out from behind the computer for a bit! Arguing over which CPU is better is like arguing over which cut of meat makes the best steak! Rather pointless when it is all up to personal taste.

Wooohoooo!! I have to agree. But I won't be able to get a date. Not even if I offered a thousand bucks :dead:

Nah I'm just kidding. I could, but I'm too much of a wuss to ask anyone out

Being in a thread like this one really makes me feel like a super-nerd.

 

[tifc8lraz]

think somebody(s) needs to get dates and get out from behind the computer for a bit!

Are you telling me that the marriage to my computer isn't normal?

 

[_FAKE_]

lmao, all i got to say is what goes around comes around. Intel gets slapped in the face by AMD when they released the Athlon64's, now Intel are slapping AMD back in the face by bringing out the core 2 duos. I honestly dont care, like someone posted earlier, the competition between Intel and AMD is very good as it makes both companies push themselves harder to bring out better cpu's in an attempt to conquer each other. I quite like the fact that Intel brought out the core 2 duo's cause now AMD will bring out an even better cpu to squash the core 2 duo's, and Intel will respond to that by bringing out an even better cpu that will squash AMD's cpu. I just wished they hurry the f**k up so i can by myself a cheap quadcore

 

[halo71]

Are you telling me that the marriage to my computer isn't normal?

lol...Not at all my friend!