Intel or AMD?
 

Well, I've been a big fan of AMD ever since they started kicking Intel's ass over the past few years, but I'm starting to hear that Intel is making somewhat of a large comeback, especially for gaming. I'm looking for something in the $75 - $100 range, should I go for AMD, the cheaper, great version, or Intel, more expensive, and not sure what to expect processor?

i was the same way dude,,then i got a core2 duo....a e6320 stock clocked at 1.86ghz is running at a little over 2.8 with a slight voltage bump and a $20 arctic cooling freezer pro7..i am right now encoding a x264 movie with both cores maxed out..and a temp of 108 deg F....thats a 1ghz OC with both cores maxed and running at only 108 deg f!!!!! amd wont give you that.

Well, I don't know ANY of the Intel terms anymore. Last thing I remember was Sempron, so would you have an idea what's the latest that's good for gaming, but not overly expensive?

Really it depends. If you are planning on using the same motherboard that you have now and if it can support a dual core cpu then stick with AMD. If you have to buy a whole new system anyway then its pretty much which ever you like.

Both will do just as good of a job as the other right now for what ever you run.

When I upgraded around the start of the year, I went with AMD and the mobo I went with is an AMD AM2+ socketboard. Reason I went with this board is because I can use a dual core or if I want a quad core when they come down in price.


I bought my AMD X2 4800 dual core cpu for around 112 bucks CDN I think it was. Now I can get it for I think around 92 bucks CDN and you can get a X2 5000 black box edition unlocked with no heatsink and fan for 97 bucks CDN. Mind did come with a heatsink and fan, but I would prefer to eventually get an after market one which is much bigger and cools better though they usually cost from 50 to 90 bucks on their own.



I personally wouldn't bother with quad cores for either maker right now because unless you are doing high end graphics rendering and/or videos then you just don't need that kind of power.

Oops, sorry I forgot to mention this is for a brand new PC, motherboard and all, right down to the case/psu.

I also need to be able to run Crysis/HL2 games at a pretty decent frame rate/quality.

amd lags well behind intel right now..which means your going to get more life out of an intel chip..unless you have money to keep upgrading mobo mem and cpu every year or so..your best bet is going to be a nvidia780i or the newest intel chipset p35 i think motherboard. a penryn based intel quad core cpu. if you can afford it...ddr3..its not great now, but a mobo that supports it will take you farther into the future. a really good ps something above 80% efficient with capabilities of running 2 or 3 video cards(atleast 700w for newer gpus). whatever hard drives you desire. look for a sata based burner..if youve read any threads about newer mobo's ide is going the way of the dinosaur. i know you just got a new card, but the 9800gtx's are pretty cheap and youll always have the option of dual or triple sli. maybe a bluray player as well :P

Intel chips are still expensive, but don't suck as much. I doubt you'll find a good gaming chip for less than $100 from Intel... or by AMD for that matter.

Not only that but very little (if anything) is actually written to take advantage of a quad. Until then it won't do any good.

Ok cool. I'll look into some of that. The PC's are not for myself, I'm just looking to get some halfway decent gaming rigs setup in the next few months.

Not to criticize the delivery of this message, but shouldn't this be in the Tech forums?

Personally, I stick with AMD just because I always have had an AMD.

AMD still has good value for money (i'm pretty satisfied with my 5200+ i got for 80 Euros around 5 months ago), but the Intel duocore cpu's are supposedly quite awesome. Depends on your budget i guess.

I have a...

AMD AM2 X2 4800
4 gigs of DDR2-800 OCZ Platinum (though only 3 gigs installed due to using 32bit XP)
Diamond Viper ATI X1650 pro 512meg video card
Asus M3A AM2/AM2+ (onboard sound, 3 PCI slots, 1 PCI-E x16, PCI-E x1, Supports upto 8 gigs of ram (4 slots that can hold 2 gigs of ram), upto 10 USB2 connections, 4 SATA2 connectors) More info here http://www.asus.com/products.aspx?l1...34&modelmenu=1

I still only have a ATA based drive plugged into it which I hope to change soon to a SATA2 based drive.

I have no problems with HL2 or FF. The Video card is going to have more effect on the game quality and the games that can be played more then if its an intel or amd based system.

My system is very upgradeable for the future. I can put on a Quad core if I ever feel the need to. I can put more ram in if I need to (though I would have to upgrade to a 64bit OS).

I can't have dual video cards so that might be one thing you take into consideration. And you will have to decided if you want to go crossfire or SLI because you will have to pick a motherboard that will do one or the other. Both are on about the same footing I think, which doesn't say much because right now SLI doesn't help a whole lot, maybe a 20% increase over all, which is not that great considering you are using 2 video cards and more then likely they are of the same type.

As to being able to play Crysis, well there are many machines out there that are 2 or 3 times what I have and even they can't play it with full quality on. I've seen news articles about how even a quad SLI based quad core machine couldn't run it fully.

lol....wow....just wow..ill leave it at that

??? Just love how people go with crap like this, and yet don't try to actually help the OP with making suggestions on what things to look at.

At least I tried, what have you done? Oh ya bash AMD.


I like AMD, but I could care less what the OP chooses because its their choice. I at least tried to make suggestions based on my experience and what I currently have. I also didn't put down Intel to try to make AMD look better.

My experience is that unless you are doing video or 3D rendering then you don't need a quad core.

I don't care about the latest greatest thing. That goes for both hardware and games.

AMD = too hot

That's all.

AMD used to be the top brand. Then Intel kicked AMD's ass with their Core 2's, and AMD's been lagging ever since. It's sad, because I prefer AMD, but if I were upgrading now, I'd be a moron to stick with the company.

Yes, currently, Intel is the way to go

yeah because i didnt give him any suggestions right? like i said i used to love amd..but they are really behind in teh game now..and as for quad core, there mey not be many apps RIGHT NOW that take advantage of it, but they arent much more expensive, and leave you the headroom for future apps and games that may use them..FF does happen to be a cpu intensive game, why go with a slower amd proc? also your comment about sli was totally false..yes every game scales differently, but most games get a huge boost from sli, as much as 80%. and once again, i did actually give him suggestions, but because i didnt tell him what YOU wanted, you obviously dont consider that advice...i gave him ideas for a higher level system that will offer upgrade ability, and longevity. and it doesnt have to be the "latest and greatest" but parts are cheap right now..maybe try reading some reviews on processors/ video cards i think youll find that even those who dont suggest the highest end parts will still suggest a penryn based cpu(for intel) and that it be quad core simply for the fact that if you dont, your rig will be long in the tooth well before a quad core system. support for multi core in apps is growing, why not be prepared?

Right now at idle my system is sitting at 32c (89.6F). When I have it working at 100% CPU with both CPUs (rendering video for 2+ hours) its at about 60c to 61c (140F). The room I am in is at 25c (77F) right now.

This is with the stock heatsink and fan which are pretty small. I would like to get a 3rd party heatsink and fan which has heat pipes in it and a much larger fan to help drain off more heat.

I don't know how hot a core duo of the same speed would run, but I'm sure its not much different.

I agree with zat. I mean, who wants to upgrade to a system that's going to be obselete in a few months, or even a year? You may be paying more for a higher end, newer type system, but it's actually cheaper because you don't have to worry about upgrading in the near future when those prices drop.