AMD or Intel? From a gaming perspective.

[Munku]

I've been an Intel user since the early 90's, just what I was raised using, but a lot of friends are talking about AMD this and AMD that and how great they are. I'm planning to build a new computer soon and was wondering what you guys would recommend for performance and price wise. Thanks and I apologized if this has been done a million times already.

 

[sangyup81]

look at the benchmarks and decide for yourself

 

[stevty2889]

Unless you are running at 800x600, or using a really old CPU, your video card will be your real limiter for games. So it really depends a lot more on what video card you are getting. Current Intel CPU's run very hot, and are very power hungry, so it's hard to recomend a P4 especialy for a gaming rig. It helps a good bit if you give us a budget..

 

[Cdubneeddeal]

This one is easy. For price, quality, and speed you can't go wrong with an AMD.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Why is this question still being brought up lol?

 

[Beef Taco]

AMD FTW!!

 

[themusgrat]

AMDs are geared more toward gaming and efficiency than Intels.

 

[VERTIGGO]

Well sometimes its hard to search for questions like these, because we all take the answers for granted.

Munku, although I'm using an FX, my next purchase will be much cheaper, as I'm learning more about overclocking, and the best buy right now seems to be an Opteron 165 at about $270. You can easily find benchmarks for various procs, especially if your budget is higher or lower, but at this point, a mid-low end dual core is probably the most strategic purchase as more and more developers are coding for multi-process, and the single cores don't have as much of an edge even in game performance as they used to.

 

[cpacini]

Originally posted by: VERTIGGO
Well sometimes its hard to search for questions like these, because we all take the answers for granted.

There have been like 8 of these posts this week.

 

[VERTIGGO]

Originally posted by: cpacini

Originally posted by: VERTIGGO
Well sometimes its hard to search for questions like these, because we all take the answers for granted.

There have been like 8 of these posts this week.

true, just tryin to help the guy

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

But ... AMD's only run at 2-2.8ghrtz and Intel's run at 3.0-3.8ghrtz. How can AMD be faster at gaming at lower resolutions if their processors are slower? :laugh:

 

[Cabages]

The on die memory controller

Go AMD.

 

[imported_Sincity]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
But ... AMD's only run at 2-2.8ghrtz and Intel's run at 3.0-3.8ghrtz. How can AMD be faster at gaming at lower resolutions if their processors are slower? :laugh:

Mhz to Mhz comparison, from what I understand is not a valid comparison. Back in the XP days a 2 ghz XP was equivalent to something close to a 3 ghz P4 or something like that. The only Intel Proc I ever used was a 8086, 486/DX266 and a P60 (pentium 60 mhz). My 286, 386, was a AMD as well as everything I used since then (Athlon 900), Athlon 1ghz, Duron 1.6, and my current proc 1700+ XP. Just better value for the money.

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: Sincity

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
But ... AMD's only run at 2-2.8ghrtz and Intel's run at 3.0-3.8ghrtz. How can AMD be faster at gaming at lower resolutions if their processors are slower? :laugh:

Mhz to Mhz comparison, from what I understand is not a valid comparison. Back in the XP days a 2 ghz XP was equivalent to something close to a 3 ghz P4 or something like that. The only Intel Proc I ever used was a 8086, 486/DX266 and a P60 (pentium 60 mhz). My 286, 386, was a AMD as well as everything I used since then (Athlon 900), Athlon 1ghz, Duron 1.6, and my current proc 1700+ XP. Just better value for the money.

dude, he was being sarcastic. but yeah. AMD's are cheaper for the equivalent gaming performance, and cooler also. Take the money you save and buy some more ram or a better GPU.

 

[caz67]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
But ... AMD's only run at 2-2.8ghrtz and Intel's run at 3.0-3.8ghrtz. How can AMD be faster at gaming at lower resolutions if their processors are slower? :laugh:

LOL..yeah explain that to me..hehehe

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: Sincity

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
But ... AMD's only run at 2-2.8ghrtz and Intel's run at 3.0-3.8ghrtz. How can AMD be faster at gaming at lower resolutions if their processors are slower? :laugh:

Mhz to Mhz comparison, from what I understand is not a valid comparison. Back in the XP days a 2 ghz XP was equivalent to something close to a 3 ghz P4 or something like that. The only Intel Proc I ever used was a 8086, 486/DX266 and a P60 (pentium 60 mhz). My 286, 386, was a AMD as well as everything I used since then (Athlon 900), Athlon 1ghz, Duron 1.6, and my current proc 1700+ XP. Just better value for the money.

For the record I was being sarcastic; I have a X2 4400+ only running at 2640 so it is slower than the Intel 2.8D dualcore :laugh: but it gets me by.

 

[fogeyman]

AMD>Intel any day. Read benchmarks and reviews to find out why.

 

[TheRyuu]

One would think this is a flame bait. It is NOT. Why not? Well since the overwelming majority would pick AMD, I dont think I single person would actually say GET INTEL. If someone wanted to say it, they would be too scarded because they would get flamed to HELL.

AMD FTW!!!!!1111

hehe

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: wizboy11
because they would get flamed to HELL.

hehe

Or they would catch fire from getting to close to a prescott..

 

[DrMrLordX]

Intel single-core CPUs look a little better now that HT helps them in multi-threaded games such as Quake 4. That won't last long once dual-core becomes the standard for most, if not all CPUs(X2 is king in multi-threaded games).