what would be betr for gamin amd or intel will performanc be lower on old games that use just one core
dual core or single core, amd or intel
- Thread starter jayanath
- Start date
If you can afford it I'd go dual core. Either way I would go AMD as well. I recently switched over to AMD, and love it. They really are superior chips. Dual core is the way of the future, no doubt about that, but I dont think single core is something you should not consider.
Neither, the video card is the limiter. The differance between CPU's in gaming is very small, unless it's something really old like a pentium 3, your limiter will be the video card.
For games, most of the processing power comes from your video card. A better CPU isn't going to have a large impact on performance.
Dual core CPUs are amazing for multitasking, but a bit slower at each individual task. So, strictly speaking, a single-core CPU will out-perform a dual-core CPU at the same price point. However, that's not really a practical issue. You won't notice much of a difference between an Opteron 146 @ 2.8 GHz and an Opteron 165 @ 2.6 GHz in games (or most other individual tasks). But you *will* notice a big difference in your day-to-day use, where I'm sure you do at least some multitasking.
As for AMD and Intel, AMD pretty much always beats Intel at the same price point. There are two exceptions:
~$250 Pentium D 820
~$275 Pentium D 920
With those two CPUs, you can get an Intel dual-core system for less than AMD. The X2 3800+ costs $322, which is a significant chunk of cash. If you need dual core, but you're short on money, a Pentium D might work well for you. However, considering there's an enormous performance gap between the 820/920 and the 3800+, it's still a good policy to avoid Intel if possible.
A trickier issue would be if you could only afford dual core or lots of RAM, but not both. In that case, an 820 with 2GB might work out better than a 3800+ with 1GB for gaming.
Dual core CPUs are amazing for multitasking, but a bit slower at each individual task. So, strictly speaking, a single-core CPU will out-perform a dual-core CPU at the same price point. However, that's not really a practical issue. You won't notice much of a difference between an Opteron 146 @ 2.8 GHz and an Opteron 165 @ 2.6 GHz in games (or most other individual tasks). But you *will* notice a big difference in your day-to-day use, where I'm sure you do at least some multitasking.
As for AMD and Intel, AMD pretty much always beats Intel at the same price point. There are two exceptions:
~$250 Pentium D 820
~$275 Pentium D 920
With those two CPUs, you can get an Intel dual-core system for less than AMD. The X2 3800+ costs $322, which is a significant chunk of cash. If you need dual core, but you're short on money, a Pentium D might work well for you. However, considering there's an enormous performance gap between the 820/920 and the 3800+, it's still a good policy to avoid Intel if possible.
A trickier issue would be if you could only afford dual core or lots of RAM, but not both. In that case, an 820 with 2GB might work out better than a 3800+ with 1GB for gaming.
Just out of curiousity, (not that theres anything wrong with it) but what made you go with Intel over Amd? Did you purchase a pre-built pc?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter