Well, I'm getting a new computer soon and I have a choice, cheaper with an AMD athalon processor or a more expensive Intel core 2 processor.
Which would you pick?
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-05 14:24 ID:/PrjWOx2
Which would you pick?
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-05 17:00 ID:sNgjN7ao
AMD all the way. pay less get more, i have a 64bit AMD Turion mobile processor and it kicks ASS
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-05 17:02 ID:Bc6eDVJa
right now i would say get a higher end core 2 duo or a slightly lower end amd x2, the amd 4400+ is under 100 i think as well
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-05 18:31 ID:2xKD2RMo
Stock: AMD - superior performance at the same price or cheaper for equivalent performance compared to Intel
Overclocking: Intel - better overclocking potential, both overall and at most points along the price spectrum
I am an overclocker, but for my most recent build I got a great deal on an AMD system that could not be turned down at the time. The overclock was very conservative due to the limitations of the motherboard I used, but I am pleased with the result I achieved at the price I paid.
Wait until AMD comes out with it's quad-core processor. It's going to be a REAL quad-core, not just 2 dual cores slapped next to each other like Intel has. It will wtfpwn any Intel processor.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-08 20:29 ID:S973SmDw
post budget, location, what you'll use it for and what components you already have that may be of use. also do you need a monitor included in the price?
i'll check back tomorrow and spec you the best box for your money
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-08 20:30 ID:S973SmDw
>>14
Oh look, a fanboy with no technical knowlege.
>>16
Oh look, a technical knowlege with no fanboy.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-10 3:12 ID:hYXR96Lm
E6600 or Q6600
/thread
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-10 3:26 ID:ZJnDvslm
>>22
Uh, no, considering we still don't know his budget.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-11 0:22 ID:NzNOpfmy
>>22
quad core Q6600 is superior for video encoding and photoshop programmes
basically 30 odd percent faster then most quad cores
however since theirs no real native games to use quad at the moment its kinda like the investment for the future
but literally speaking its worth having a quad core since when 6 cores and 8 core cpus start coming out over the years youd at least have something that can play the latest games
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-11 5:07 ID:jXZXRQEZ
>>24
the term is multithreading. programmers don't code their programmers to run on multiple cores, they code their program to handle multithreading.
however since there's no real native games designed to be multithreaded at the moment its kinda like the investment for the future
fixed.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-12 0:43 ID:l1qxw/rB
>>25
but their is a massive performance gain in video encoding and editting programmes with quad cores compared to 2 core processors
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-12 0:51 ID:Aw7Wt/Vh
What is the best amd/intel chip around for a gaming system (budgetnot a problem)
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-12 4:28 ID:LrfS+7QH
AMD is the only company that seems to try and push the technology, whereas if Intel had their way, we would still be using some shit in the pentium series. Now most of my machines use intel(because i scavenged them from people for free), but my best machine uses an Athlon.