Ironworks Gaming Forum

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=28)
-   -   AMD vs P4 (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=89077)

john 01-17-2004 12:34 PM

Without getting too technical what would be the better for a new pc,upgradable,and used primarily for gaming.This will probably be the last one I buy.I've heard that the new 64 bit AMD is great but others say stay with the Intel!?

Zuvio 01-17-2004 12:46 PM

<font color=gold>
The 64 bit cpu is a little overkill, but if you have money to burn, go for it. Personally I prefer intel, not entirely because of technical means though, just a personal thing. I feel they are more stable, and maybe little faster. The chip itself looks better than amd as well. Just know that there really isn't a 'worst buy' anymore.
</font>

Paladin2000 01-17-2004 12:50 PM

I had a not-so-good experience with AMD K6-III 450 MHz a few years ago which AMD claims that it performs like an Intel PIII 400 MHz.

Apparently some of my games seems to disagree with that statement. From that day onward, I would put my money into the "real" thing. But that is just me.

andrewas 01-17-2004 01:05 PM

The K6-3 was the chip before AMD got good. Its not the worst chip of that generation(That would be from Cyrix), but the FPU and the cache just werent up to gaming. And the AMD compatable chipsets of the time were pretty poor as well, especialy the VIA ones.

From the AMD K7 (athlon) onwards, its been consistently beating the equivalent pentium at the same clock-rate, and the stability of the newer Nvidia chipsets equals anything Intel has.

These days, I wouldn't build an Intel machine unless I had a specific reason to need the absolute most powerful machine money can buy.

Paladin2000 01-17-2004 01:17 PM

Aha! I knew someone would surely say something like that. Anyway, AMD might have been much much better nowadays but for me, I am a little lack in forgiveness.

I suppose AMD is cheaper than Intel when comes to CPUs of the same class and performance. That is, provided that what AMD claims is somewhat accurate.

Zuvio 01-17-2004 01:22 PM

<font color=gold>
My main concern with AMD is their marketing strategie as of late. They used the XP in their chip so people (the lesser informed class) would associate them with winXP. They used the term 2000+, which doens't indicate speed but rather just a product-number for fun. But people (the lesser informed) thought it was a 2.0GHz cpu. UH-UH! Bad AMD! Don't go around using these cheap tricks to get ahead in the market share. CPU business is all about quality and real bang for your buck. Shame on AMD! Only good thing is the fact they've kept the prices so low for so long.
</font>

[ 01-17-2004, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Zuvio ]

Larry_OHF 01-17-2004 01:35 PM

<font color=skyblue>Intel for me. I do not know much, but all of my contacts I have here in NC all get Intel for their business machines and their own private-use machines. I do not personally know anyone with an AMD.
I went into a store (Intrex) to buy some stuff and was looking at their machines they had on display. Seven machines were running, playing a movie or other animation, or sitting on Desktop. I asked the guy which machines were running AMD so I could compare the difference. He said none of them were...that they only used Intel in their in-store displays.

All of this tells me that Intel must be alright.</font>

slicer15 01-17-2004 03:24 PM

I personally prefer AMD as I've found it to be more stable and faster to the equivalent Pentium model. I've also heard from a friend, and I must agree, that AMD is better for gaming...but in the end it's your own choice and preferance.

Sir Krustin 01-17-2004 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paladin2000:
Aha! I knew someone would surely say something like that. Anyway, AMD might have been much much better nowadays but for me, I am a little lack in forgiveness.

I suppose AMD is cheaper than Intel when comes to CPUs of the same class and performance. That is, provided that what AMD claims is somewhat accurate.

You don't need to rely on AMD's claims - just look on Tom's Hardware for an impartial look at all the various hardware components used in PC's today.

Take a look at the clock speeds used on AMD mobos these days, and compare them to equivalent performing Intel cpu's and AMD plainly spanks Intel.

An Athlon XP 2000+, for example, is clocked at 1.66 ghz, but performs like a P4-2ghz.

Intrepid 01-18-2004 08:50 AM

I am considering this question as i am planning an upgrade, i think i will go with an AMD or a celeron as i don't want to pay too much.
In Australian dolars:
celeron 2ghz $100
celeron 2.5ghz $125
celeron 2.8ghz $189
pent 4 2.6ghz $289
pent 4 2.8ghz $325
pent 4 3ghz $435
AMD 2000 $104
AMD 2400 $122
AMD 2500 $139
AMD 2800 $218
AMD 3000 $318
AMD 3200 $349
AMD 3200 (64) $650

Conversions:
$100 AUD = $77 US
$125 AUD = $97 US
$150 AUD = $115 US
$175 AUD = $135 US
$200 AUD = $154 US
$300 AUD = $231 US

With prices like that i might go for a celeron 2.5 or an AMD 2500+


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved