01-17-2004, 12:34 PM | #1 |
Drizzt Do'Urden
Join Date: October 6, 2001
Location: central coast of Ca.
Age: 77
Posts: 653
|
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!?
__________________
John |
01-17-2004, 12:46 PM | #2 |
Gold Dragon
Join Date: May 19, 2002
Location: Blessed are those who are not....
Age: 42
Posts: 2,556
|
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.
__________________
[img]\"http://img121.exs.cx/img121/4236/zuviodemonnoname2hf.gif\" alt=\" - \" /> |
01-17-2004, 12:50 PM | #3 |
Fzoul Chembryl
Join Date: February 19, 2002
Location: Your guess is as good as mine.
Age: 52
Posts: 1,728
|
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.
__________________
(This is an invisible sig.) |
01-17-2004, 01:05 PM | #4 |
Harper
Join Date: October 2, 2001
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Age: 42
Posts: 4,774
|
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.
__________________
[img]\"http://www.sighost.us/members/Zvijer/andrewas.gif\" alt=\" - \" /> |
01-17-2004, 01:17 PM | #5 |
Fzoul Chembryl
Join Date: February 19, 2002
Location: Your guess is as good as mine.
Age: 52
Posts: 1,728
|
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.
__________________
(This is an invisible sig.) |
01-17-2004, 01:22 PM | #6 |
Gold Dragon
Join Date: May 19, 2002
Location: Blessed are those who are not....
Age: 42
Posts: 2,556
|
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. [ 01-17-2004, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Zuvio ]
__________________
[img]\"http://img121.exs.cx/img121/4236/zuviodemonnoname2hf.gif\" alt=\" - \" /> |
01-17-2004, 01:35 PM | #7 |
Ironworks Moderator
Join Date: March 1, 2001
Location: Midlands, South Carolina
Age: 48
Posts: 14,759
|
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. |
01-17-2004, 03:24 PM | #8 |
Symbol of Cyric
Join Date: November 12, 2002
Location: Banstead, Southeast England
Age: 37
Posts: 1,162
|
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.
|
01-17-2004, 04:56 PM | #9 | |
Symbol of Cyric
Join Date: September 15, 2002
Location: Peterborough, ON, CANADA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,394
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
If I say \"Eject!\" and you say \"Huh?\" - you\'ll be talking to yourself! - Maj. Bannister, <b>Steel Tiger</b> |
|
01-18-2004, 08:50 AM | #10 |
Symbol of Cyric
Join Date: March 28, 2003
Location: Australia
Age: 36
Posts: 1,124
|
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+ |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|