question on the dual core

TRDCorolla said:
I think people are forgetting the point here. It is known that a single core may do better at gaming, but that doesn't mean a dual core is a piece of crap CPU that won't play games. Of course it will play games. It can do anything a single core can do, but more.

Sure they can but as you know what is the higest clock speed Dual core 3.4? for intels?

The Pentium single core at 3.8 Is by far better then the Pentium D for gaming period. It is like compairing a single core. So if a game were to come out and lets say the min was 3.5 ghz well that dual core is pretty much FUBAR.

No one is happy settling for less when money is involved so they want the best they can get. Most questions are "geared" towards what is the best. Who beats who. Well in that case since AMD and intel are soo close and you wont really notice the difference in games so for gaming it doesnt matter what ya get. For multitasking you will notice the difference with a Pentium over an AMD in general usage tests. So what one is really the better made chip??? But that being said which is quite logical. I bet you there will be 10 posts saying w/e AMD > INTEL Intel sucks. cause they want those 2 extra FPS in a video game ya know what I mean?
 
Yes, but Intel CPU's SUCK at games, so you wouldn't be stupid enough to waste money on it, would you?

And that last line is just an exagerration.

AMD = more energy-efficient, better bang for buck. That's enough for me to say AMD > Intel...at least for desktop CPU's.
 
acphenom said:
Yes, but Intel CPU's SUCK at games, so you wouldn't be stupid enough to waste money on it, would you?

And that last line is just an exagerration.

AMD = more energy-efficient, better bang for buck. That's enough for me to say AMD > Intel...at least for desktop CPU's.

Sorry AMD=Gaming
Intel = Everything else. benchmark tests prove me right.

umm Intel since they are like half the cost they are the best bang for the buck. Also see what I said? some AMD user had to come on and say AMD pwns intel without any facts. Case closed lol
 
If you get the Dual core..which i am getting it pretty much is the exact same as intels multitasking wise...AMD leveled the playing field in multi tasking with the dual core...that was the whole point pretty much....If you are able to upgrade your computer every 1 or 2 years go ahead and get the single core...but in 2 years the single core will be old news and the dual core will be all the rage...if you're like me and can onlyy upgrade every 3-4 years get the dual core now and then just get a quad core in 3-4 years.....There isn't a reason not to get the dual core if you are looking at a single core with the same price....Intel is just well we won't go there..........Go with the dual core and be happy for a long time
 
Sorry, without any facts? AMD CPU's are more energy-efficient. Don't think I'm just a power freak. I prefer AMD CPU's to Intel's for the simple reason that they consume far less power, and benchmarks show that K8's beat Celeron D's, Pentium 4's, and Pentium D's, in everything but media encoding and multi-tasking, except for the X2's of course.

I cannot ever say that Intel does not suck when they have CPU's which consume like 170Watts at full load.
 
acphenom said:
Sorry, without any facts? AMD CPU's are more energy-efficient. Don't think I'm just a power freak. I prefer AMD CPU's to Intel's for the simple reason that they consume far less power, and benchmarks show that K8's beat Celeron D's, Pentium 4's, and Pentium D's, in everything but media encoding and multi-tasking, except for the X2's of course.

I cannot ever say that Intel does not suck when they have CPU's which consume like 170Watts at full load.

like I said AMD = gaming only. every other general usage test is pro Intel. They are cheaper and just like in gaming AMD lvled the field in multitasking. AMD to multitasking is like Intel to gaming. Same preformance. Just you notice the multitasking difference you will NEVER notice the gaming difference between intel and AMD. and at half the price I cant go with a company that likes ripping off there costumers like AMD has showen. But go nuts pay twice the price. I mean i can get an intel cpu and save enough to upgrade it in 2 years lkike ya said. Where as an AMD user will invest so muchnow that they wont wanna do it again. So with your point being that if you can upgrade in 2 years go single core. Well with intel you can. AMD not so much.
 
what in the world are you talking about.....I was reading an article from an old employee of intel and he was saying that when they test the chips to check performance to rate whether its a high end or low end they have so many more low end chips they have to package some as high end chips....and you're telling me AMD rips people off.....AMD has already passed intel and is passing them right now in multitasking with the dual core cpu's.....so don't say AMD rips people off....the only reason the cost so much is because they are so much better than intels.......why do you think most of the custom computers people make are made with AMD processors.....you tell me how you can say AMD rips people off when they actually sell you a high end processor when you pay for one...while intel sells you a low end processor for a highend price.....I'm not gonna go any further but AMD is worth all the money you spend....Intel is phased out even in multi tasking....Those are my 3 cents.....
 
Not gonna argue this with ya anymore goto anandtech or tomshardware and read the benchmark tests yourself. Dont need to provide info when it is already online for you to read and learn from.
 
Whats up with all this benchmark crap people keep talking about...the only chart that i have seen is processor vs. cost......other than that i have seen nothing worth looking at.....The benchmarks only show basic things...many people could have the same processor and it can work much better because of a different setup...you can't base all these facts on something with so many variables
 
golf_addict73 said:
Whats up with all this benchmark crap people keep talking about...the only chart that i have seen is processor vs. cost......other than that i have seen nothing worth looking at.....The benchmarks only show basic things...many people could have the same processor and it can work much better because of a different setup...you can't base all these facts on something with so many variables

Benchmark crap? lol well man if you dont believe in benchmark scores then your opinion really dont mean much. I mean at the point where all the info proves me right and you just dont like the outcome, the conversation becomes dumb. and in real world tests. I have seen Intel outpreform AMD in everything but gaming pretty much. also the fact I have returned 3 AMD cpus cause they burnt out I will stick to my low opinion of AMD lol. At the point where almost every local computer store bashs AMD and claims they get more AMD returns then Intel also shows who makes a better designed chip. So let me get this lol your gonna pay twice the price and run the risk of having your comp go down cause your CPU has a risk of blowing?? lol good choice my man.
 
Back
Top Bottom