Amd?

Benchmarks do say different as the tags like 3200+ are specified for AMD, making the benchmarks higher or whatever...

To me, I am HAPPY, YES HAPPY! about Intel. These guys never EVER let me go dwn the drain...even for Hcore Gaming
 
To be honest, I think that an Intel is a little more responsive than AMD. AMD is a little slow, but once it gets going, its fast. Intel gets going fast and stays that way. Thats my opinion.
 
I personally have used an AMD processor once, and it was fast, very fast. My Pentium 4, at .6GHz faster, was slow compared to this! It was an Athelon 64 3x00+. It was awesome. And my RAM and Video card were infact better then the PC the Athelon 64 was on. Was interesting. I want to make my next build an Athelon 64 processor because it seems as though they're faster, as well as have better technologies. :)
 
ownage said:
To be honest, I think that an Intel is a little more responsive than AMD. AMD is a little slow, but once it gets going, its fast. Intel gets going fast and stays that way. Thats my opinion.


What do you have currently?
And what did you have before then?
 
lhuser said:
Benchmarks do say different as the tags like 3200+ are specified for AMD, making the benchmarks higher or whatever...

To me, I am HAPPY, YES HAPPY! about Intel. These guys never EVER let me go dwn the drain...even for Hcore Gaming



AMD doesn't make the benchmarks and nor does Intel. I can honestly say that the two of them let places like Anandtech and Pc Perspective and Tom's Hardware do the bechmarking.

AMD has never let me down either. In fact, their processors have not only been cheaper, but they run much cooler and faster. They're just technologically better.
 
Quinton McLeod said:

...but they run much cooler and faster...
That is exactly why I am going amd.
From the first time i've ever used a pc, it was always intel at my house.
I had other friends who used AMDs, and I always thought of them as inferrior, until I saw my friend's Amd AthlonXP 3200+ barton do serious rape.
 
ahhh, the classic Bartons. :D I love them. They can withstand so much heat and voltage, its not even funny.
 
There are a lot of different reasons why Intel and AMD are competitive chips. The main thing you need to decide is what your needs are and what chip will best suit your needs.

Usually a gamer tends to go with an AMD chip becuase of their ability to provide processing speed and stay cool while in full effect. AMD also features "Dual Core" processors. And if you do not know what that is then I suggest you start researching the technology. But of course there are still single core chips in production which can be cheaper and less complicating. AMD technology also includes Hyper-Transport technology which is basically a fancy way of saying its a lot faster than in previous chips. Intel has a similiar feature in its chips.

Intel chips can overclock very well on certain motherboards and stay cool. Intel has also inovated a new way to thread dual core processes. Intel chips are commonly used in workstation situations because of their new "D950 dual core multi-task" ability. This feature allows you to be able to run multiple OS's at the same time.

The main differnece between the two chips is their architecture. Do your research and learn the technology. There is no short way around it if you want to know what you are doing.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS QUESTION EVERYTHING. Both Intel and AMD make very trustworthy and reliable hardware.
 
LukeD said:
THE BOTTOM LINE IS QUESTION EVERYTHING. Both Intel and AMD make very trustworthy and reliable hardware.

Exactly. Let me shake your hand for that. Both chips are good, each have their Pros and Cons.

Quinton McLeod said:

How do you find that?

The bechmarks all say different. Dunno how you concluded with that


And that's what they are, benchmarks. The average person doesn't stress their computer to that limit. All benchmarks do, is give people brags.

IMHO.
 
Back
Top Bottom