AMD or Intel?

[Lord Kalthorn]

The 64-bit AMD means basically u can have up to 32 GB of RAM which is quite amazing

Haha! 32GB! Oh, no, you can have exactly 2^64 Bytes of RAM with 64-bit, which if I'm not mistaken is:

18,446,744,043,409,551,616 bytes, or:
18,446,744,043 GB RAM, or:
18.5 Attobytes of RAM (Atto = 10^18)

That, of course, is more RAM than there is in the world; and damn close to how much Hard Drive Space there is.

 

[Barrett]

Here is my opinion for what it is worth!
I will start off by saying what I speak is my opinion but much of it is also the straight truth as many of you will probably agree. I think both Intel and AMD both produce amazing proccessors. When it comes to choosing a gaming CPU between the 3.4 EE and the FX-53, it's really a matter of personal choice, the tests are EXTREMELY close between the two. The EE reigns supreme in CPU intensive benchmarks while the FX-53 reigns by a slight margin in graphics benchmarks. Quick note: Kia's are pieces of shit. As much as some of you Intel fans hate to admit it tests show AMD 64's are better for gaming versus Intel. I think most of us can agree AMD (64) for gaming and Intel for graphics, multiple applications, and the such. IMO if I had to choose between Intel's P4 3.4 EE and AMD's FX-53, I would choose the FX-53 for gaming simply because it's much cheaper and scores the same as Intel if not better, although I feel both are capable gaming proccessors. A quick note, the AMD 3400 64 scored better then the EE 3.4 in 3D Mark 2001 and AquaMark03 CPU. I'm am not AMD or Intel biased, although I am going to get an AMD. I would love to debate this topic with anyone, so feel free to post your opinions or comments!

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

I agree, gaming AMD and everything else Intel.

However; Gaming is only on AMDs side because they have 64-bit which allows for a far superior numbering control. With Intel's 64-bit bid in 2006; will the Gaming Crown still be on AMD's head?

Personally; I would have brought Intel when I got my computer if I had not wanted 64-bit to use the Longhorn Beta end of next year on it before I then buy another computer (that will be Intel 64-bit).

It was a silly mistake to allow 64-bit to go to AMD; but Microsoft made the mistake with the Internet and who's the king of the Internet now?

Mostly though; its down to the price and opinions. AMDs are cheaper and although Intel's are Tanks and will last for years and years and keep going and going and going this doesn't matter to a person who's sees £1,100 and an AMD Computer and £1,200 on an Intel Computer.

 

[Tulsileaf]

EM64T

EM64T@intel.com

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

And...

We all knew about this, and we realise its based on AMD64 technology. But Windows is based on early Apple Technology - and who's the best now?

 

[gibant1]

My previous machine was a 3Ghz Amd64, fine machine.

This one is Far better at multi tasking, I always have things downloading in the background etc. and still play games without those "pause for a second" moments.

When it comes to games, these processors are BOTH MORE than enough to handle any games. The graphic card is far more important.

Tried my 6800 in my brothers 2ghz athlon XP. It murdered farcry with everything on!

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Yeah - I wish I had an Intel but I wanted 64-bit just incase the Longhorn Beta is 64-bit.

Overclocked Norwood 3.8Ghz eh? Hows it run?

 

[gibant1]

It;s sweet. It's a 3.2Ghz with 240Mhz bus overclock. have got it higher but haven't had time to fine tune the stability, so kept it at 240 (20% overclock).

First machine i've had that multi-tasks, Truly multi tasks.

When it comes to the overlocking, this things that quick i'm sure if i hadn't bothered i'd still be very happy. but if it's there....

And for all of you who dont have raid setup, DO IT it's one of the best upgrades you can get, cheap too.


Anybody not to sure how to do it, just ask.

 

[CoMpUtaFrEek]

gibby how do you cool that thing mate?

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Lol - its in an Ocean. But on a Serious note; Watercooled?