Go Back   Computer Forums > General Computing > Hardware
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-03-2006, 06:37 AM   #1
Beta Member
 
St8Ez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5
Question INTEL DUAL CORES vs. AMD DUAL CORES

The oldest question in the book AMD or INTEL but im starting a knew gaming system and im gonna make the transition from HT to DC despite hearing major compatability woes with Dual Cores still gonna go for it but which dual core prossercers is the for gaming graphics and over all performance. in what one lags the other exceeds and vise versa so which prossers is the best! price range from arond 400 dollars and down
__________________

St8Ez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2006, 03:13 PM   #2
G9
Daemon Poster
 
G9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,132
Default Re: INTEL DUAL CORES vs. AMD DUAL CORES

The AMD dual cores. I've seen it in so many articles.

You want gaming, eh?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103608 is probably the fastest dual core gaming processor on New Egg, but it goes way over your budget... it's $1000.
__________________

G9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2006, 03:19 PM   #3
Golden Master
 
ISOwner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 12,208
Default Re: INTEL DUAL CORES vs. AMD DUAL CORES

AMD dual cores are pretty nice. Key feature is that integrated memory controller. Even the new Intel dual cores don't have that feature yet. Until they do, I'm going with AMD.
__________________
*Fact: Microsoft Window's Blue Screen of Death vs Computerforums.org's White Screen of Death. Which is worse?
ISOwner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2006, 03:22 PM   #4
Golden Master
 
jac006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,810
Send a message via AIM to jac006
Default Re: INTEL DUAL CORES vs. AMD DUAL CORES

I'd go with the 4400 m2 amd 64 cpu. It's a fine cpu, and will beat any intel price equivalent...
__________________
Macbook Pro and Logitech z5500s. All you really need.
jac006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2006, 03:47 PM   #5
Daemon Poster
 
The Power's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 616
Default Re: INTEL DUAL CORES vs. AMD DUAL CORES

Intel dual cores I think are cheaper though.
__________________
playing World of Warcraft
find me on Anetheron, Delray, Troll Hunter
The Power is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2006, 04:24 PM   #6
Fully Optimized
 
NeXuS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,960
Default Re: INTEL DUAL CORES vs. AMD DUAL CORES

But there slower and tend to be extremely hot
NeXuS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2006, 04:27 PM   #7
cma
Baseband Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 51
Default Re: INTEL DUAL CORES vs. AMD DUAL CORES

?

which?
cma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2006, 04:35 PM   #8
BSOD
 
JustinMcG67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,519
Send a message via AIM to JustinMcG67 Send a message via MSN to JustinMcG67 Send a message via Yahoo to JustinMcG67
Default Re: INTEL DUAL CORES vs. AMD DUAL CORES

Well, this is a very subjective thread you make. Reason is, it REALLY depends upon what you want to do.

If you want to multitask like no other, then the Intel Pentium D is what you want. For some reason it handles more application better, however, when I mean a lot of applications, I mean, A LOT of applications. If you want to do some gaming, then this is where AMD comes in.

If you want to have better processing in gaming, then get the AMD, in most benchmarks, which you can find at http://www.tomshardware.com the Athlon 64 X2 series processors generally take the cake. Although Intel does win sometimes, most of the time it's AMD. If you asked me, I'd say when it comes to sheer processing, AMD has it made. Intel is lacking in the memory controller area. Not to mention, their 'dual-cores' aren't techinically dual-cores at all. They're rather 'double-cores'. Because the two CPUs don't actually communicate with each other, instead, they communicate with each other via a Quad-Pumped front-side-bus.

This creates a bottleneck, well, a rather LARGE bottleneck. You see, the thing that makes AMD better in processing is it's ability to communicate with each CPU better, because they actually 'talk' to each other. Plus, they have a built in memory controller, which allows the CPU to communicate to the memory directly, as oppossed to Intel processors which I believe use the FSB once again.

If I was you, I would pick any Athlon 64 X2 series processor. However, if you're on a budget and you still want performance nearly identical to AMD, then get a Pentium D 9xx processor. Which ever you choose you'll be great;y happy with. Dual-Core processors are insanely fast, however, you don't need dual-cores just yet. Dual-Cores may seem like a much better option, however, they aren't full utilized just yet. Not to mention, Single Cores can compete with them extremly well in gaming applications. So, the choice is really preference.
JustinMcG67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2006, 04:38 PM   #9
Fully Optimized
 
NeXuS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,960
Default Re: INTEL DUAL CORES vs. AMD DUAL CORES

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337DuD3
Well, this is a very subjective thread you make. Reason is, it REALLY depends upon what you want to do.

If you want to multitask like no other, then the Intel Pentium D is what you want. For some reason it handles more application better, however, when I mean a lot of applications, I mean, A LOT of applications. If you want to do some gaming, then this is where AMD comes in.

If you want to have better processing in gaming, then get the AMD, in most benchmarks, which you can find at http://www.tomshardware.com the Athlon 64 X2 series processors generally take the cake. Although Intel does win sometimes, most of the time it's AMD. If you asked me, I'd say when it comes to sheer processing, AMD has it made. Intel is lacking in the memory controller area. Not to mention, their 'dual-cores' aren't techinically dual-cores at all. They're rather 'double-cores'. Because the two CPUs don't actually communicate with each other, instead, they communicate with each other via a Quad-Pumped front-side-bus.

This creates a bottleneck, well, a rather LARGE bottleneck. You see, the thing that makes AMD better in processing is it's ability to communicate with each CPU better, because they actually 'talk' to each other. Plus, they have a built in memory controller, which allows the CPU to communicate to the memory directly, as oppossed to Intel processors which I believe use the FSB once again.

If I was you, I would pick any Athlon 63 X2 series processor. However, if you're on a budget and you still want performance nearly identical to AMD, then get a Pentium D 9xx processor. Which ever you choose you'll be great;y happy with. Dual-Core processors are insanely fast, however, you don't need dual-cores just yet. Dual-Cores may seem like a much better option, however, they aren't full utilized just yet. Not to mention, Single Cores can compete with them extremly well in gaming applications. So, the choice is really preference.
Great Review
NeXuS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2006, 04:39 PM   #10
Fully Optimized
 
NeXuS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,960
Default Re: INTEL DUAL CORES vs. AMD DUAL CORES

Quote:
Originally Posted by cma
?

which?
i meant Intels
__________________

NeXuS is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0