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


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-22-2005, 02:32 PM   #11
Baseband Member
 
Redspade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 45
Default Re: question on the dual core

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRDCorolla
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?
__________________

Redspade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2005, 03:00 PM   #12
Daemon Poster
 
acphenom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 667
Send a message via MSN to acphenom Send a message via Yahoo to acphenom
Default Re: question on the dual core

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.
__________________

__________________
Windows XP Pro 17" LCD Monitor (1280 x 1024)
nForce3 250 Chipset Athlon 64 2800+ w/ C'n'Q
1 x 512MB DDR400 CL3 SDRAM 40GB IDE 7,200rpm HDD (8MB Cache)
nVidia GeForce MX420 64MB PCI On-Board Audio
acphenom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2005, 03:06 PM   #13
Baseband Member
 
Redspade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 45
Default Re: question on the dual core

Quote:
Originally Posted by acphenom
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
__________________
- AMD FX-60 2.8 GHZ O/C=3.2 GHZ Dual core
Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe, 2 gig OCZ Dual channel DDR ram Plat Edition (400 mhz) 2,2,2,5 timings, 2x 120 GB Western Digital SATA2 HDD(Raid 0), 2x BFG 512MB Geforce 7800 GTX-OC's, Sound bLaster X-FI XtreamMusic -
Redspade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2005, 03:57 PM   #14
In Runtime
 
golf_addict73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 129
Send a message via AIM to golf_addict73 Send a message via Yahoo to golf_addict73
Default Re: question on the dual core

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
__________________
AMD athlon X2 3800+, Abit AN8-Ultra, Patriot sig series (2x512), Seagate barracuda 80GB sata 150, radeon X1900GT 256MB 256-bit vid card, Thermaltake silent purepower 480W psu
golf_addict73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2005, 04:42 PM   #15
Daemon Poster
 
acphenom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 667
Send a message via MSN to acphenom Send a message via Yahoo to acphenom
Default Re: question on the dual core

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.
__________________
Windows XP Pro 17" LCD Monitor (1280 x 1024)
nForce3 250 Chipset Athlon 64 2800+ w/ C'n'Q
1 x 512MB DDR400 CL3 SDRAM 40GB IDE 7,200rpm HDD (8MB Cache)
nVidia GeForce MX420 64MB PCI On-Board Audio
acphenom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2005, 04:52 PM   #16
Baseband Member
 
Redspade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 45
Default Re: question on the dual core

Quote:
Originally Posted by acphenom
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.
__________________
- AMD FX-60 2.8 GHZ O/C=3.2 GHZ Dual core
Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe, 2 gig OCZ Dual channel DDR ram Plat Edition (400 mhz) 2,2,2,5 timings, 2x 120 GB Western Digital SATA2 HDD(Raid 0), 2x BFG 512MB Geforce 7800 GTX-OC's, Sound bLaster X-FI XtreamMusic -
Redspade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2005, 05:02 PM   #17
In Runtime
 
golf_addict73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 129
Send a message via AIM to golf_addict73 Send a message via Yahoo to golf_addict73
Default Re: question on the dual core

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.....
__________________
AMD athlon X2 3800+, Abit AN8-Ultra, Patriot sig series (2x512), Seagate barracuda 80GB sata 150, radeon X1900GT 256MB 256-bit vid card, Thermaltake silent purepower 480W psu
golf_addict73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2005, 05:04 PM   #18
Baseband Member
 
Redspade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 45
Default Re: question on the dual core

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.
__________________
- AMD FX-60 2.8 GHZ O/C=3.2 GHZ Dual core
Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe, 2 gig OCZ Dual channel DDR ram Plat Edition (400 mhz) 2,2,2,5 timings, 2x 120 GB Western Digital SATA2 HDD(Raid 0), 2x BFG 512MB Geforce 7800 GTX-OC's, Sound bLaster X-FI XtreamMusic -
Redspade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2005, 05:12 PM   #19
In Runtime
 
golf_addict73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 129
Send a message via AIM to golf_addict73 Send a message via Yahoo to golf_addict73
Default Re: question on the dual core

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
__________________
AMD athlon X2 3800+, Abit AN8-Ultra, Patriot sig series (2x512), Seagate barracuda 80GB sata 150, radeon X1900GT 256MB 256-bit vid card, Thermaltake silent purepower 480W psu
golf_addict73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2005, 05:21 PM   #20
Baseband Member
 
Redspade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 45
Default Re: question on the dual core

Quote:
Originally Posted by golf_addict73
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.
__________________

__________________
- AMD FX-60 2.8 GHZ O/C=3.2 GHZ Dual core
Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe, 2 gig OCZ Dual channel DDR ram Plat Edition (400 mhz) 2,2,2,5 timings, 2x 120 GB Western Digital SATA2 HDD(Raid 0), 2x BFG 512MB Geforce 7800 GTX-OC's, Sound bLaster X-FI XtreamMusic -
Redspade 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 01:27 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