AMD vs. Intel

Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by CaseGreen, Aug 15, 2007.

  1. CaseGreen

    CaseGreen ...watching people die can make you feel so alive. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,213
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    For me the poor college student I chose to go AMD over Intel

    (6000+ over E6600) I game a fair bit, but I'm not a die hard gamer. Going this way I saved a fair amount of money. Will I really notice the difference between performance? Or is it negligible to me? :dunno:
     
  2. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    (hides in a corner)
     
  3. Cicatrize

    Cicatrize $user_title

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Palm Beach, FL
    You won't notice shit, honestly. Are the Core 2 Duos better CPU's? Yes. Has Intel finally taken the market? Yes. But really, who gives a fuck if you can encode your video 5 seconds faster? I don't. :)

    I still love my AMD 64 X2 4800+. :)
     
  4. CaseGreen

    CaseGreen ...watching people die can make you feel so alive. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,213
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Thats what I'm thinking. I mean yes i understand Intel is better and i look at the benchmarks and can see that. But damn son, it looks like the difference is hardly noticable like a few seconds on encoding or a few extra fps while gaming (2-8) hard to justify spending more $$$ for such a small difference to me :hs:
     
  5. Leb_CRX

    Leb_CRX OT's resident terrorist

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2001
    Messages:
    39,994
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    I always look for best bang for the buck

    go with that...if it's AMD, so be it, nothing wron with being a fag
     
  6. wabash9000

    wabash9000 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    14,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Overland Park, KS
    if you are looking to save some money the 6000+ and the 5200+ are basically the same chip clocked differently. I have my 5200+ running 2.99 ghz and it takes everything I can through at it no problems with over heating.
     
  7. Zz_3.14_zZ

    Zz_3.14_zZ New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2003
    Messages:
    23,308
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mid-Flolriduh
    :rofl: No doubt. I made this thread back in 03.


    Now, back to the matter at hand. I am a die hard Intel fan. But I agree with Leb_CRX.

    If teh intel only goes 2 seconds for an extra $300. I'd say go with the AMD.
     
  8. Harry Caray

    Harry Caray Fine purveyor of x.264, h.264 & TS HD-Video !!! HD

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2001
    Messages:
    17,176
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    MyCrews:4x4,SoCal,Tesla,EV's
    :werd: Right now, the only REAL thing Intel is winning the war in is the 'BigIron' / High-End stuff (aka quad-core/ massive L2 chips) ....

    but site after site (blah,blah) show after 2 cores, it really doesn't mean much. (now anyways, but in later 08/09 games yes)...

    AMD has been lagging with the 4core unit which was already supposed to be here....(Barcelona then Shanghai) but we probably won't see Barcelona til Nov now :rofl: and then Intel will kill them with $189 Q6600's :o

    But for now... I'd go with AMD for a "cheap" 5200+ (will bump right up to 6000+ because its the SAME DAMN CHIP) gaming rig because it clocks the same basically as a E6600 on about every game...

    And put that $$$ into a video card ;)


    P.S. For me, I do alot of video editing and compressing (see AV) so I need 4 cores... but still have 2 AMD Opteron boxes :wavey:
     
  9. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    We got Shanghaied by AMD! :run:

    ...sorry, I'm stoned on antihistamines and my boss isn't in the office today. I've never felt so useless.
     
  10. Harry Caray

    Harry Caray Fine purveyor of x.264, h.264 & TS HD-Video !!! HD

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2001
    Messages:
    17,176
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    MyCrews:4x4,SoCal,Tesla,EV's
    I thought that was amphetamines !!!:bowdown:
     
  11. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    I choose the better processor, so I'll stick with Intel.
     
  12. Doomsday

    Doomsday XXX

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    14,902
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    I already mentioned this on another thread.

    6000+ vs E6600 at stock speeds performs pretty much the same on benchmarks.

    but when you oc, the story is different.

    The 6000+ at stock 3.0GHz speed is consuming 125W, runs hot, and is already at it's peak performance. The best coolers can only overclock this to 3.2, or 3.4 if you're lucky.

    The e6600 at 2.4GHz stock speed is at 65W and is still half asleep. These chips can easily reach 3.2 to 3.6 with air only. Higher for water/phase cooling.

    For an enthusiast, the difference can be big.

    If you really want to stick with AMD, get the lower chips like the 5200+ or 5600+ which consumes only 90W. These can easily reach 6000+ speeds for less money.

    The only advantage that AMD offers right now is price. Good for consumers, bad for AMD. I wonder how long can they survive selling chips at tray prices with a $1.8Billion debt (used to purchase ATI).
     
  13. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Overclocking is a waste of time unless you know exactly what you're doing and have top-of-the-line equipment. If you don't match the FSB/RAM/CPU speeds, you'll just make the computer slower.

    Anyway, if the 6000+ is already at its peak performance right out of the box, then you're actually getting your money's worth without having to invest more money in a top-notch motherboard and RAM and PSU, the time to experiment with overclock settings, and possibly even more money to replace parts that you fry in the process. Seems like the better deal to me.
     
  14. Doomsday

    Doomsday XXX

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    14,902
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    With technology improving and failsafes getting better,.. it's just so easy and safer to overclock nowadays. It's free performance. such a waste if you ignore it.

    If it does get more expensive,... the user is to blame.
    The goal of overclocking has always been to achieve more performance for less money.
     
  15. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    overclocking to "save money" is stupid, imo. It's like adding forced induction in a car to "save gas".

    If you want to overclock for the sake of overclocking (like people mod cars for the sake of modding cars) then that's cool... I respect that. However, let's not kid ourselfs with what overclocking is, or especially what it isn't.
     
  16. Doomsday

    Doomsday XXX

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    14,902
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    A $299 Q6600 oc'd @ 3.0GHz + a $55 Thermalight Ultra-120 Extreme vs a $1K+ QX6800 @ 3.0GHz stock
    Same thing with the $1k Opterons.

    how can you call that stupid?

    But yeah, if the price diff is like $15 only,.. it is stupid.
     

Share This Page