BF2S Forums AMD vs. INTEL Poll/Topic

AMD 64 Athlon for me

i had an amd, now have a intel and all i can say is that i miss my amd

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

diglow~Flow wrote:

hey cyborg might as well quit the fight to many ppl love amd and if there gonna spend 5.4Billion dollars on a chipset im pretty sure they can advertivse any day of the week.

AMD's stock prices just fell today and conroe isnt out yet (still hard to find)

Conroe = to over priced. would i wanna pay for some that expensive for the performance im not gonna get...

Last edited by diglow~Flow (2006-07-28 07:45:38)

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

diglow~Flow wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

AMD's stock prices just fell today and conroe isnt out yet (still hard to find)

Conroe = to over priced. would i wanna pay for some that expensive for the performance im not gonna get...

conroe= way cheaper than amd, and more performance. just admit it, its cheaper and faster. 300 dollar model beats amd's top of the line FX62

Yup, that'S why I'll probably get excactly that model...

Btw, I think I'll have to say Intel for one reason: reliability. They just work. I've had many PCs over my more or less short lifespan but from the recent models, Intel just owns more for reliability imo. Before what I have now, I had an Athlon XP 2000+. Nice CPU if it ran. But it just wouldn't run without crashing in summer, no matter how many fans I installed... argh. Now I have my Pentium M notebook (actually for a year now) and itmay not be the fastest that's available atm, but it fookin runs... always.... 24/7 if I wish. That's what I want. And of course the new kickass Core Duo.

conroe not out... except for E6300

Intel without doubt.




Semper Fi!

Honestly people, I've owned both AMDs and Intels over the past 6 years and I honestly have to say about 5 things.
1. Processors aren't THAT important to a gamer in the first place, spend the money on a high end video card.
2. AMD makes cheaper mid-grade processors than Intel.
3. Intel makes and markets its products to the ignorant pre-built computer consumer. (Higher numbers, Higher price.)
4. AMD markets to people who do their research and know what they want for their computer. (except for those FX processors. Those are for idiots that don't know what they are doing =\)

and in general, I've had AMDs outlast my Intels by almost 2 years before they burn out. And also, i've noticed that overclocked Intels need more cooling to keep them stable, whereas the AMDs usually can take increased clock speeds and stay stable until a point where they just don't work anymore. (They overclock AWESOME, right up until your cooling can't keep up with em.)

Just my personal experiences/opinions.

I've owned the following:
Pentium 4 2.6 ghz
Pentium 4 3.2 ghz HT
Athlon 2600+
Athlon 64 3200+

Null. I like AMD, but if their platform doesn't quash what Intel has going on right now, or at least offer good future upgrades, then by spring next year, I'll probably be sporting Intel. I try not to get caught up in the brand name trap, and buy solely based on performance, quality and price.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-08-19 20:31:13)

Hellfire(Fish) wrote:

Honestly people, I've owned both AMDs and Intels over the past 6 years and I honestly have to say about 5 things.
1. Processors aren't THAT important to a gamer in the first place, spend the money on a high end video card.
2. AMD makes cheaper mid-grade processors than Intel.
3. Intel makes and markets its products to the ignorant pre-built computer consumer. (Higher numbers, Higher price.)
4. AMD markets to people who do their research and know what they want for their computer. (except for those FX processors. Those are for idiots that don't know what they are doing =\)

and in general, I've had AMDs outlast my Intels by almost 2 years before they burn out. And also, i've noticed that overclocked Intels need more cooling to keep them stable, whereas the AMDs usually can take increased clock speeds and stay stable until a point where they just don't work anymore. (They overclock AWESOME, right up until your cooling can't keep up with em.)

Just my personal experiences/opinions.

I've owned the following:
Pentium 4 2.6 ghz
Pentium 4 3.2 ghz HT
Athlon 2600+
Athlon 64 3200+

a cpu is important to a high end gamer.  imagine having a quad system with a 2.6 celeron

core 2 duo wins

Intel: Ping Pong

Maj.Do wrote:

Hellfire(Fish) wrote:

Honestly people, I've owned both AMDs and Intels over the past 6 years and I honestly have to say about 5 things.
1. Processors aren't THAT important to a gamer in the first place, spend the money on a high end video card.
2. AMD makes cheaper mid-grade processors than Intel.
3. Intel makes and markets its products to the ignorant pre-built computer consumer. (Higher numbers, Higher price.)
4. AMD markets to people who do their research and know what they want for their computer. (except for those FX processors. Those are for idiots that don't know what they are doing =\)

and in general, I've had AMDs outlast my Intels by almost 2 years before they burn out. And also, i've noticed that overclocked Intels need more cooling to keep them stable, whereas the AMDs usually can take increased clock speeds and stay stable until a point where they just don't work anymore. (They overclock AWESOME, right up until your cooling can't keep up with em.)

Just my personal experiences/opinions.

I've owned the following:
Pentium 4 2.6 ghz
Pentium 4 3.2 ghz HT
Athlon 2600+
Athlon 64 3200+

a cpu is important to a high end gamer.  imagine having a quad system with a 2.6 celeron

Would you rather be running a 2.6 celeron w/ a 7900GT or an AMD FX-580000 w/ a Geforce 6200LE?
I mean honestly, you shouldn't care NEAR as much about that processor as you should about your Video card.
It's where the bottleneck is in your system, not that CPU.