lol i remember thatcyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
i missed my old P3 remember when they were better than p4's?
Poll
AMD vs. Intel
AMD is the 1337 | 61% | 61% - 130 | ||||
Intel is the 1337 | 38% | 38% - 82 | ||||
Total: 212 |
AMD 64 Athlon for me
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.
i had an amd, now have a intel and all i can say is that i miss my amd
Conroe = to over priced. would i wanna pay for some that expensive for the performance im not gonna get...cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
AMD's stock prices just fell today and conroe isnt out yet (still hard to find)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.
Last edited by diglow~Flow (2006-07-28 07:45:38)
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 FX62diglow~Flow wrote:
Conroe = to over priced. would i wanna pay for some that expensive for the performance im not gonna get...cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
AMD's stock prices just fell today and conroe isnt out yet (still hard to find)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.
Yup, that'S why I'll probably get excactly that model...cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
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 FX62diglow~Flow wrote:
Conroe = to over priced. would i wanna pay for some that expensive for the performance im not gonna get...cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
AMD's stock prices just fell today and conroe isnt out yet (still hard to find)
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.
got a amd in my machine now
prefer intel by far
prefer intel by far
i used to have a intel 486 a long long time ago
Intel without doubt.
Semper Fi!
Semper Fi!
what in the world are you talking about....diglow~Flow wrote:
Conroe = to over priced. would i wanna pay for some that expensive for the performance im not gonna get...cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
AMD's stock prices just fell today and conroe isnt out yet (still hard to find)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.
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+
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+
amd, intel is based on speed only and made cheap. plus dell uses them in their comps wat more must i say besides that.
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)
not anymore dude lmaooneshotsnipednoobfag wrote:
amd, intel is based on speed only and made cheap. plus dell uses them in their comps wat more must i say besides that.
a cpu is important to a high end gamer. imagine having a quad system with a 2.6 celeronHellfire(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+
I could right all the information out by hand faster then a celeron could do it.
Last edited by Cold Fussion (2006-08-19 23:21:30)
Intel goes ping pong.
Intel: Ping Pong
Well I must say I am quite impressed with both. I have to computer in my house both Battlefield ready and well what would you know I got an Intel Petium 4 3.0 Ghz up against my AMD Athlon 64 3500+ at 2.4 GHz I believe. And well my opinion is well obviously for the lower speed on the AMD I quite impressed how it keeps up and may even out beat my intel but all in all I cant exactly compare the two they really are both great processors. All I know is if I had to buy another processor I think I might start having some troubles.
Peace
Peace
Would you rather be running a 2.6 celeron w/ a 7900GT or an AMD FX-580000 w/ a Geforce 6200LE?Maj.Do wrote:
a cpu is important to a high end gamer. imagine having a quad system with a 2.6 celeronHellfire(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+
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.
I rofl @ AMD fanbois who won't accept that Conroe > all. I have my E6600 sitting here in my lap waiting to be installed once my Zalman CNPS9500 gets here.
So I voted Intel.
So I voted Intel.