|
Posted By liquidm on 12/19/03 @ 6:33:38 AM
|
|
Amd is good for graphic intensive games but i heard they often overheat these days....
|
|
Posted By lincolnluxor on 12/19/03 @ 7:18:15 AM
|
|
I've always had an intel, so I can't really compare.
|
|
Posted By liquidm on 12/19/03 @ 9:42:55 AM
|
I tried Amd, its really built for 3D gaming, it was damn good with my radeon9900. Highest score i ever score in 3d mark  Better than when im using intel... But relatively unstable when overclocked. Whats your view guys? need some advice...
|
|
Posted By Black-Syth on 12/25/03 @ 1:12:42 AM
|
Though all of my PCs have been Intel but one, I have to say AMD. They've scored huuuge points with the Athlon 64.
Oh, about the AMDs overheating. If any processors run hot, it's the Pentium 4. Intel thinks that it needs sheer clock speed to win the performance war, AMD is working smart. Intels are hot, AMDs aren't cold, but they're cooler than the P4.
|
|
Posted By liquidm on 12/25/03 @ 12:20:25 PM
|
lol. Bad news for AMD supporters, my friends A 64 just blew up yesterday.... he was playing halo when suddenly he smells smoke and burns.. his face was like:
|
|
Posted By Black-Syth on 12/25/03 @ 4:27:25 PM
|
| QUOTE (liquidm @ Dec 25 2003, 12:20 PM) | lol. Bad news for AMD supporters, my friends A 64 just blew up yesterday.... he was playing halo when suddenly he smells smoke and burns.. his face was like:
|
Any idea as to why?
|
|
Posted By tacoX on 12/25/03 @ 9:30:36 PM
|
|
I have an Intel, but I hear AMD's are alot better... I dont know why, but I have heard that from several people V_v
|
|
Posted By Fake on 12/26/03 @ 11:10:21 AM
|
Ok, here's the deal.
Although I have an AMD, I still prefer Intel. Know why? There was this test done with an Intel processor and an AMD porcessor. When the guy took the cooling out of the computer for the Intel, the computer just froze, but there was no serious damage. When the guy did the same thing for the AMD, it statrting smoking and actually melted. It hit a temperature of over 600F.
However, other then that I would say they are equal. They are both great..... just remember to have some good cooling  .
|
|
Posted By liquidm on 12/27/03 @ 8:09:11 AM
|
installing a water cooling system in your pc will be a good idea for AMD users, it really chills your chip out 
|
|
Posted By Black-Syth on 12/27/03 @ 9:43:46 PM
|
| QUOTE (liquidm @ Dec 27 2003, 08:09 AM) | | installing a water cooling system in your pc will be a good idea for AMD users, it really chills your chip out |
I'm a big hardware affectionado, and I can tell you that the Intel chips run crazy hot. This isn't to say they are bad. Anyhoo, stock cooling should be sufficient for a non-overclocked Intel or AMD system, though, to be honest, it wouldn't hurt to have a stock CPU and have it watercooled. Water cooling is usually left for the OCing extremists.
|
|
Posted By liquidm on 12/28/03 @ 7:03:06 AM
|
Agreed, he did overclock it my friend I just asked him bout the details yesterday...
What a waste of his CPU..
|
|
Posted By jd-inflames on 1/02/04 @ 2:58:25 AM
|
| QUOTE (Black-Syth @ Dec 27 2003, 09:43 PM) | | QUOTE (liquidm @ Dec 27 2003, 08:09 AM) | | installing a water cooling system in your pc will be a good idea for AMD users, it really chills your chip out |
I'm a big hardware affectionado, and I can tell you that the Intel chips run crazy hot. This isn't to say they are bad. Anyhoo, stock cooling should be sufficient for a non-overclocked Intel or AMD system, though, to be honest, it wouldn't hurt to have a stock CPU and have it watercooled. Water cooling is usually left for the OCing extremists. |
i hate to inform you, but your cooling argument is a bit...lets say...stupid. intels actually run cooler when you compare by actual clock rates. take a P4 1.6GHz and an athlon xp 2000+ (cant remember if the 2000 was the 1.6 or not) and compare the cooling. almost identicle. BUT, the thing is, intel processors cores can take heat a LOT better than AMD's can, which is why they last longer. AMD uses slower clocked processors and rate them as higher (example being 1700+ is actually 1.4GHz) because the way they are built, is that they run like a mad mother to keep up. in other words, AMD is better at games because it takes in and spits out info REALLY fast but has proven to be a bit unstable. Intel on the other hand...i would recommend one of those for such things as, 3D rendering, video editing, anything that takes a lot of CPU load but doesnt require it to be incredibly fast like games do. At least this is what i got when i asked Dave Stellmack, writer for Toms Hardware Guide (in person) at Lanwar 18.
I chose Intel just because i wish i was running one right now...i was a very proud owner of a P2...i miss that bad mofo
|
|
Posted By Black-Syth on 1/02/04 @ 11:46:59 AM
|
| QUOTE | | i hate to inform you, but your cooling argument is a bit...lets say...stupid. |
I don't remember having an argument about anything. I was just stating something.
| QUOTE | | intels actually run cooler when you compare by actual clock rates. take a P4 1.6GHz and an athlon xp 2000+ (cant remember if the 2000 was the 1.6 or not) and compare the cooling. almost identicle. |
Actually, according to an overclockers.com article, the XP 2000+ runs about 3'C cooler than the 1.6Ghz P4.
| QUOTE | | BUT, the thing is, intel processors cores can take heat a LOT better than AMD's can |
That's a lie. Even though the P4 doesn't have an exposed core, and has a built in heat spreader, it still takes heat a lot worse than an AMD, say, 2200+.
| QUOTE | | AMD uses slower clocked processors and rate them as higher (example being 1700+ is actually 1.4GHz) because the way they are built, |
True, the quantispeed architecture enables AMD to run at virtually higher clock speeds than Intel, and still have similar performance. From your perspective, sheer clock speed is all that matters in a CPU. No, the only thing the clock speed is, is the clocks per cycle. AMD has a way around that, look at the Athlon FX-51. It runs at 2.2Ghz but creams the pants off of the Intel Pentium 4 3.2Ghz. This is because of the 1024kb of L2 cache, and an onboard memory controller. Intel is working hard, AMD is working smart. It all adds up to be a hell of a competition.
| QUOTE | | is that they run like a mad mother to keep up. |
False.
| QUOTE | | in other words, AMD is better at games because it takes in and spits out info REALLY fast |
True, however, so does the Pentium 4. The P4 has a much higher bandwidth, and a much higher clock speed, and it does prove to spit data out faster than the AMD Athlon. The beauty of the AMD athlon is it's short FSB bridge, which enables it to take in and spit data out faster. The P4, on the other hand, can take larger chunks of data than the Athlon XP, much faster.
| QUOTE | | but has proven to be a bit unstable. |
False.
| QUOTE | | intel on the other hand...i would recommend one of those for such things as, 3D rendering, video editing, anything that takes a lot of CPU load but doesnt require it to be incredibly fast like games do. |
Not necessarily, there are certain games where the P4 prevails with flying colors, and the Athlon really drags. I believe that this all has to do with what kind of game/data it is. If it's large, slowly moving data, the P4 will pwn, if it's small, fast moving chunks of data, the AMD chips poke their head into the winners circle.
| QUOTE | | At least this is what i got when i asked Dave Stellmack, writer for Toms Hardware Guide (in person) at Lanwar 18. |
TH is t3h pwn with articles. I think him and you were talking about the P4 -vs- the Athlon XP. For the most part, he was correct, and this is what me and you are debating about. But now, with the release of the Athlon 64, the P4 is having a hard time keeping up.
| QUOTE | | I chose Intel just because i wish i was running one right now...i was a very proud owner of a P2...i miss that bad mofo |
Hell yeah, I am a proud owner of a 500Mhz PIII.
|
|
Posted By jd-inflames on 1/02/04 @ 12:07:37 PM
|
about the overclockers.com thing, i dont want you to view your source as unreliable...but i dont trust a site dedicated to overclocking when it comes to heat. that just tells me that oc'ed athlons handle heat a lot better than oc'ed p4s, which i have found to be quite true.
and about athlon 64's, i was one of the first audiences allowed to view it (MML2), and it looked to be really kick ass...but that chip is still REALLY expensive and i saw the preview almost a year ago.
about the athlon FX...i havent heard of this yet, ive been out of the scene for about 6 months...you got anymore info on that? it sounds really interesting.
|
|
Posted By Black-Syth on 1/02/04 @ 1:19:40 PM
|
| QUOTE (jd-inflames @ Jan 2 2004, 12:07 PM) | and about athlon 64's, i was one of the first audiences allowed to view it (MML2), and it looked to be really kick ass...but that chip is still REALLY expensive and i saw the preview almost a year ago.
about the athlon FX...i havent heard of this yet, ive been out of the scene for about 6 months...you got anymore info on that? it sounds really interesting. |
The Athlon FX is actually an AMD Opteron optimized for gaming.
It depends on which Athlon 64 you're talking about, but for the most part, yes they're pretty expensive.
I think that the Athlon 64 3000+ and 3200+ have decent pricetags, but $722 for the Athlon FX is insane. Intel's answer to the FX is even more expensive, it costs almost $1000!!! That's the processor alone! It's basically a Xeon with a 2mb L3 cache, and it only barely outperforms the FX.
Performance: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/index.html
|
|
Posted By liquidm on 1/02/04 @ 1:22:29 PM
|
|
thx alot man, now i know better about hose chips..
|