AMD vs Intel?

1024 · 2004-04-15, 03:38 PM

Which is better for running games in general? (type of game...BF:V, CoD, etc.)

Rbstr · 2004-04-15, 04:06 PM

Well if you have then money for a 2k system the Athlon 64 is your best bet, and soon it will be your bets bet for budget systems with the new socket

But right now the 2.8-3.2 ghz P4c's are the winners with the 865/875 chipsets.

Electrofreak · 2004-04-15, 04:21 PM

/me looks at topic name and predicts a coming holocaust

::heads down into his bomb shelter::

Rbstr · 2004-04-15, 05:00 PM

yeah i know, i'm gona keep a tight reign on this one

Cyanide · 2004-04-15, 05:21 PM

Generally Intel's chips are better for multimedia because applications like games and movies because they are very predictable, so the inefficiencies of the P4s 20 segment pipeline are less magnified. AMD's are better for less predictable software like CAD and other business type apps. This is because they only have a 7 segment pipeline which means when the processor incorrectly predicts the next action, it only has to flush 4 or 5 segments, instead of 15 or 16.

Like Rbstr said though. Right now AMD's Athlon64 is the best overall for the simple fact that it's got a butt load of cache.

Rbstr · 2004-04-15, 05:37 PM

nah it doesn't have anythign to do with the cache, its just a fast CPU, the P4 has just as much cache.

the P4EE has 2mbytes of cache and the A64 FX-53 beats it in almost everything

Cyanide · 2004-04-15, 06:20 PM

Athlon64 has 1mb of exclusive L2 cache which is faster than the P4s 512k of L2 cache and the P4EEs 2mb of inclusive L3 cache. The L3 cache is loading data from system ram and then the L2 (which is still 512k) is loading from the L3 cache. Where as the Athlon64s 1mb of L2 cache loads data directly from system memory.

The amount of cache isn't the only thing that matters. The way it's used makes a big difference too.

1024 · 2004-04-15, 07:31 PM

I talked to my dad and he said that the Athalon64 is great, but right now theres no operating system that can support it.

It doesn't really matter anyways because i have a budget of about $400, and i want to get a new motherboard, along with the processor and some DDR RAM. In terms of RAM, I want somewhere around 758, but i'll probably end up with 512. Do you think it will make a that much of a difference if i get 512 isntead?

Any overall suggestions for the circumstances i'm under?

Cyanide · 2004-04-15, 08:10 PM

Well, for one thing, the Athlon64 is 64bit and 32bit. So it is supported by WindowsXP and any other operating system that supports 32bit x86. The 64bit extentions are not supported though.

It really depends on how your cash flow is and what kind of deal you can get on a processor. If you can get a 3.0 p4 instead of a 3.2 p4 with a price difference of about the cost of a 256mb stick of ram, then I'd go with more ram and a slightly slower processor. Otherwise, go with the fastest processor and motherboard now, and upgrade the ram to 768 or 1 gig later.

Electrofreak · 2004-04-15, 09:08 PM

::hugs his AMD 64 3200+::

Rbstr · 2004-04-15, 10:18 PM

wioth only 400 bucks i would have to go intel, a P4 2.4/6/8 and a Asus P4p800,

get the 2 512 sticks though even if you have to get a .2ghz less processor, becuase that will make a bigger difference

Acaila · 2004-04-15, 10:31 PM

Hyper threading makes for extremely smooth gameplay. I am an advocate of a P4 2.6 800 FSB OCed on P4P800. Taking into account OCing, it is 1 of the best value midrange CPUs, OCes really high without heating problems.

If you have the money to but a high end chip, it is all personal preference basically, they are all good. However cost wise, the high end P4s end up being cheaper (not the extreme edition) when you include m/b and P4 3.2 performs about the same as an AMD64 3.4. If you have money coming out your ass, AMD64 FX is about the fastest thing in desktop processors that isn't made by Silicon Graphics.

UncleDynamite · 2004-04-15, 11:01 PM

Plus, the Athlon 64 won't become obsolete anytime soon. In fact, it'll become even better once 64 bit software becomes available.

1024 · 2004-04-16, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by Rbstr

wioth only 400 bucks i would have to go intel, a P4 2.4/6/8 and a Asus P4p800,

get the 2 512 sticks though even if you have to get a .2ghz less processor, becuase that will make a bigger difference

It's seriously better to get more RAM than have a faster proc??

Electrofreak · 2004-04-16, 02:36 AM

Well, it matters. With PlanetSide, its definately a good idea to get as much RAM as possible. It will make a huge diff even if your CPU isnt so hot.

Also, you don't want to get a pwning CPU and lousy RAM that cannot take advantage of the FSB. On the flip side, you don't want to get DDR500 RAM and a CPU that only has 533mhz FSB. A balance is needed.

I'll hopefully be OCing my AMD 64 3200+ from 200 up to 230 FSB (x10) and my HyperX PC3500 RAM from 217 to 230 mhz, running them both at 1:1 ratio for max performance. Hopefully this will compensate for the fact that my CPU cannot run RAM in dual channel

RAM should be here tomorrow, I'll be sure to tell you guys how well the OC goes (whether you want to hear it or not lol)

edit: UncleDynamite is right. Exactly why I bought an AMD 64. I'm looking to keep this CPU for a while (year or 2) and I want to be future-proofed. Sure, there arent many 64-bit apps out yet, but a beta build of WIN XP 64 has already been released to the public, so you know which way Microsoft is going. And where Microsoft goes, game companies follow...