I'm in the process of getting a pc built and wanted to know what the computer experts think is the best processor to have? Actually, in terms of what I'm using the pc for it'll be for gaming, editing, so mainly multi-media. I'm going to be spending in the neighborhood of around $1500 to $2000 and I'm staying away from brand names or anything to do with Future Shop or Best Buy computers. So can anyone recommend what specs are the best to go for when building a gamming computer that is also fast enough for internet use and full multi media capability? Thanks!
For techies- AMD or Pentium?
- Thread starter Robocock
- Start date
mmm_go said:Well, your subject is AMD or Pentium? Intel has permanently left AMD in the dust.
From a business perspective and performance:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?Symbol=AMD
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?Symbol=INTC
From what I heard and from http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/fx60-vs-955xe/index.x?pg=17 all benchmarks favor AMD over Pentium for performance.
Thanks for the article and you must know a lot more about computers than I do. I just heard from certain gammers that AMD is better for gaming then Pentium.mmm_go said:A lot changes in a full year. This article you reference is from 2006Q1 (as per the link info). This is before Intel Duo and quad core..AMD has new chips out but nothing close to Intel now. People may want to be careful with chip choice right now however since games may have to be written to use the new processors capabilities. Not sure how thats going. The AMD stock chart shows it all what people think.
Read this about more current comparisons
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061130-8327.html
AMD was in the lead for 2005 - 2006. However, Intel has regained the lead with it's Core 2 architecture. That's not to say tha AMD are bad chips, but if you want the latest and greatest buy a Core 2 Duo processor. However, if you want to save some money then get an AMD, they may not be the fastest processor but they're still very fast and are much cheaper.
As far as brand name one,s there's nothing wrong with getting a Dell, HP, or Compaq if you're not too familiar with computers. You can get hem with a warrant and get free tech support. For me personally, I prefer to build my own but if you don't know what you're doing then get a brand name one. Nothing wrong with that; just stay away from MDG.
The only thing you'll probably want to do if you buy a brand name PC is to upgrade the video card if you're going to be doing serious gaming.
As far as brand name one,s there's nothing wrong with getting a Dell, HP, or Compaq if you're not too familiar with computers. You can get hem with a warrant and get free tech support. For me personally, I prefer to build my own but if you don't know what you're doing then get a brand name one. Nothing wrong with that; just stay away from MDG.
The only thing you'll probably want to do if you buy a brand name PC is to upgrade the video card if you're going to be doing serious gaming.
I find benchmarks pretty useless these days, especially for typical users. You are better off spending time on IO performance than CPU IMHO.
I think the most important processor qualities are price and heat. Price is obvious. As for heat, once you have a silent computer, you will never go back to a loud machine. I find the AMD Venice chipset excellent on both counts.
I am glad we have AMD and Intel duking it out though. Intel was getting very very lazy and AMD got them back on track.
I think the most important processor qualities are price and heat. Price is obvious. As for heat, once you have a silent computer, you will never go back to a loud machine. I find the AMD Venice chipset excellent on both counts.
I am glad we have AMD and Intel duking it out though. Intel was getting very very lazy and AMD got them back on track.
Lazy or maybe they just figured, "Hey, the customers aren't complaining. Just keep doing what we're doing and, reap in the profits until they complain."
Nobody complained but AMD came in and started taking away some of their business.
Both are great companies.
My father is running my AMD Barton 2800 or 3200 from 4 years ago on XP.
Still mint.
Nobody complained but AMD came in and started taking away some of their business.
Both are great companies.
My father is running my AMD Barton 2800 or 3200 from 4 years ago on XP.
Still mint.
PC World Benchmarks for gaming and other graphic related uses put the AMD chips ahead of Intel for speed and other related points, on XP and Media Centre OS, and using add-on graphics cards (not on-board graphics of Mobo).
Of course the other challenge is that the two Goliaths like to control most of the sandbox real estate for themselves to play in. MS and Intel have always had a "close" relationship. Not surprising that when the testing of AMD Dual Core vs. Intel Dual Core with Vista OS - Intel comes out slightly ahead.
As has been pointed out - it has a lot more to do with than just speed. If you do not understand the differences in Mobo architecture for the chips, and what you will need for graphics acceleration, RAM, cooling, etc., etc., buy one off the shelf, or you will spend more time and money just getting what ever you hacked together to work at all. There are lots of great off the shelf gaming machines out there, but you will have to increase your budget significantly for top of the line - even if you build your own. Build your own - figure $2,500 to $3,000 including decent monitor etc. Off of the shelf figure on $3,500 to $5,000. Again - this would be for a top-of-the-line Gaming Machine. A basic DIY office machine can be easily built for under $500 these days.
Just my 2 bytes for you.
Of course the other challenge is that the two Goliaths like to control most of the sandbox real estate for themselves to play in. MS and Intel have always had a "close" relationship. Not surprising that when the testing of AMD Dual Core vs. Intel Dual Core with Vista OS - Intel comes out slightly ahead.
As has been pointed out - it has a lot more to do with than just speed. If you do not understand the differences in Mobo architecture for the chips, and what you will need for graphics acceleration, RAM, cooling, etc., etc., buy one off the shelf, or you will spend more time and money just getting what ever you hacked together to work at all. There are lots of great off the shelf gaming machines out there, but you will have to increase your budget significantly for top of the line - even if you build your own. Build your own - figure $2,500 to $3,000 including decent monitor etc. Off of the shelf figure on $3,500 to $5,000. Again - this would be for a top-of-the-line Gaming Machine. A basic DIY office machine can be easily built for under $500 these days.
Just my 2 bytes for you.
To compare CPUs, go to Tom's Hardware ( http://tomshardware.com ), click on the "CPU" button, and then check out the Reviews, Technology, Charts, etc.
As I understand it, the new Intel Core 2 Duo generally beats out the AMD X2, which easily beat out the PentiumD (all dual core). If you want to bring price into the equation, though, you might not find the latest Intel chips worth the cost.
And even if a particular game isn't written to take full advantage of a dual core architecture, there's always other stuff that a computer has to do, so having the second core to take care of that load still does help the game software.
As I understand it, the new Intel Core 2 Duo generally beats out the AMD X2, which easily beat out the PentiumD (all dual core). If you want to bring price into the equation, though, you might not find the latest Intel chips worth the cost.
And even if a particular game isn't written to take full advantage of a dual core architecture, there's always other stuff that a computer has to do, so having the second core to take care of that load still does help the game software.
Robo, what do you think of these 2 systems..?
One Intel and one AMD. Price is a big factor for me so I'd choose AMD... as you could get this monitor and still have funds for some "non-gaming " fun with your favorite hotty when compared to the Intel one.
Intel system
http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowProduct&cmd=pd&pid=011757&cid=170.45
AMD system
http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowProduct&cmd=pd&pid=010911&cid=170.45
Monitor
http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2604167&Sku=S197-2200
One Intel and one AMD. Price is a big factor for me so I'd choose AMD... as you could get this monitor and still have funds for some "non-gaming " fun with your favorite hotty when compared to the Intel one.
Intel system
http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowProduct&cmd=pd&pid=011757&cid=170.45
AMD system
http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowProduct&cmd=pd&pid=010911&cid=170.45
Monitor
http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2604167&Sku=S197-2200
wumpscut
You're comparing apples and oranges with those two systems.
The AMD runs at 2.0 GHz with 2 x 512kb caches
The Intel runs at 2.66 GHz with 2 x 2MB caches and also has a better video card and larger hard drive. No wonder it's twice as much money.
You're comparing apples and oranges with those two systems.
The AMD runs at 2.0 GHz with 2 x 512kb caches
The Intel runs at 2.66 GHz with 2 x 2MB caches and also has a better video card and larger hard drive. No wonder it's twice as much money.
The Intel has a slightly better video card (though I think it is overpowered for the system) but the AMD generally run better even with a lower clock speed.
The AMD is a better deal but if you want upgrades, they will do it for you.
The AMD is a better deal but if you want upgrades, they will do it for you.
Intel vs AMD in benchmarks where you can see where they stand against each other;
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014647,00.asp
These benchmarks are with the same memory in each system. I just noticed the AMD system at Canada Computers has half the memory the Intel system does (in the 2 systems mentioned above). Another reason for the cost difference.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014647,00.asp
These benchmarks are with the same memory in each system. I just noticed the AMD system at Canada Computers has half the memory the Intel system does (in the 2 systems mentioned above). Another reason for the cost difference.
Excellent info thirdtime - Thanks! The site looks like a good resource overall.thirdtime said:Intel vs AMD in benchmarks where you can see where they stand against each other;
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014647,00.asp
These benchmarks are with the same memory in each system. I just noticed the AMD system at Canada Computers has half the memory the Intel system does (in the 2 systems mentioned above). Another reason for the cost difference.
Dont forget that all this talk about Core Duo and Quad Core contains a lot of hype !!
Go down to yer local stores and check out a few configurations yourself !!
Unless you plan to run 10+ apps concurrently, you may not notice any improvements.
HTH
Go down to yer local stores and check out a few configurations yourself !!
Unless you plan to run 10+ apps concurrently, you may not notice any improvements.
HTH
My main workhorse system for a couple of years has been:
Intel 2.4 GHz (Northwood core which is faster than the equivalent Prescott core and runs cooler) overclocked to 2.88 GHz
2 GB low latency Corsair DDR memory
New system:
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz overclocked to 3.11 GHz
2 GB low latency Corsair DDR2 memory
I notice the new system does circles around the old one in sheer processing power. Nero Recode alone processes at a framerate 4 to 5X faster.
I don't usually run a lot of processes at once, and I'd say the 'hype' about the Core 2 Duo over a plain-Jane P4 is true from my experience.
I run both systems via a KVM (with audio) switch
I think there is a lot of "hype" about the quad cores to consider. No improvement for gamers over the Core 2 Duo and applications have to be written to take advantage of the quad core.
Intel 2.4 GHz (Northwood core which is faster than the equivalent Prescott core and runs cooler) overclocked to 2.88 GHz
2 GB low latency Corsair DDR memory
New system:
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz overclocked to 3.11 GHz
2 GB low latency Corsair DDR2 memory
I notice the new system does circles around the old one in sheer processing power. Nero Recode alone processes at a framerate 4 to 5X faster.
I don't usually run a lot of processes at once, and I'd say the 'hype' about the Core 2 Duo over a plain-Jane P4 is true from my experience.
I run both systems via a KVM (with audio) switch
I think there is a lot of "hype" about the quad cores to consider. No improvement for gamers over the Core 2 Duo and applications have to be written to take advantage of the quad core.
