• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

AMD vs Intel

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Mico

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2002
Location
Marrietta, GA
My friend tells me that AMD runs graphic intensive application better than Intel, however I question his judgement after looking at a few benchmark tests. In general, which is better for say, Counter-Strike or Tribes 2 or something like that.
 

modenaf1

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
the terran system
AMD helps in intensive aplications. it does more per clock cycle. Intels are better for the little stuff that dosent really matter and benefits from high Ghz ;)
 

timmyqwest

Disabled
Joined
Nov 10, 2002
Location
illinois
I think this might help...

deadhorse_1024x768.jpg
 

ninthebin

Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2002
Location
Liverpool, UK
as inthrees said...

In all honesty, it really. doesn't. matter.
No, seriously.

to all those proposing this question without
a) searching for the hundereds of threads already about it
b) eating their weetabix
...give it a rest :rolleyes:
 

ArBiTaL 24

There is no spoon
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
oh...

Yea when i came in i thought someone was gonna ge asking "give your opionion- which do you prefer?" or something.. i was like "oh no, not again :D"

I reckon mods should delete AMD Vs Intel threads (not this one, just those "which do do think's better?" type ones...)
 

CrashOveride

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2002
Location
Beijing, China
in my opinion for those games AMD because they wont need all the power they can get if you have a decent video card so you can get a slower proc and not notice, so go for the cheaper and get an AMD, now for having simply the fastest machine you would probably go for an Intel :)() unless you dont have lots of money to blow, in that case you would go with a good OCing AMD:D
 

deathstar13

FSB FRIEK
Joined
Dec 24, 2001
intel runs the best benchmarks known to man.
honestly they do,but we all have learned in oc101 "benchmarks mean squat."

amd's are more fun and challenging to oc."my opinion"
in the end it doesnt matter who is faster as they are almost completly differant.and if amd could find a way to prove they are faster i think us amd guys would be bragging about it.

kinda like saying which is faster a ferrari or a porche?
the red one is always faster on a windy day.but brakes better if the sun is at high noon.but rest assured both will cost you out the *** for speed.same thing here :D
 

DaveSauce

Member
At the AMD extreme performance tour a while ago, they had machines running to compare graphics.....

they had intel running software rendering, and they had AMD running nForce graphics.......

needless to say, THEY BOTH SUCKED! YOu can NOT play UT2003 on a geforce2! rofl
 

Maxvla

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2002
Location
OKC
Burning Phoenix said:
price / performance

CPU's < $200 = AMD
CPU's > $200 = INTEL
hm.. i would put the $$ at 150 not 200.

the 2.4b is where intel starts taking over the price/performance from the lower priced amds.
 

jazztrumpet216

Senior @ss
Joined
Sep 23, 2001
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
I'm going back to the IT DOESN'T MATTER viewpoint. Hardware has advanced so much in the past 2 years or so that software hasn't had a chance to catch up with it yet. The only exceptions would be things like image rendering or audio encoding. With gaming, I would venture to say there would be no difference, or if there were, very minimal.
 

Nevandal

Registered
Joined
May 18, 2003
InThrees said:
In all honesty, it really. doesn't. matter.

No, seriously.

/agree


That's why they name the Athlons like 2700+, 2800+, because they perform similarly to the 2.7 Ghz, and 2.8 Ghz P4's.


I totally agree though. The only difference that matters is price and compatability (maybe overclocking methods)....and AMD is cheaper.