amd or intel? for gaming

[jan_andrada]

I'm gonna assemble a new desktop pc. I just wanna know which is better for gaming, multimedia, and multi-tasking. Is it intel or amd? I have done lots of research of this in google, but I'm still confuse what to choose..


Edit:
Im referring to athlon 64 X2 or intel core 2 duo. Which is better?

 

[burner35]

Lets see. I would prefer Intel over AMD for strength and over heating compatibilities, which work very good.

So I vote > Intel

 

[intertec]

Well. What is your price range and I can see what I can find. I'll make two systems for you! AMD or Intel! Plus if you live in America, I can get really cheap prices for you! I have my connections ! LOL. So tell us what your price range is and what you want.

Example- I want processor, graphic card, motherboard, hard drive and ram! No monitor and mouse since I got that already!

So specifically tell me what you want and I'll find you best thing out there!

 

[TPI007]

I'm gonna assemble a new desktop pc. I just wanna know which is better for gaming, multimedia, and multi-tasking. Is it intel or amd? I have done lots of research of this in google, but I'm still confuse what to choose..


Edit:
Im referring to athlon 64 X2 or intel core 2 duo. Which is better?

It's all about the Pentiums baby!
Intel, although right now I own AMD. Disapointing...

 

[Mitch]

I would take intel, because their processors do it a bit better. More GHz.

 

[burner35]

But I would say Dual not quad, even though I use Intel 2.50GHz Quad.

 

[johnrip]

According to the current scenario, Intel's leading AMD. And about Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad, there are not many application utilizing the power of 4 cores still. But soon(technology is changing very fast), there will be applications(games) utilizing their power. So, if you have no problem in upgrading your CPU soon, then go with Core 2 Duo otherwise its better to get Core 2 Quad (secured future).

 

[jaco_don]

Well I thinks Intel is the best from my personal experience ... go for Core2duo or Core2Quad (wouldn't need upgrade for atleast next 2 to 3 years ...

AMD .. from my personal experience not good (Has potential but has a long way to go)

Regards
Rohan

 

[Smith6612]

I prefer Intel processors myself. Just make sure your video card is not some on-board pice of crap though!

 

[worldwise001]

AMD can be good for people with a tight budget. If you have the resources, however, an Intel processor can be a good investment.

Right now Intel is leading the market in the CPU arena, so your best bet would be to probably go for an Intel processor. I myself just recently purchased an Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 processor, (along with a bunch of other parts to build a new system), and it runs like a dream...

 

[jan_andrada]

thanks for your advice, guys.. really big help for me..

 

[admael]

It's all about the Pentiums baby!
Intel, although right now I own AMD. Disapointing...

Pentiums are discontinued, so they're not even an option when it comes to gamers.

Intel's playing high and mighty as of now since AMD fell behind, and they have good reason since there's nothing AMD has that compares to Intel's C2D's.

AMD finally got it right with their newer chips and chipsets, but they're all quads now, and quads aren't exactly the best for gaming, not yet at least.

I'd invest in an Intel E8400. The Wolfdale chips are amazing, I run one myself. It's stable at 1866MHz QDR @ 1.36v (4.2GHz).

 

[Smith6612]

Quads are pretty nice for gaming though. Yeah most games can't even do two cores, let alone four, but the quad core at least gives you headroom for the future. Not to mention with all of those cores you have, apps can fire up in the background pretty quickly and you won't even notice the system choking (unless your HDD is crap, too many programs are opening up or the RAM is full).

 

[ethraax]

Intel, definitely. First off, it's not at all about GHz, it's about actual efficiency. Second off, quad-cores are great for multimedia (video encoding, etc), but dual-cores are the most that modern games make use of.

Intel is definitely a lap ahead of AMD. The Core2 architecture is amazing - it allows for great overclocks. I'm running a Core 2 Quad (Q6600), which I overclocked from 2.4 GHz to 3.15 GHz on air, pretty nice.

Also, whatever you do, try to make it acceptable to you for at least 3-4 years. Think future!

 

[unit9311]

If it was me i would vote for intel every time.

peace
paul

 

[tomjkear]

Not too long ago I would have called AMD as the obvious choice. Since the introduction of Intel's Core 2 Duo processors (make note of the 2 - they are more efficient than the older Core Duo) things are a bit different. Intel really hit the nail on the head with them and have managed to regain some of the market they were loosing to AMD.

As mentioned above, the clock speed of a processor is by no means a relection of its capabilities these days. There are many other factors to be aware of including FSB speeds and cache for example, as well as the overall architecture of the chips.

There are loads of websites that show benchmark comparisons of the current CPUs...have a Google and see for yourself

 

[Smith6612]

Not too long ago I would have called AMD as the obvious choice. Since the introduction of Intel's Core 2 Duo processors (make note of the 2 - they are more efficient than the older Core Duo) things are a bit different. Intel really hit the nail on the head with them and have managed to regain some of the market they were loosing to AMD.

As mentioned above, the clock speed of a processor is by no means a relection of its capabilities these days. There are many other factors to be aware of including FSB speeds and cache for example, as well as the overall architecture of the chips.

There are loads of websites that show benchmark comparisons of the current CPUs...have a Google and see for yourself

Not to mention heat! CPUs slow down and freeze up when the heat up, so cooling the CPU efficiently is also key to speed.

 

[fempower]

Definitely Intel. They're way ahead now. AMD only if you're on a really tight budget.

 

[GG-Xtreme]

If Intel is in your range, I'd spend money on a Q6600, regardless of the numbers that show an advantage with the E8400 and E8500. Newer applications and multi-tasking put the Q6600 ahead, not to mention great overclocking abilities. If you're a gamer, then you should probably consider and ATI/AMD graphics card this time around, particularly their 4850 and 4870. If you are looking a little lower, there's Nvidia's 8800GT and 8600GT, but I wouldn't get anything higher from Nvidia.

 

[YumYum]

If you'd ask me that question 5 years ago (ish), it would have been AMD. But Intel has now taken a huge leap ahead their competitors. Even cheap Intels now outperform AMD and it will take a lot before we see a competitive AMD chip. AMD no longer offer competition for Intel. Intel 45nm and 65nm processors have been redefined so much now, that over clocking Intel is very easy.

AMD need to produce high end chops to compete, but with their venture into the non-successful triple core, they are falling further behind. Intel is the only choice in the current market for both dual and quad core processors. If you want to run a single core processor, you could run AMD. But when you consider a Pentium e2160 dual core is around £30, there is no point in AMD.

Hope this helps