AMD or INTEL for gaming

R

rimmer

Geek
Right, well lets just get right to the point, Intel have higher clock speeds and in some cases more L2 cache, and lower FSB, but does this mean they are better for gaming?

If I, for example, had a game that on the box, said it required "CPU: 3GHz" could an AMD 3000+ run it? AMD Athlon XP/Sempron/Athlon 64, it dont matter, I just would hate to find out that the game woulndt work just because of the clock speed.

I am an extreme gamer, what do I go for in terms of the CPu
 
Efficiency and heat. I think Counter-Strike: Source has a 1.3ghz min and I have an old box that can run it (like a P3 800mhz)

The thing with CPUs is that higher clocks isn't always good. They could cause bottlenecks in memory. Gaming is all about how fast data can be processed, written to, and read.

Before the new Intel Core2 line, AMDs were much better at games, than Intel procs. But if you fall behind a few Hz in the min requirements, more than likely the game will still work, you just won't see optimal performance. You may have to turn down some settings, or you may experience some lag in harsher conditions.
 
While the CPU is important, don't place all the gaming weight on it. A 4GHz CPU with an ancient GeForce 256 is going to loose to a Sempron 2600+ with a GeForce 6200 in it in gaming.
 
Big B, while what you are saying is correct, I think the post was assuming that everything else is equal (memory, video card, and equivalent motherboards) which would be better with games.. the AMD or Intel.

The real answer is: What Intel? and What AMD? Right now, the best Intel is beating the best AMD. In the future, when AMD introduces the 4x4 in the coming months, who knows what sort of affect it will have.

But back to I was saying before, before Conroe, AMD was typically the winner - but it still depends on what particular processors you are looking at.
 
Right on man. Right now Conroe (aka core 2 duo) is the way to go for pretty much everything. It frankly blows AMD out of the water. Which makes sense as it's a new architecture and it's no longer using the old netburst P4 technology, this is Intel's new league. AMD will get it together and they still have a really good bang for the buck thing going on. If you can't afford to spend at least $500 on a core 2 duo then a $160 3800+ will be plenty for all you're gaming needs. 4x4 is a good natural progression but it's meant for those that like to encode mp3's and run virus scans as they game. For games that don't support dual processors/dual cores it's not really going to help.
What it comes down to is what's your budget. If you're looking for something under $300 go with AMD if you can splurge I could see going all out with Intel their higher end CoreDuo's and Core 2 duo's will be great for years.
 
Ok, well, it costs $369, a little over what you said, but form what I've been talking about in the FX-60 vs. 4800+ thread you could make a 4800+ into a mutant of sorts. OC it 400 MHz and you get the single core speed of an FX-57 and 200 MHz faster than the FX-60. You would also be approaching FX-62 speed. I'm no expert but if the FX-60 is just a 4800+ running 200 MHz faster you could make a $369 processor into an $811 processor in like, 5 minutes. Can anybody confirm this?
 
Pretty much, I mean that's essentually the only difference that a simple spec list confirms, granted the FX 62 is for AM2 so you get you're DDR2 but otherwise you could potentially have a better performing chip for half the price yes.
 
Right on man, we're aware of the overclocking potential and value of the conroes but we just discussing the AMD front as a different perspective.
 
I know, it's cool. But the cheapest of Intel's new line is as good as the best performing from AMD's. That's all I really wanted to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top