Im over my battle with my mates ova wetha amd is better for gaming than p4. I am pretty confident that amd would win comfortably but some dont agree. Ive had people tell me that amd is useless and others tell me p4 is useless for gaming. So now im asking all of the hwf guys to settle this. So for gaming is it intel or amd
Depends on which AMD CPU you're talkin about. Its senseless to take "All AMD chips are better at gaming" attitude. Athlon 64, Athlon 64 X2s and FX chips are superior for gaming than Intel CPU of same "rating" or calibre. The same couldn't be said for older Athlon XPs, although their price/performance ratio was excellent. Its too vague and pointless to just have a AMD vs Intel argument based on no specific criteria for what makes one CPU better. P4s are stronger in video encoding/media apps, partially because of their deep stage pipeline. Athlon 64s have an integrated on die memory controller, which can access RAM independent of the northbridge. AMD also make use of Hypertransport, a very fast bus between CPU(s) and northbridge. This argument can't be held forever though, as new developments take place which CPUs are superior changes, although lately the trend is in favour of AMD.
Thanx and i can see why this argument is pointless its just that ive been very happy with my amd and in my circles more people also lean toward amd. thax again
AMD generally outdoes it's "equivalent" P4 in gaming anyday, contrary to the adds that say stuff like "only a P4 Extreme edition can play Call of Duty like it was meant to be experienced" etc. Well my friend has a 3200+ AMD 64 and maxxed all his settings so that's obviously bull. AMD's chips have been a much better deal for the performance you get with them, except for the FX line which are the fastest but little improvement over say a 4000+ processor at a third it's price. And intel is worse at times charging hundreds extra for about 200MHz which doesn't really make much difference with the less efficient architecture. Intel's good for gaming sure but for the same price AMD will generally surpass them easily thanks to the on die memory controller like Addis said, a much larger L1 cache (128Kb with AMD and about 28k with Intel), and an integrated frontside bus that runs at the same speed as the chip.
The extreme edition processors from Intel are pretty good (when they come out), but not worth the price especially since you have to overclock them to get the top performance. Most everything a pentium is good at, a gamer won't care about, or won't care how fast it gets done. AMDs are better for gaming at the same price point, though have a shorter life. Most people haven't been running the same cpu since 1997 anyway, so that's not really a factor either. If you are looking to buy a computer to last you through the rest of the decade and beyond or you really care about saving 20% of your time in photoshop, get an Intel. If you want to game or plan on getting a new computer within 6 or 7 years you might want to get an AMD.
AMD CPUs are good value at stock, and perform very well in fact when you overclock them to get the top performance. I don't see what you mean with shorter life, AMD CPUs are reliable and of all the CPUs I've handled and used no has failed me. I still know a K5 running from way back years, its a small router now. Again, it seems you're giving advice that seems very unusual without any evidence to back it up. You can have your opinion, but please don't mislead other people. Not everyone has Photoshop, its an expensive piece of software and we don't deal with pirate copies here, so the PS point isn't really relevant. And to reinforce my previous point, it is well known that the newer cores like Venice have low heat output compared to Intel equiv, and that should increase overall lifespan. Not that it matters as all CPUs that are working well will "last you through the rest of the decade and beyond". The Extreme Editions are equivelents to the FX series (in single core), insanely expensive and high performance. But even the X2s seriously challenge the newest extreme edition at a lower price. Not that they don't have uses, but for the average user who plays casual games, or a linux user who compiles programs from source AMD64 at the moment is the way to go.
Now there has been some talking about overclocking so when you overclock an amd can you do better than when you overclock an intel. And while im on the subject ive been told not to overclock by my dad cuz he says that ill shorten the life of my pc and run a huge risk of "cooking" the cpu. is this true and should i be looking to overclock.
Its an iffy subject, yet again its dependent on the actual CPU. The P4 Northwood cores (now obsolete) were good overclockers. Athlon 64 Venice cores can be overclocked well, but sometimes you won't get a good oc just because of the certain chip you have. Overall they'll overclock well. Intel's CPUs are being brought out quite fast now, so if you're talking about Northwood overclocking then Intel overclocks well, if you're talking about Prescott P4s they don't overclock well without producing a lot of heat. The newer Intels might overclock well though. Overclocking in some cases can reduce the lifespan of your CPU. A lot of the time it won't, but if you've increased the core voltage to keep it stable it'll make the CPU run hotter and that will probably reduce lifespan a bit. Small overclocks won't hurt, but the best thing to do is get an excellent cooler. Water cooling if you're serious about it, although there are some quality air cooled HSFs like Arctic Freezers.
In theory, yes, overclocking can shorten the lifespan of a computer due to electromigration wearing the CPU's circuits down. Now, this would reduce a CPU's lifespan of, let's say 15 years down to 10. In 10 years, the PC you have now probably isn't going to cut it. As a general rule, if the PC isn't yours, then you have absolutely NO business overclocking it. You can fry your CPU, although modern motherboards and CPU's have thermal protection of some sort that will slow down the clock speed and/or shut the computer off altogether if a certain temperature is reached. Excessive overvolting can also kill CPU's in short order, regardless of cooling, or if you don't use certain cooling methods (watercooling, phase-change). Harakim---a lot of what you seem to understand about AMD CPU's is false. AMD's CPU's haven't had problems. They are just as reliable as Intel, and have been for quite some time. Early on, back when the original Slot A Athlon came out, the main chipset, the Via KX133, did have some stability issues, as well as some AGP voltage problems with GeForce 256 (aka GeForce 1) cards. AMD's own 750 chipset wasn't as widely used, but didn't have that many issues, and no major ones that I can recall. I highly suggest that you read up on AMD CPU's, as you don't really have your facts straight as I see from some of your posts. In general, AMD has a better price/performance ratio than Intel. Now, if Intel would (and I think they will) take the efficiency of their Dothan-core Pentium M and bring a chip out with the FSB's of the Pentium D's, they'd be in the game again. As it stands right now, AMD's performance beats Intel for the same amount of money, in similar dual-core or single-core processors. This has nothing to do with the quality of the CPU's. AMD may be cheaper, but that does not mean their quality is less. I think Intel can charge a higher premium because they have established their name. However, that's not going to last forever if they can't put out a CPU that's more competitive for the money. I'd use Intel if it wasn't so much more expensive to put together something similar to what I have now with an Athlon 3000+ Socket 939 rig. It comes down to money, and like anyone else, I want the most for my money.
Thanx uve been realy helpful and ill get my dad to read this for his info. All of you at hwf have been so helpful and im learning so much more the more i read so shot once again for all ur help
