Author Topic: Intel and AMD comparison (Read 1224 times)

zmeg · « **Reply #30 on:** October 31, 2003, 06:50:22 PM »

I think he means 3.2

Roscoroo · « **Reply #31 on:** October 31, 2003, 06:56:23 PM »

so did i ive got my 2400+ running at 2.2 right now in my asus mb .

ive been looking at ver 2 of that mb with perhaps a 2600+ in it , I might get my paws on a 2800+ ... depends on the price.

zmeg · « **Reply #32 on:** October 31, 2003, 07:27:20 PM »

Heres the bench you asked for Mrblack, its made with n-bench v2 if you want to compair. the chip is really a 2400+ slightly overclocked.

That outragious fps screenshot was made with this system, but with a g2 mx400 vidio card. Its a trick, it was taken after looking up into empty sky then takin shot befos fps refreshed.

Gixer · « **Reply #33 on:** November 01, 2003, 12:59:52 AM »

Sorry, not enough to read all the posts. But I've always used AMD chips. Always found the Intel too expensive and would rather put money into something else then computers.

Currently just finished building a XP2500 Barton AMD chip based system on a Epox board and running at 2800 with just fan cooling.

IMHO AMD just seems to be alot more bang for your buck. And unless your doing CAD or something graphic intensive, why waste money on current generation stuff, especially for AH or AH2.

...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~

mrblack · « **Reply #34 on:** November 01, 2003, 01:41:45 AM »

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #35 on:** November 01, 2003, 02:28:12 AM »

The Intel processors have become an option lately as AMD competition forced Intel to make huge bellybutton pricecuts. The prices would be minimum of 50% higher at this time without all the AMD enthusiasts out there.

For years there were no options for Intel, and the prices were skyhigh. That's why I won't go Intel way anymore. I prefer to keep the competition alive and ensure the pricing level stays reasonable in the future.