Author Topic: why go intel for gameing? (Read 518 times)

68DevilM · « **on:** June 03, 2005, 08:42:55 PM »

when AMD is proven better.

heres what the majority of the pc industry say's, you make your decision based on what type of computer your looking for, but for gameing in my opinion for the moment the choice goes to AMD.

Much of the industry has been buzzing for the past week about the launch of AMD's new top-of-the-line Athlon FX-55 processor and the lower-power Athlon 64 4000+. Sister site Sharky Extreme took an in-depth look at the two newest salvos in AMD's war with Intel for leadership in the desktop processor market.

Which is right for you? The 2.6 GHz Athlon 64 FX-55 looks ready to eat Pentium 4 Extreme Edition processors for breakfast, and then start on the rest of the Intel menu. AMD follows this up with the Athlon 64 4000+, which does upgrade performance in the Athlon 64 line, but might not have the improvements you expect.

The New Breed

Potentially the fastest desktop processor ever, the Athlon 64 FX-55 sports a full 1MB of L2 cache and runs at a whopping 2.6 GHz clock speed. The higher clock speed not only provides a nice boost for internal processing, but also translates into a 2.6 GHz CPU-to-memory-controller speed. Otherwise, it's a pure speed upgrade from the Athlon 64 FX line, and in addition to cutting-edge performance, the Athlon 64 FX-55 also ships unlocked for enthusiast overclocking.

OOZ662 · « **Reply #1 on:** June 03, 2005, 10:24:52 PM »

I've only read maybe 2 posts on this, so I'm not a very credible source, but I believe the Intel OEM CPUs are cheaper than AMD. They give off more heat, though.

As for me, my first CPU was an Intel 800 MHz, and I've never used an AMD.

Roscoroo · « **Reply #2 on:** June 03, 2005, 11:02:07 PM »

Ive read at least 15 articals on the new dualcore amd ... intel cant even get off the porch against that one yet ....

Ive had bolth amds and intels ... for best bang for the buck its still AMD Baby !!!

boxboy28 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 04, 2005, 02:07:44 AM »

IM with Roscoroo - i like AMD's bang for the buck and like to see the underdog come up swinging hard punches.

But im not a fan boi!

Oh Mr "Chair boy" pleas e chime in................

(he's an expert ya know)

Skuzzy · « **Reply #4 on:** June 04, 2005, 07:56:15 AM »

There is more to a computer than just the CPU. If you beleive everything on a WEB site, then you are in the land of the delusional or you are just seeing/reading what you want to see.

Every comparison I have seen is designed to put Intel in the worst light possible (easy to do since Prescott sucks rocks, but there are other elements as well). I'll go with my own results.

68DevilM · « **Reply #5 on:** June 04, 2005, 10:47:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
There is more to a computer than just the CPU. If you beleive everything on a WEB site, then you are in the land of the delusional or you are just seeing/reading what you want to see.

not just web sites skuzzy, most of the stuff i read comes out of the stack of pc magazines i have building up in my bathroom and they always give amd the thumbs up.
so it would seems that the majority of the computer reveiwing market is for amd.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #6 on:** June 04, 2005, 11:33:06 AM »

Magazines are worse than WEB sites. They get paid a bunch of money for advertising. They will not bite the hand that feeds them.

And again, the comparisons are always slanted. I can make AMD look like poo if I wanted to. It's all about the configuration of the hardware and software. No one likes Intel's business practices (including me) and that filters into print in a big way.

I have built AMD systems and have friends who have them. Some of them have switched back to Intel once they see how they *can* perform when properly setup/configured. A couple of them switched back due to stability and compatibility issues as well.
We have done a lot of comparisons between our systems and in the best case, one of my friends system is a percentage point faster in some things and mine is a percentage point faster than his in some things.
But mine was cheaper.

Like I said, I will stick with what I know is a fact. Trusting anything in print is just allowing yourself to be swayed by marketing.

Roscoroo · « **Reply #7 on:** June 04, 2005, 12:13:33 PM »

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_13041%5E13042,00.html

looks good ...

OOZ662 · « **Reply #8 on:** June 04, 2005, 01:57:20 PM »

Don't argue with the Skuzz; he has the Force. Well, apparently they all do since the "staff training day."

I think they could both outperform each other; it' the way two monopolizing companies work. If one puts out a beefey product, the other one outdoes them. It's a neverend cycle. And that's why everything is obsoleted so fast as well.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #9 on:** June 04, 2005, 02:24:35 PM »

I do not like getting into these discussions as they invariably are all about some emotional garbage which has little to do with reality.

Dual core CPU's are a joke from both companies. You have any idea how many years it will be before those silly CPU designs are actually supported in software?

Bah, go ahead and eat all the marketing you want. I'll wait until these companies actually put out something useful.

eagl · « **Reply #10 on:** June 04, 2005, 03:00:42 PM »

Skuzz,

I'm not sure it's all marketing. I remember from waaay back, how frustrated I was that playing mp3s in the background would make WB stutter. I still can't reliably play music on my computer while playing games.

A second cpu would make that happen. Not only that, I could keep other background stuff such as the occasional dvd or video encoding effort going while gaming. Or I could run a virus scan without it either grinding my machine to a halt or taking 8 hours, take your pick.

So I see a lot of benefits to a second cpu core, even in as rough a form as it is right now and without individual software packages being written to take advantage of the second core.

Don't take this wrong, but sometimes too much knowledge is a bad thing

As an example, you've said several times that 64 bit windows will absolutely kill gaming however I've seen a crapload of gaming reviews using beta 64 bit drivers on the early 64 bit windows releases that show equivalent performance. Less than 2% gain or loss across the board. You're right, microsoft has done a bunch of stuff with 64 bit windows that is pretty evil to a programmer or system administrator, but to the user it really isn't going to make much of a difference right away. It's like the doom and gloom we all saw when the original pentium came out. I remember reading 10 articles by experts like yourself, shouting up and down that the pentium was slower than the 486 it was replacing. Yet my first pentium was as fast or faster than the 486 it replaced, making that another case of knowing too much being a bad thing.

Anyhow, it's easy to trash talk the dual core cpus out now because you're right, they are rough early versions of a concept that needs some serious work to take advantage of. But even in it's rough form, it sure as hell won't hurt and there are definately situations where it can make a clear positive difference.

It's the same with the intel vs. AMD argument... Intel proponents will claim that AMD systems will never approach the stability of an intel system, but frankly once I quit fuxoring with my A64 system and set everything back to default, I haven't had a single BSOD, crash, spontaneous reboot, or other system failure that I couldn't trace back to poorly behaved software or a windows bug. And it's as fast or faster than Intel systems that require more power and cost more. That tells me that a quality AMD system is at least as reliable as an intel system of the same quality, because there is no measure of reliability that beats "zero failures". Put together crappy parts and you get a crappy system, regardless of if it's AMD, Nvidia, VIA, Intel, SiS, Motorola, or PowerPC.

Anyhow, that's my rant against the man for the day

OOZ662 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 04, 2005, 04:53:00 PM »

The problem with that idea is that both CPUs would be pulling from the same device; the hard drive. Unless hard drives, memory, cables, and anything else the CPUs would directly use are redesigned for dual-CPU useage, something will foul up somewhere and cause it to be completely useless.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #12 on:** June 04, 2005, 05:43:57 PM »

That is exactly right OOZ. Sounds nice to be able to run things at the same time, but it cannot happen, with a dual memory path to the ram, a dual path to the I/O devices, basically a dual everything.
When one CPU is busy, the other can only run what is in its cache, if the cache is separate and not getting locked by the other CPU.
I could write a very lengthy article on this topic as I have designed for this type of product in the past and have run into the various limitations and constraints, but it would be too tedious a read for non-engineer types. Heck, it would be a tedious read for anyone.

The current implementation lacks a lot ot be desired. It will not work as well as two separate CPU's. It can't. The problem with knowledge is the ability to see past the marketing. Once you get past all the smoke and mirrors, you will not find a lot of substance.
Sure, you can write and/or find a benchmark which will prove your point. That is easy and if that is all it takes for you to be happy, is a fast benchmark, then you will like the upcoming hardware.

I am thoroughly disappointed in the direction the CPU's are going. To me, 50% more cost, for 10% more performance is not a good deal, but I put little stock in bragging rights, so my opinion will fall on deaf ears.

Current AMD motherboard chipsets are lacking a lot in stability/compatibility. Most people are willing to blame software and drivers for wierd problems. My friends have done it, and it was not until they tried to duplicate the problems on my system did they finally take note.
Again, the CPU is a small chunk of a computer system. In the overall scheme of things the motherboard chipset is more important as AMD and Intel (upt to Prescott) both have had good CPU's to offer.

Eagl, like I said, I really detest these types of discussions. There are simply too many people who buy into marketing and have some bias. The only reason I offered anything in this thread was due to the extreme bias it was started with. Bias that is unfounded, if you look past the smoke and mirrors.

68DevilM · « **Reply #13 on:** June 04, 2005, 07:10:57 PM »

skuzzy, you mentioned that intel has a more stable chipset.

so what exactly is wrong with running AMD64 cpu's with Nforce3 or 4?

38ruk · « **Reply #14 on:** June 04, 2005, 09:02:33 PM »

I've been an amd guy for years , its just nice to finally have a cpu thats on par with intels offerings . I think alot of the stuff you see here is many years of frustration on the part of amd guys . We finally have something to talk about ....hehe 38