AMD vs Pentium which is better for gaming

Core 2 Duo >>> Athlon 64 X2 >>>>>>>>>> Pentium 4/D.

Pentiums are obsolete. For gaming, the last one of those was literally obsolete when new (P4s weren't as good for games as the P3s had been). Intel copied the principles that AMD had been following all the way back to their K6s, and abandoned high core speed CPUs in favor of high efficincy CPUs ("Core" architecture). Currently, the Intel Core-Quad family has the greatest potential performance ever offered to the public.

AMD is also marketing a Quad, but at present is having a lot of difficulty matching the Intel processors at the top end.

AMD is slower and cheaper....

Intel is faster and overpriced.....

That's really all it amounts to. But the above is really only valid in home built PC's.... Intel is very competitive in the pre-build computer department, where all PC's are either overpriced on the high end (aka: ultimate gaming machines); or underpriced to get rid of their extra stock.

AMD is slower and cheaper....

Intel is faster and overpriced.....

That's really all it amounts to. But the above is really only valid in home built PC's.... Intel is very competitive in the pre-build computer department, where all PC's are either overpriced on the high end (aka: ultimate gaming machines); or underpriced to get rid of their extra stock.

Threesixtyci

overpriced? hahahahaha, you know nothing!

overpriced? hahahahaha, you know nothing!

daytona_178

You think so...huh. Well, care to explain to me the performance and pricing differences of the quad core of both products?

[QUOTE="daytona_178"]

overpriced? hahahahaha, you know nothing!

Threesixtyci

You think so...huh. Well, care to explain to me the performance and pricing differences of the quad core of both products?

There's very little difference between the Intels and AMDs when it comes to performance and pricing... The available Phenoms are cheaper than the Q6600, or X3210, but don't perform as well. The one Phenom that comes close to matching the Q6600 is the X4 9700...backordered everywhere, as far as I can tell. If you were to order a backordered Phenom 9700, it would run you more than $300. Since that's more than a retail Q6600, maybe you can explain to me where the performance and pricing differences might be?

Well one way to find out!

I'm using an intel right now, but I'm building a new rig and i decide to go to amd to check how amd perform. My opinion is if u don't test it u don't know which one is better.

BTW I order the phenom 9700.

Well one way to find out!

I'm using an intel right now, but I'm building a new rig and i decide to go to amd to check how amd perform. My opinion is if u don't test it u don't know which one is better.

BTW I order the phenom 9700.

AwA-soldier

You're a little late on this. It's been done already.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/processor/477/8

[QUOTE="AwA-soldier"]

Well one way to find out!

I'm using an intel right now, but I'm building a new rig and i decide to go to amd to check how amd perform. My opinion is if u don't test it u don't know which one is better.

BTW I order the phenom 9700.

Sentinel672002

You're a little late on this. It's been done already.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/processor/477/8

I ment test it ur self:P, becuase some poeple say bad thing but some poeple say good things so the only way to find out is test it ur self. Well if u have the money too that'sone problem...

[QUOTE="daytona_178"]

overpriced? hahahahaha, you know nothing!

Threesixtyci

You think so...huh. Well, care to explain to me the performance and pricing differences of the quad core of both products?

excuse me, you said the Intels were "overpriced"! I wasnt sating a damn thing about price/performance. The q6600 is pretty much the same performance for the money you pay as any AMD processor so how the hell can it be overpriced?

reference chart: http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=946&model2=882&chart=424

Intel 6600 conroe: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115003 $234

Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 Conroe http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115030 174.99

AMD's X2 6000+ http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103773 $159.99

...same performance... and Intel cost more.... on upper and lower.... (for me that equals overpriced)

My bad about the quad core..... performance difference evens out the price difference....

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017 279.99

amd phenom 9600 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103225 239.99

but... why bother with quad core to begin with.... games like Quake IV don't take advantage of it, based on the linked benchmark. You're better off sticking with the cheaper duel cores.... for now.

And all the above, doesn't take in consideration of motherboard price differences.....

reference chart: http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=946&model2=882&chart=424

Intel 6600 conroe: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115003 $234 Not really fair comparing the E6600, as it was one of the first Core 2's and has seen almost zero price cut. Still a great performer, just not worth buying anymore.

Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 Conroe http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115030 174.99 If you consider Overclocking, then the Core 2 is the far superior, but without it does only come out a head in a few cases, so if you are not interested in OC'ing then the AMD is better here.

AMD's X2 6000+ http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103773 $159.99

...same performance... and Intel cost more.... on upper and lower.... (for me that equals overpriced)

My bad about the quad core..... performance difference evens out the price difference....

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017 279.99

amd phenom 9600 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103225 239.99 Once again, if you were to take overclocking into consideration there would be no contest.

but... why bother with quad core to begin with.... games like Quake IV don't take advantage of it, based on the linked benchmark. You're better off sticking with the cheaper duel cores.... for now. Because you can use your computer for more stuff than games.

And all the above, doesn't take in consideration of motherboard price differences.....

Threesixtyci

[QUOTE="opamando]If you consider Overclocking, then the Core 2 is the far superior, but without it does only come out a head in a few cases, so if you are not interested in OC'ing then the AMD is better here.

Once again, if you were to take overclocking into consideration there would be no contest.

Because you can use your computer for more stuff than games.

Not fair.... I'm just going by the benchmarks vs. price.... what's not fair about it?

Overclocking, itself, goes against the marketing of the two corporation. "If" either company could lock the FSB, and not just the multiplier, they would. "If" you wanna risk burning up the circuitry with overclocking that's your choice (and not necessarily a bad one).... but the obtained speed is not the ghz that you've paid for. It's a choice, on your part, in risking the cost for a replacement, if something should go wrong.

As for that final comment..... You are going to sit there, posting on a gamespot.com forum and believe that anyone here bought a PC for a buisness related reason with no relation to gaming?

Tell the turth now. You'd honestly spend extra money on a quad-core processor that has lower performance on current released games for a personal computer? After all, why else would anyone bother overclocking to begin with, if not for playing games? Can't be risking a buisness PC with the unstability of overclocking..... that wouldn't be smart. And there lies the contridiction....

Heh... well more power to you, if you would..... (Looking back.....I should have said.... "better quality and image".... instead of just saying "overpriced". But they are one and the same to me...)

[QUOTE="opamando"]If you consider Overclocking, then the Core 2 is the far superior, but without it does only come out a head in a few cases, so if you are not interested in OC'ing then the AMD is better here.

Once again, if you were to take overclocking into consideration there would be no contest.

Because you can use your computer for more stuff than games.Threesixtyci

Not fair.... I'm just going by the benchmarks vs. price.... what's not fair about it?

Overclocking, itself, goes against the marketing of the two corporation. "If" either company could lock the FSB, and not just the multiplier, they would. "If" you wanna risk burning up the circuitry with overclocking that's your choice (and not necessarily a bad one).... but the obtained speed is not the ghz that you've paid for. It's a choice, on your part, in risking the cost for a replacement, if something should go wrong.

As for that final comment..... You are going to sit there, posting on a gamespot.com forum and believe that anyone here bought a PC for a buisness related reason with no relation to gaming?

Tell the turth now. You'd honestly spend extra money on a quad-core processor that has lower performance on current released games for a personal computer? After all, why else would anyone bother overclocking to begin with, if not for playing games? Can't be risking a buisness PC with the unstability of overclocking..... that wouldn't be smart. And there lies the contridiction....

Heh... well more power to you, if you would..... (Looking back.....I should have said.... "better quality and image".... instead of just saying "overpriced". But they are one and the same to me...)

Threesixtyci

I overclocked my quad core to lower the batch processing times for Photoshop and for encoding video. Just because someone games, doesn't mean that's all they do. This is a PC Hardware Discussion forum. Not exclusively a Gaming PC Hardware Discussion forum...last time I looked anyway.

If you consider Overclocking, then the Core 2 is the far superior, but without it does only come out a head in a few cases, so if you are not interested in OC'ing then the AMD is better here.

Once again, if you were to take overclocking into consideration there would be no contest.

Because you can use your computer for more stuff than games.opamando

Not fair.... I'm just going by the benchmarks vs. price.... what's not fair about it?

Overclocking, itself, goes against the marketing of the two corporation. "If" either company could lock the FSB, and not just the multiplier, they would. "If" you wanna risk burning up the circuitry with overclocking that's your choice (and not necessarily a bad one).... but the obtained speed is not the ghz that you've paid for. It's a choice, on your part, in risking the cost for a replacement, if something should go wrong.

As for that final comment..... You are going to sit there, posting on a gamespot.com forum and believe that anyone here bought a PC for a buisness related reason with no relation to gaming?

Tell the turth now. You'd honestly spend extra money on a quad-core processor that has lower performance on current released games for a personal computer? After all, why else would anyone bother overclocking to begin with, if not for playing games? Can't be risking a buisness PC with the unstability of overclocking..... that wouldn't be smart. And there lies the contridiction....

Heh... well more power to you, if you would..... (Looking back.....I should have said.... "better quality and image".... instead of just saying "overpriced". But they are one and the same to me...)

Threesixtyci

Not fair? Well then is this fair, how about you use the E6750, which is $45 dollars cheaper and a little better than the E6600 (2.4GHZ vs 2.66GHz). That is what I meant by the E6600 was not included in the price drop and unfair to use it in comparing current hardware and prices.

Overclocking has come a long way, while not completely safe, unless you don't use common sense or push it further than you should, there is very little chance for problem. I mean if you can OC a CPU by 30% without raising the voltage and not noticing a temp rise, I don't see what is big scare is.

And if overclocking is so opposed by both company's, and they would completely block it if the could just lock the FSB, then why do they both sell CPU's with unlocked multiplier's?

Overclcoking ain't for everyone, but If I can buy a $280 CPU and OC in what I consider a safe fashion to a speed greater than anything available at stock, for any amount of money I think I done good.

Still no decision can anyone else help me?Tvac897

I think you guys should have attempted to establish something first. Is the TC talking about Pentium Dual-Cores or Pentium 4s?

Certainly, if you overclock, the Pentium Dual-Core is the obvious choice. I'll be getting one for my rig when I get a new motherboard. I'm hoping to actually run Crysis multiplayer well.

I think you guys should have attempted to establish something first. Is the TC talking about Pentium Dual-Cores or Pentium 4s?

Certainly, if you overclock, the Pentium Dual-Core is the obvious choice. I'll be getting one for my rig when I get a new motherboard. I'm hoping to actually run Crysis multiplayer well.

kodex1717

Erm...considering the original post...

Any thoughts? I'm building my system and this is a crucial decision for me, what does everyone recommend?Tvac897

I gotta assume he's referring to currently available chips. The Pentium line of Intel chips are obsolete. Currently, Core 2 Duos and Core 2 Quads are available, in Allendale, Conroe, Kentsfield, Wolfsdale and Yorkfield core flavors...

Pentium dual and quad cores are already on the better margin and the overclocking potential in them is very good. Giving you anywhere from 400MHz to over 1GHz more of processing power upon overclocking. However if your looking for something that will go easy on your pockets I'd recommend getting an AMD 5000+ Black Edition. $99 for a really good processor with good overclocking potential. trodeback

For now Intel is easily the best bang for the same dollar compared to AMD. AMD has basically been tripping all over themselves with their Phenom chips. It kind of sucks how things have gone for them lately. Hopefully they can get something out that is able to compete and pull a victory for a few of the price ranges.

Intel may just end up pulling out Nehalem as soon as that happens though. It could be a rough ride for AMD for the next few years.