CMD777300ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 55 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2940 times:
Here's the chance for all you simmers out there to justify which CPU you prefer. In other words, which company makes better CPUs for gaming (flight sim/photoshop/video editing)? Which is better in the long run? So what's it going to be--Intel or AMD?
Also reply with the specific CPU model. There are many Intel and many AMD CPUs out on the market.
Subzero From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 64 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2930 times:
For sure AMD. Intel is overpriced and runs too hot. My laptop is a Mobile Athlon 64 and a 9700 128MB ATI video card. FS '04 runs great. If you can afford it and are looking for a desktop machine then I would go with a Athlon 64 in the 939 socket. If I had bookoo bucks, I'd get an Athlon 64FX.
Burnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7565 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2852 times:
Intel, i found the P4 with hyperthreading a much more powerful and smoother running processor then any of the AMD ones. This is going to get interesting with Intel developing yet another new and faster chip.
"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
Dan2002 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 2055 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2847 times:
Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 7): Intel, i found the P4 with hyperthreading a much more powerful and smoother running processor then any of the AMD ones. This is going to get interesting with Intel developing yet another new and faster chip.
Yeah, the sales on those new Intel chips are just through the roof /sarcasm.
AMD for me a swell, and they are looking for a supplement chip to go along with the AMD 64.
A guy asks 'What's Punk?'. I kick over a trash can and its punk. He knocks over a trash can and its trendy.
Cmd777300er From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2816 times:
Keep in mind that Microsoft is coming out with its new Longhorn operating system. Won't the 64 bit OS require a 64 bit processor? This may be Intel's next new processor design. So yes, Burnsie 28, things will get interesting with Intel's new processor in our current comparison with AMD.
BaylorAirBear From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2913 posts, RR: 49
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2807 times:
I agree with Burnsie here. I run a 2.8 P4 HT with 1 gig of pc 3300 dual-channel RAM, and nothing can touch it. Plus I can over-clock the hell out of it. I used to be AMD only. Now I use both depending on my needs.
I also agree with Subzero; it runs way too hot, so I had to go liquid cooled. "Fatality!"
ReguPilot From Puerto Rico, joined Jan 2004, 495 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2735 times:
AMD All the way! Althogh Hyper Threading processors run good in applications that take advantage of multi thread (which means that 98% of the world doesn't care about HT), it still runs too hot, and its too pricey. Besides, P4 are way too tweaked to be able to compete with the more cheaper/ cooler/ advanced/ faster/ smarter and just capable AMD processor. Come on guys, don't the 777 flies faster than the A340, and the A340 has 4 engines. So does AMD. With less MGhz, but with its excellent desing, it outperforms Intel's offering.
BTW, remember that AMD has been selling its AMD64 for more than a year now. Intel had just started to sell its Pentium D line which include 64bit extensions, but nothing like the AMD 64.
And for those of you who are still with Intel and think is great, that is because you haven't tried an AMD processor (or that you're using a HT enabled application).