[QUOTE=Noz;23229281]I wouldn't say that buying an i7 is a complete waste, just a moderate one, [B]since there'll probably be games in the future that can use 6 cores effectively and such.[/B]
And intel is more expensive cause better.[/QUOTE]
The 920 is a quad core what are you on about? (It does have HyperThreading, though. But so did my old Pentium 4, and that didn't exactly turn it into a dual core).
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;23229463]The 920 is a quad core what are you on about? (It does have HyperThreading, though. But so did my old Pentium 4, and that didn't exactly turn it into a dual core).[/QUOTE]
980x is probably what he's talking about
...And things will get truly complicated with the introduction of 6 core processors.
What with all the clock speeds and multi threading, i mean with just these theres been a disagreement.
[QUOTE=Odellus;23229965]980x is probably what he's talking about[/QUOTE]
Oh...
They have a well established client base who are willing to pay these prices. While in many applications, Intel reigns supreme, in most real-life applications AMD does a good job of holding its own. Is the price worth the performance difference? Depends, are you willing to pay that much? Some people are, so they go with a higher end Intel chip, while some aren't so they go with AMD.
Why does Intel sell their chips for more money? Because they can, and they know people will buy them.
It depends on the design of the processor, and how they make them.
If Intel uses 9 billion transistors, and AMD uses 4, then it's obvious that AMD is going to be cheaper.
[QUOTE=derlicious;23220804]They are. AMD are no where near Intel. The fastest CPU AMD have is the 1090T Hexacore. Compare that to an i7 980x, well if you can compare it. I would chose an i5 750 over a 1090T anyday anyway.[/QUOTE]
AMD and Intel chips are incomparable as at the moment AMD is focusing on the budget end of the market.
Intel = Crysis
AMD = SimCity 4
Intel creators: We love gaming!
AMD creators: Bah who gives a damn shit"!!!
I have a phenom II and I can run crysis on highest just fine. As in good FPS.
AMD=Behind the times architecture and mass production.
Intel=Innovative architecture, more expensive manufacturing process.
AMD+1 for Budget
Intel+1 for innovation.
The irony is that 90% of all PC users in the world would be best off with an AMD chip.
The reason they look similar is that its basically same hardware, any video card or processor loks rmeotely similar. Amd is and has been good quality for a relatively low price. Intel has the ultra-performance to deliver, but offers unfitting prices for hardware that will cost half in two months. Also, AMD/ATI goes directX first, Nvidia goes opengl.
[QUOTE=Numidium;23232062]The reason they look similar is that its basically same hardware, any video card or processor loks rmeotely similar. Amd is and has been good quality for a relatively low price. Intel has the ultra-performance to deliver, but offers unfitting prices for hardware that will cost half in two months. Also, AMD/ATI goes directX first, Nvidia goes opengl.[/QUOTE]
Why the fuck are you speaking of NVidia here :colbert:
Intel costs more because they focus more on the upper market. Most of their significant CPUs are priced above 200 dollars.
Also Intel MOBOs usually cost more.
AMD caters to the cheaper market.
[QUOTE=pikzen;23233697]Why the fuck are you speaking of NVidia here :colbert:[/QUOTE]
Ay sorry, mixed up topics.
[editline]07:17PM[/editline]
Was talkin bout graphics cards in da last sentence.
[QUOTE=FHamster;23233875]Intel costs more because they focus more on the upper market. Most of their significant CPUs are priced above 200 dollars.
Also Intel MOBOs usually cost more.
AMD caters to the cheaper market.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, basically I would go for AMD on a budget of $150 or less for a CPU.
But if you got $200+ you should definitely go for Intel's Core i5 and Core i7 series products.
AMD has a better upgrade path then Intel in alot of ways. They are far better at doing transitions to new socket types without making old hardware useless. AM2 to AM2+ to AM3 has been far smoother then LGA775 to LGA1336 to LGA1066 to LGA1065. AMD you can still use new processors in old motherboards, Intel you need a new motherboard.
AMD Bulldozer processors should be very good though when they come out, quadchannel DDR3 will be great on an enthusiast level. It is a completely new architecture from the current Phenoms; think Core compared to Pentium 4.
The thing that makes it so different is that the FPU, floating point units, are going to be 128-bits wide rather then the traditional 64-bits wide. This means they will be able to do things like 256-bit encryption a lot more efficiently then 64-bit.
The coming years will be exciting, hopefully AMD can bring some good competition to the market and get a good price war going.
[QUOTE=4RT1LL3RY;23237445]AMD you can still use new processors in old motherboards, Intel you need a new motherboard.
[/QUOTE]
rocking an AM3 chip in an AM2 mobo here, have no hope of upgrading my C2Q rig for any decent amount of money.
Quality vs. Quantity
intel is a better processor - Quality
AMD is a cheaper processor, some have overheating issues also - Quantity
[QUOTE=melindagreen;23243755]Quality vs. Quantity
intel is a better processor - Quality
AMD is a cheaper processor, some have overheating issues also - Quantity[/QUOTE]
Oh how times changed.
The market is flipped from its former position during the Athlon64 vs P4 days. One was high frequency and hotter and the other ran at a lower frequency with better performance per clock. I look forward to the change ups that all the new architectures bring in.
Larrabee is dead, Fusion is still go though. AMD can do alot of damage in low power mobile devices.
I try to stay out of the fanboying and just look at both companies from farther back. AMD has ATI so I'll make a GPU reference. The person at the peak of performance sets the prices for high market, you can pick to try and overtake them and be king or you can focus on being better everywhere else, see ATI HD2XXX and HD3XXX.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.