AMD Vs Intel! Witch is better?

[renhunt]

Well guys im about to upgrade my PC COMPLETLY!
here is the plan:
Manufacturer:
INTELR---->i need advise here!

Processor:
Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 2.80GHz (2 CPUs)--->Duel 3.2GHz AMD Or Intel?


Memory:
1022MB RAM--->4G RAM!

Hard Drive:
120 GB-->220G

Video Card:
RADEON X300/X550 Series--->UPGRADED TO EVGA GeForce 8800 GTX 768MB!

Monitor:
ViewSonic E70f-5/E70fb-5--->STAY THE SAME.

Sound Card:
Realtek HD Audio output---->same.

Cooling Systemrocessor Cooling:Golden Orb+Side Ventilator+3 Ventilator In Plun-In Area.

Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 2 (2600.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519)--->maybe Vista.
Some Pics of my COM:

My Golden Core (Processor cooling):

What do you think?
Please help me guys i wanna boost my Pc performence!
and want your advise^^
thnx

 

[Sardaukar]

lol Well, the title itself is only going to insite more flaming on here...
And before upgrading, I woudl wait till the end of this quarter.. you might end up getting a MUCH better deal on the next price drop.. save gobs of money.. other then that, RIght now.. as much of an AMD fan as I am.. I would probably suggest you to go with a dual core Intel, perhaps the e6400.. And if yoru bent on staying with AMD>. the new 6000+ came out now too logn ago.. for around 500, the 5600series is fairly cheap.. about 300ish, and is ran on the same benchmarks with an e6400.. Make a choice though, flip a coin.. however you want to do it.. but I woudl personally wait on buying a new CPU/MOBO until the next quarter

 

[renhunt]

Hmmmmmi preffer to wait With the Processor i guess...
thnx dude...
But in mainly witch better?
i heared intel Is about to release the new generation of processors...

 

[SantaClaus1]

Intel , nuff said

i could tell u all the stuff that's better about it but it's endless
so ill just give u the best example

Intel's e6600 (320 bucks and its not the best cpu of Intel) Beats the amd X2 6000 (500 bucks and the best dual core of amd) in 20 of the 27 test preformed on it
says enough tbh , and considering a kid can overclock Intel c2d cpu's its definitely intel who is the winner

 

[Sardaukar]

Its a waiting game

Yes, right now Intel is superior by a short amount. But wait until AMD comes out with its multi-cor GPU/CPU chips. It will be a VERY interesting series of events, and to be honest, I don't think anyone truly knows how it will chagne things. I know that AMD promised to get rid of ANY GPU/CPU bottleneck.. but they are also tailoring their new chipsets to revolutionize the Laptop industry with their multi-core's.. The desktop series will be remarkable as well..


So, It's a great decision to wait.. until then, go ahead and get a new graphics card and hard drive.. it will make th e entire difference with just those.. then later down the road when thigns turn around for AMD, thats the best time to strike.. and will give you a large chance to save up some extra cash on the side for a top of the line system

 

[SantaClaus1]

Its a waiting game

Yes, right now Intel is superior by a short amount. But wait until AMD comes out with its multi-cor GPU/CPU chips. It will be a VERY interesting series of events, and to be honest, I don't think anyone truly knows how it will chagne things. I know that AMD promised to get rid of ANY GPU/CPU bottleneck.. but they are also tailoring their new chipsets to revolutionize the Laptop industry with their multi-core's.. The desktop series will be remarkable as well..


So, It's a great decision to wait.. until then, go ahead and get a new graphics card and hard drive.. it will make th e entire difference with just those.. then later down the road when thigns turn around for AMD, thats the best time to strike.. and will give you a large chance to save up some extra cash on the side for a top of the line system

yes wel u r talking about amd's ati fusion cpu
it all sounds nice but u do realize it will not be for gamers right?
its just for the mainstream marked
maybe a few years later they will be able to get the same preformence then a normal cpu and good vga card give u now, but i recon it will be 2012 bye then

and the first fusion cpu will probably be released in 2009 or something

 

[Rishwin]

well are you "upgrading" or getting a whole new computer?

cos if ur running an intel atm, pretty sure you'll need a new mobo if you choose an AMD (and vice versa). along with the other upgrades ur doing, u may aswell throw in a case and make a whole new thing (maybe use current as a server?).

which is better? well AMD is mainly performance and intel is reliablility... though the c2d's now outperform the AMD's. as was said they are VERRY easily overclocked to give you the performance of cpu's worth $500 more.

 

[Sardaukar]

Actually, their current market is currently being worked on to break the bottleneck that is haggling the intel CPU's with the latest graphic cards.. They could run a slower 60nm with their latest ideas, but with having a secondary means of pulling the graphics processes through the CPU, it will give all around better performance.

AMD has been releasing a steady upgade of chips for their current AM2 platforms.. but those are just to tide over the slow winter they have had and to keep the customers happy, their true course of work is going to be released much sooner then later

 

[renhunt]

it all sounds nice but u do realize it will not be for gamers right?

Ohhh no...im trying to boost the performance of Gaming,im kinda confused...Like..I know that AMD Chipsets are JOST Perfect for gaming...and becouse INTEL gonna release thier SUPER processor i tought it will be better to by it...But now im not sure...Like,if its for mainstream marked MAINLY im not sure that its better...

well are you "upgrading" or getting a whole new computer?

Hmmmm...i forgot about that detail...I guess i can call it an upgrade...and if ill buy AMD i guess ill need a whole new mobo...

 

[Rishwin]

Ohhh no...im trying to boost the performance of Gaming,im kinda confused...Like..I know that AMD Chipsets are JOST Perfect for gaming...and becouse INTEL gonna release thier SUPER processor i tought it will be better to by it...But now im not sure...Like,if its for mainstream marked MAINLY im not sure that its better...

whatever intel throws out next will prob just have more cores. AMD's upcoming chips still cant compete with the c2d's so i rekon intels juts gonna concentrate on more cores? either way it wont boost your gaming at all unless you are playing CSS + TFT + FEAR + Doom 3 all at the same time. imo go for a c2d, if you want absolute top of the range then go for the x6800, if not then get the e6600. dont go for the quad cores, they're practically useless too a gamer.

 

[renhunt]

hmmmm ok i got it bro^^ thnx

 

[SantaClaus1]

whatever intel throws out next will prob just have more cores. AMD's upcoming chips still cant compete with the c2d's so i rekon intels juts gonna concentrate on more cores? either way it wont boost your gaming at all unless you are playing CSS + TFT + FEAR + Doom 3 all at the same time. imo go for a c2d, if you want absolute top of the range then go for the x6800, if not then get the e6600. dont go for the quad cores, they're practically useless too a gamer.

yes that's true ... at the moment but !
in the future there will be game's that will run much better on quad core

for example
microsofts allen wake
it will run on all 4 core's 1 core allone will be used for particles

and in the future more game's like that will follow i recon in 1 year time's there will be several awesome game's like that

 

[metalkobra]

right now intel>>>>>>>>>>>AMD.

 

[NoPeace]

At the moment the e6600 is the best bang for your buck.

But as mentioned aboved. If you wait it'll be cheaper. IN a few months you'll have the next wave of the C2D's. They'll have higher FSB (333x4 instead of 266x4) so the current ones will drop my about 30% in price.

Also in late Q2 you'll have the next gen AMD's out. And the'll be just as good as the C2D's.

So if you must get now. Then go Intel. IF you can wait. Who knows who'll be better.

Also. Don't bother with 4gb of Memory. I guarentee that you wont use it. Save your money and stick with 2gb. Unless you can get some amazing deal on it.

NoPeace - out

 

[Sardaukar]

Or unless you do what I do alot of.. running up large amounts of data crunching numbers/graphics, hosting numerous servers, and all that mumbo jumbo.. I've actually hit the full 3gig mark allowed by windows before


Im still waiting fully on making the mov eto 64 bit windows professional.. still some driver issues runnign it, it is much faster then standard windows, and it allows all 4g to be used by system processes, and not reserve a gig for PCI components and whatever else windows throws into it.

 

[NoPeace]

Or unless you do what I do alot of.. running up large amounts of data crunching numbers/graphics, hosting numerous servers, and all that mumbo jumbo.. I've actually hit the full 3gig mark allowed by windows before

Lol... The only time I hit that area is in school when we are running a virutal network on a single computer. But then again having 6 virtual OS running with in an OS does take up alot of RAM. But then again. Are we the average PC user? =P

The only thing to benefit from 4gb that I know of is a few RTS games.

Im still waiting fully on making the mov eto 64 bit windows professional.. still some driver issues runnign it, it is much faster then standard windows, and it allows all 4g to be used by system processes, and not reserve a gig for PCI components and whatever else windows throws into it.

I would avoid XP 64 to buggy and of course driver issues and not to mention 32-bit apps run like **** on it. Server 2003 64-bit is better but even less driver support. While Vista 64 is actually quite good. 32-bit runs just fine and there isn't to many bugs. And over all perform fells better then 32-bit unlike XP 64.

My wife has it and it's a great OS. And not to mention DX10 support for that 8800 of yours.

NoPeace - out

 

[Sardaukar]

Oof.. hah, sort of a joke.. yeah, DX10 support, and no, no proper driver support -llaughs- I thought it funny when various review sites werent able to benchmark any 8800's in the Vista OS because well.. there wasnt any support for it.. not a single legit driver ran properly.


I noticed on my 8800 box (its sitting right next to me) that when the 800 GTX came out, it had a 'Made for Vista' and 'Vista Compatible' sticker on it..

right now on my 8800 box, it reads as..


Designed for
-------------
Microsoft
Windows XP



then on the top corner on the other side of the box it mentions haphazardly,

Nvidia
Essential Vista.


They literally were forced to remove the stickers promoting windows vista because there was no support at all on it when it came to

 

[NoPeace]

Oof.. hah, sort of a joke.. yeah, DX10 support, and no, no proper driver support -llaughs- I thought it funny when various review sites werent able to benchmark any 8800's in the Vista OS because well.. there wasnt any support for it.. not a single legit driver ran properly.


I noticed on my 8800 box (its sitting right next to me) that when the 800 GTX came out, it had a 'Made for Vista' and 'Vista Compatible' sticker on it..

right now on my 8800 box, it reads as..


Designed for
-------------
Microsoft
Windows XP



then on the top corner on the other side of the box it mentions haphazardly,

Nvidia
Essential Vista.


They literally were forced to remove the stickers promoting windows vista because there was no support at all on it when it came to

Well take another look at the nVidia web site. =P

They have WHQL certified DX10 drivers. THough it's only works in single card and not SLI at the moment.

They also have a DX10 real time tech demo. So you might just want to check it out and see the full power of yoru new card.

NoPeace - out

 

[Sardaukar]

Was actually jsut on my way to downloading that tech demo..

 

[NoPeace]

Was actually jsut on my way to downloading that tech demo..

So you actually have Vista? =P

NoPeace - out