For all you computer people, I have a question.

[Nightfirecat]

EDIT:

Ok.. this thread is over..

lock plz

[Tibs]

I am a computer person.

[Danceman231]

Originally Posted by Tibs

I am a computer person.

roflwafflecopter

[Tibs]

Never say that again.

[fido123]

AMD has a better quad-core. Anything else get an Intel, can't explain why but the AMD quad is just faster than the Intel.

[Nightfirecat]

Originally Posted by fido123

AMD has a better quad-core. Anything else get an Intel, can't explain why but the AMD quad is just faster than the Intel.

AMD has a quad core?... never noticed....
And i dunno about the AMD quad... seeing as I haven't looked at it yet.

Originally Posted by -tibs-

I'm a computer person.

How did I guess somebody like you would say something like this in here? maybe I should change the title lol

[Tps222]

It depends on what you want to do.

Right now, I suggest you wait until about September. The Intel E6700 extreme series will drop to a low $300 price. It's dual core and can easily be overclocked. Yes quad-cores are coming out, but they aren't worth the price. Games still only utilize a single core processor, and you really don't need that much power at this time. They will eventually come down. AMD is currently behind due to Intel's Core Duo's, and they won't be ahead until at least next year, depending on how things go.

[g4z33b0]

The E6700 is good and affordable. I would still go AMD if you are a gamer. The FX series is great, but really AMD and Intel's processors are pretty similar, even though Intel is currently ahead.

[OrganisM]

That's an insanely idiotic question to ask by itself. You've got to say what you're using the computer for and what your price range is.

The AMD quad cores aren't even out yet. They aren't due to release until mid-2007, which is within the next couple months. And if you're thinking of the AMD Quad FX, that's two seperate dual-core processors running in sync with HyperTransport. So I have no idea what the hell you're thinking. And if you can't explain why one is faster than the other, go research it or don't bother to post.

For a cheaper PC made for home use, I'd recommend an AMD processor at the moment. But on July 22nd, Intel's releasing their new QX6800 and QX 6850, which are 2.93 and 3.00 ghz, respectively, and dropping the Q6600 to around $260 (if I remember correctly). This means that for maybe $50 more than the AMD dual core 2.8ghz I put in a client's PC, you're getting a 2.4ghz quad core. and while it isn't all that overclockable and most games don't support a dual/quad-core architecture yet, it's mighty useful when running multiple applications at the same time.

Everything anyone says could change every other month when something is released. They're two powerful companies vying for domination, and so each of them is going to continuously pump out better and more competitive products. What that means for you, is instead of being one corporation's bitch, you can pick the best deals from both sides.

[Tibs]

Originally Posted by Nightfirecat

How did I guess somebody like you would say something like this in here? maybe I should change the title lol

Who the hell is -tibs- ?

[Tps222]

But organism, the mighty and powerful dell uses intel. Dell is the greatest company to ever grace the earth. If they say intel, intel it is.

[nforcer06164]

Dell sells Intel and AMD. They're separate models because the chipsets use different motherboard configurations.

Intel is more widely used, is more efficient, and more compatible. I've had bad experiences with AMD in the past (note: unreliable and unstable) and I refuse to buy a computer with an AMD chipset.

[Nightfirecat]

Originally Posted by Tibs

Who the hell is -tibs- ?

wth?... I swear I've seen a -tibs- around... Whatever.

Anyway-- I'm more on the intel side of the issue, cuz Intel beats AMD so badly in prices and efficiency in low-end processors (look at pentium D prices... INSANE) and they are about on par with AMD on processors in the middle, and definitely ahead in high-end dual core and quad core processors, so unless I see a better reason to switch to AMD, I'm still on intel. That-- and the AMD processors generally don't have as effective processor structure as intel, so most of their processors, even with the same clock speed as intel, aren't as fast overall as intel.

[OrganisM]

Originally Posted by nforcer06164

Dell sells Intel and AMD. They're separate models because the chipsets use different motherboard configurations.

Intel is more widely used, is more efficient, and more compatible. I've had bad experiences with AMD in the past (note: unreliable and unstable) and I refuse to buy a computer with an AMD chipset.

It's usually just the socket difference, since the chipsets are more often than not (if you're a gamer like I am) going to be nVidia chipsets anyways.

And Dell blows. Just like all PC manufacturers. I hate them all. They're built to rip you off and take away your freedom.

I've built and used several AMD machines in the past, and they work quite well, just as well as any comperable Intel system.

@Nightfirecat: Do you have a wide array of benchmarks across the board to support this? Perhaps I haven't looked and tested deep enough, but from what I've seen, the two companies' products are quite competitive.

[dascookieman]

buy whatever brand is cheapest, it doesn't matter as much as everyone makes you think.

[Danceman231]

Originally Posted by Tibs

Never say that again.

can i say it if you're not looking...

[JAMM17]

THis is just all personal preference by what I'm reading, so just going by that I'm going to say AMD, reason being: when you buy an AMD procesesor at 2.0 ghz, in intel terms that's 2.6 ghz, because AMD processors are sold at the speed that you're able to use. A computer needs a certain amount of the processor to run at all times, and AMD speed is given to the consumer with that minused from it.

[Unknownfluke]

Originally Posted by nforcer06164

I've had bad experiences with AMD in the past (note: unreliable and unstable) and I refuse to buy a computer with an AMD chipset.

Hmm... This is the exact thing i would have said but in the reverse. I enjoy AMD greatly. Of course I am still running on a 2200 Socket A chip that is really only good for running WoW.

I used to be in the know when it came to computers and sadly that is no longer the case. I really had to be as I worked in retail and actually tried to give my customers intelligent advice about the computers they were buying. I.E. "Please for the love of all that is holy do not buy that eMachine it will eat your babies."

Anyways, that was a bunch of rambling. Right now I am not so much in the know. I know nothing if the dual cores and had not heard of quad cores until just now reading these posts.

I guess my threadjacking question is: Is AMD still considered the "gaming processor" it was a few years ago when I got mine? Or is it better to go with Intel. It just seems so weird to me to think that Intel might actually be useful for something other than micro-computing in the actual OS.

Also, anything relating to what the OP said would be nice as i am looking to overhaul my computer here in the next 6 months and I would like some idea.

I use it mostly for gaming and surfing the net. Right now I have an AMD 2200 Socket A with a Radeon 9000 series video card. 1gb of older ram, and a 24x dvd rom.

So, pretty lame setup. I am going to need some advice on new processors and MB combos. The RAM I should be ok with matching unless there has been some major developement in the world of Random Access Memory.

Thanks in advance. I know this is a bad first post and I'm sorry for Threadjacking this post. If the powers that be wish to delete it go ahead.

[nforcer06164]

Well, first off, you need to find someone that offers XP instead of Vista....

[OrganisM]

Originally Posted by Unknownfluke

So, pretty lame setup. I am going to need some advice on new processors and MB combos. The RAM I should be ok with matching unless there has been some major developement in the world of Random Access Memory.

At this point I'd reccomend basically building a new computer. If you're going low end you can get a CPU-motherboard combo with reasonable expandability for really cheap. The problem with your setup is that you still have socket A, which doesn't support all the new AMDs, you probably have an ancient chipset, and your card is a very old one still running off your PCI bus.

The main thing I'd recommend is getting a motherboard that's not too expensive yet supports expandability. That's the major issue. There are $50 and $100 mobo's that support quad cores and have nvidia chipsets. If you have the dough, upgrade to something with a little more expandability. After that, get a PCI-E card that will get the job done until you can get a more powerful one (or pick one up that you're sure you'll be able to get again, so that you can SLI them). And if your RAM's that old, I'm sure it's not even DDR2.

The problem with that old motherboard is that you really can't put anything new in it, and I'm sure it doesn't even support SATA, which is an issue in performance when you're running something like a game.

As for AMD vs. Intel, see how the releases of chipsets and processors pan out in the next few months. The market's very much in a transitional period right now (always is, but now it's especially the case). Intel's planning on shrinking their processors from the current 65nm standard to far smaller in the next few years, and AMD's all set to release their quad cores. Hard to say what apps will support what. So, all in all, wait until you're ready to buy, and see which price is right.

On July 22nd, as I've said, you'll be able to pick up a 2.4ghz quad core from Intel for cheap. And as I've heard, AMD's also releasing their line.

The best way to say it is, look for yourself. There are so many developments so often that if you're planning on building yourself a PC or even buying one, you owe it to yourself.