Why AMD over Intel for CPUs in terms of gaming 16 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

N88TR

Old school pimp

50 XP

10th February 2004

0 Uploads

9,921 Posts

0 Threads

#1 13 years ago

Why do ppl reccommend AMD chips over Intels when Pentium 4s like the 660 can run at 3.8ghz, when AMDs fastest is like 2.8? I don't see why. When you get both top of the line CPUs [no money spared] there's little difference, but if it's faster [3.8! crazy fast, IMHO] why isn't it better for gaming?




Armchair_Commando

Live to Frag

50 XP

29th December 2004

0 Uploads

142 Posts

0 Threads

#2 13 years ago

from what i have heard, AMDs have better core architecture. They can do more at a lower clockspeed. Intels arent as effiecient for gaming.




N88TR

Old school pimp

50 XP

10th February 2004

0 Uploads

9,921 Posts

0 Threads

#3 13 years ago

What about Bus speeds? I heard the 1066 mhz models are faster or on par with AMD's fastest CPUs. I thought faster core and evenly matched Bus speeds would kinda smooth out the other things that seperated the two CPUs. [The two best, I mean the AMD FX 57 and Intel Pent 4 660] Can I OC the clockspeed on the Pent 4, or is that like not possible? I'd rather buy the 3.8 Pent 4 660 run at 3.8ghz [costs $660] than the AMD FX 57 run at 2.8ghz which is way more money [$1001, newegg.com] and SLOWER. Why have a faster CPU core speed but crappy architecture!? What's the dev's big idea on that?! So superior architecture in the core [rate of data transfer, I assume] is more important than raw speed? I suppose so, but come on with the technology! Go all out! Sorry if I seems like I'm shouting/ranting, but it makes me angry to have a faster core but slower data transfer as compared to A SLOWER CPU!




Hmmmdonut

The real Homer

50 XP

6th July 2005

0 Uploads

441 Posts

0 Threads

#4 13 years ago
Captain AmerikaWhat about Bus speeds? I heard the 1066 mhz models are faster or on par with AMD's fastest CPUs. I thought faster core and evenly matched Bus speeds would kinda smooth out the other things that seperated the two CPUs. [The two best, I mean the AMD FX 57 and Intel Pent 4 660] Can I OC the clockspeed on the Pent 4, or is that like not possible? I'd rather buy the 3.8 Pent 4 660 run at 3.8ghz [costs $660] than the AMD FX 57 run at 2.8ghz which is way more money [$1001, newegg.com] and SLOWER. Why have a faster CPU core speed but crappy architecture!? What's the dev's big idea on that?! So superior architecture in the core [rate of data transfer, I assume] is more important than raw speed? I suppose so, but come on with the technology! Go all out! Sorry if I seems like I'm shouting/ranting, but it makes me angry to have a faster core but slower data transfer as compared to A SLOWER CPU!

No. AMD cores are different as they do not have a standard fsb like Intel cpu's. Since the Memory controller is intergrated into cpu AMD cpu's will always have faster bandwith than Intel CPU's.




*The.Doctor

Trust me, I'm a Doctor

102,440 XP

25th November 2003

0 Uploads

9,964 Posts

0 Threads

#5 13 years ago
Captain AmerikaWhat about Bus speeds? I heard the 1066 mhz models are faster or on par with AMD's fastest CPUs. I thought faster core and evenly matched Bus speeds would kinda smooth out the other things that seperated the two CPUs. [The two best, I mean the AMD FX 57 and Intel Pent 4 660] Can I OC the clockspeed on the Pent 4, or is that like not possible? I'd rather buy the 3.8 Pent 4 660 run at 3.8ghz [costs $660] than the AMD FX 57 run at 2.8ghz which is way more money [$1001, newegg.com] and SLOWER. Why have a faster CPU core speed but crappy architecture!? What's the dev's big idea on that?! So superior architecture in the core [rate of data transfer, I assume] is more important than raw speed? I suppose so, but come on with the technology! Go all out! Sorry if I seems like I'm shouting/ranting, but it makes me angry to have a faster core but slower data transfer as compared to A SLOWER CPU!

About bus speeds, Intel uses a FSB, where AMD uses HyperTransport, from what i remember reading (its been awhile) Intels FSB uses the same path for information to flow in, and out of the processer, Where AMD's HyperTransport uses one 800-1000Mhz path for info to enter, and one 800-1000Mhz path for info to exit the processer, effectivly doubling the speed. which is why you will sometimes see the 800Mhz bus listed as 1600Mhz, and the 1Ghz Bus listed as 2000Mhz as in double the speed.

AMD processers also have a much more fine-tuned and developed architecure, the Athlon 64's are based on K7 processing units (Athlon XP) with added 64bit extensions, and many, many improvements. they also have better L1 and L2 caches i think. and the Integrated Memory controller that Hmmmdonut mentioned.

While Intel may have the highest clock speeds, they can't compete with AMD on a clock for clock level. there high clocks (even the 3.8Ghz) are not enough to beat the faster Athlon 64's. The 3800+ runs at only 2.4Ghz but can top even the most powerful Pentium 4. But you can't really call the Athlon's slower CPU's. True they may have lower actual clock speeds, but you can't compare AMD and Intel based on clock speed.

I think in the Athlon 64's rating scale, the FX-57 would be something like a 4400+. and i think the FX-55 would be a 4200+.




Rookie VIP Member

128,030 XP

3rd May 2005

0 Uploads

11,953 Posts

0 Threads

#6 13 years ago

Correct. AMD chips running at, say, 2.8GHz can outperform their Intel equivalents, simply because they can execute more instructions per clock cycle. This is done by introducing technologies such as (in the case of the Athlon 64) enhanced 64-bit memory registers, Direct Connect Architecture, an on-chip memory controller (as Hmmmdonut mentioned), and a very high performance point-to-point multi-processor bus called HyperTransport. In fact, Intel's EMT64 was a blatant clone of the AMD K8 architecture - ironic since AMD was once notorious for producing cheap clones of Pentium chips. The Athlon 64 X2 (Dual Core) CPU is a further improvement to the AMD line of processors, implementing dual CPU cores on a single chip - the Intel (non-virtual) equivalent of this technology requires two seperate CPUs, meaning data has to flow through external pins rather than internal transistors - slowing performance. To sum it up, you can't compare Intel and AMD on clock speed alone. It's a common misconception (helpfully spread by Intel) that more GHz = Good. There's a lot more to processor speed than that.




N88TR

Old school pimp

50 XP

10th February 2004

0 Uploads

9,921 Posts

0 Threads

#7 13 years ago

Okay. Thanks for responses. I only posted because I'm planning on a big upgrade to my core [runs now at 2.2 ghz] and I want at least 3.0ghz. AMD is just TOO DAMNED expensive, so I was looking at Intels lineup. So AMD for gaming, but AMD is just like, $1010 dollars for the FX 57 single core. I don't have that kind of money to spend on one part. Maybe for 3 things, but not one. Can anyone reccommend a fast CPU, chipset for it and compatible motherboard? I'm really having a hard time finding what I want. I'd like to leave my Radeon 9800 Pro XT 256 memory Video card alone, so that would have to be compatible. But it's AGP! So would like a really new CPU be compatible in an older AGP motherboard with my Radeon 9800? This is so confusing to me, sorry.




Mr. Matt VIP Member

#BanRadioActiveLobster

356,406 XP

17th June 2002

7 Uploads

33,654 Posts

779 Threads

#8 13 years ago

Why are you looking at getting the most powerful processor you can find when you're not updating your graphics card? Just get an Athlon64 3500+/3700+ or something; it'll tide you over and won't cost the Earth. If that's not powerful enough for you, just get the socket 939 4000+. It's basically a re-branded FX-55, and it's only about £240. It'll still kick pretty much every Intel processor between the legs, even if it isn't the most powerful processor AMD has in its arsenal. My PC is over a year old now and it's still capable of running everything at max details -- this is something I've never experienced before. They're running out of ways to squeeze extra power out of the ancient technology they're using -- you don't have to upgrade quite so often these days. A top-of-the-range processor isn't necessary, certainly when you don't have the graphics card to match it.




Agentlaidlaw

Pie

50 XP

21st February 2005

0 Uploads

3,801 Posts

0 Threads

#9 13 years ago

Heres a list to show you what AMD beat what Intels... Socket 939 6XX Series AMD 2800+ > Intel 3.0ghz AMD 3000+ > Intel 3.2ghz AMD 3200+ > Intel 3.4ghz AMD 3500+ > Intel 3.6ghz AMD 3700+ > Intel 3.8ghz AMD 3800+ > Rest AMD 4000+ > Makes Intel look like nothing.

If you find the thread I made in here called CPU history it shows benchmarks of a AMD 3500+ that cost right now $201 out beat a Intel Pentium 4 Extream Edtion clocked at 3.4GHZ that sells for $800 one of the best Intels that competes with the FX series and the 3500+ out beat it or scored the same. Really why go for Intel? Don't be stuck in the clock game like Intel wants you to.




Dragokatzov

GF is my bext friend *hugs GF*

50 XP

24th January 2005

0 Uploads

1,363 Posts

0 Threads

#10 13 years ago
Captain AmerikaAMD is just TOO DAMNED expensive.

I beg to differ. AMD has always been the cheaper of the two. Here in Canada, A Pentium 4 @ 3.0Ghz S478 costs $245. An Athlon 3000+ S939 costs $153... according to ncix.com (no we do not have newegg.com) Nuff said True, the Athlon FX-57 is prices at over $1000 but this is their Ferrari of processors. Extreamly fast. it will put all intel cpu's to shame. I could but one, but i think for all intensive purposes, i would be fine with an Athlon 4000+, for $450. all prices are in Canadian dollars, of cource, i am too lazy to make the converson, but 1 American dollar = 1.17 Canadian dollars, Aprox.




  • 1
  • 2