Amd Vs Intel
- Thread starter Imthatguy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Intel seems to be a bit more ahead of the curve with regards to power and size and the ilk. And AMD is on top of the 64 bit processor world like a hobo on a ham sammich.
As for GPUs, Even Intel Employees admit that there's nothing they make quick enough to beat Nvidia.
As for GPUs, Even Intel Employees admit that there's nothing they make quick enough to beat Nvidia.
AMD is cheaper because they spend their development money making their chips cheaper, while intel spends their money making their chips push the envelope. Many people don't like the new 6 and 8 core AMD processors because they benchmark lower than good i7 processors. This is probably because AMD switched their marketing to power instead of cost for these ones, and thus did not live up to the hype. That being said, I love my fx 6100. It was 140 USD; stock it was 3.3 GHz, and I currently have it running at 4.5 GHz without going over 55 C on max load (this is with a corsair H80). You can't beat that sort of price with an intel CPU.
How to put it, Intel is better on raw chip tech and power because they pretty much own the entire desktop CPU market and got money to burn, the only reason why AMD is around is because they need them.
But AMD is aware of their shortcomings and fill it in with good design that allows fast data throughput and processing even with less under the bonnet, and with less money spent they can compete on price.
You really shouldn't look for price/GHz because those are not a reliable measure, always look up reviews where they put in loads of benchtests, usually AMD is king of the midrange market and Intel will beat them at the top where money is no object.
But AMD is aware of their shortcomings and fill it in with good design that allows fast data throughput and processing even with less under the bonnet, and with less money spent they can compete on price.
You really shouldn't look for price/GHz because those are not a reliable measure, always look up reviews where they put in loads of benchtests, usually AMD is king of the midrange market and Intel will beat them at the top where money is no object.
I'm sorry but there's a lot of misinformation here. Do not buy an AMD CPU for gaming, it's as simple as that.
The only place they represent a good option are low cost due to the far superior built in graphics.
Just look at the benchmarks and reviews, the FX CPUs are disliked because they are worse than the old Phenoms. They're worse than Intel Core processors. And they're not significantly cheaper.
The only place they represent a good option are low cost due to the far superior built in graphics.
Just look at the benchmarks and reviews, the FX CPUs are disliked because they are worse than the old Phenoms. They're worse than Intel Core processors. And they're not significantly cheaper.
please show me a new i5 2500k under 150 USD please (not on ebay or amazon either). I'm not an amd fanboy, because theyre obviously worse than intel, but like i said before, you can't beat amd's pricing but you can destroy their high end performance. Value = AMD, Performance = IntelTubez said:
Sorry had not sleept much yesterday so I must have mistaken It for euro but you are correct in that i5 2500k cost more,then 150$ But according to reviews from sweclockers.com you could get an i3 for 144$ that outperforms your CPU without overclockingthe doom cannon said: