AMD or intel

[Stu]

The only thing AMD beats Intel on is value for money. The problem is, there's noone else on the playing field, which means you're back to square one, which is: You get what you pay for.

[Craig855S]

Got to say after doing some research I've been well and truly swayed over to the intel camp now. An AMD chip that looks fantastic on paper (4.0GHz quad core 4300) gets shat on by dual core intels that dont even have hyperthreading. And the 4.0GHz 8 core gets shat on by many many intels even low spec i5s. So my next machine wil be featuring a 3570K i5. And anyone who's looking to buy cheap should just buy the best intel they can afford, even the non i series dual cores are very good (and they can be had for fifty quid)

 

im no fanboy by any means and know full well that synthetic benchmarking will show and intel chip to perform better. but real world performance......i doubt youl notice any difference whatsoever.in a home user or gaming environment.

 

someone who encodes a lot or compiles kernals or programs would notice the difference

 

 

How come my system, with a more powerful graphics card and an "on paper" (overclocked anyway) more powerful processor is worse at playing battlefield 3 than an intel dual core processor system) using the same settings... AMD Athlon 2 X3 425 O/C to 3x3.0GHz vs Intel Pentium G850 2x2.9GHz

 

And its the same story comparing the FX series AMDs againstintels which are "on paper" worse

 

a g850 is an 1155 socket iirc, ur on an old am2 socket processor, so of course in this perticular instance the intel will be better as its much newer tech....as i said previously im not an AMD fanboy by any means but sayiong that intel is better than AMd isnt right as there are a million things to consider

 

I agree with you, it may not come across that way but I do. Unfortunately CPUs are sold with very little information given as to what they do and why theyre better than the previous generation or the model slightly lower than them. The spiel simply says X.XX frequency and X number of cores. L3 cache is given aswell and number of threads may be shouted about on a hyperthreading CPU. But I'd like other numbers to be put on the box that could be used to show how it performs in the real world, do you could tell if the mid range 2013 CPUs are better than the top of the range 2011 CPUs

[PeeWee]

It's called research before buying, plenty of sites offer side by side comparisons with new and old cpu types and brands with real world figures.

Manufacturers will always shout out numbers, they are also biased, after all they want to sell you their product.

[sidrick]

Two point twenty one giggawatts!

[Stu]

1.21, you loser.

[sidrick]

1.21, you loser.

 

What's 1.21? What are you talking about?

 

You think Doc Brown doesn't know how to overclock!?

[Stu]

Very good.

[smithyandco]

Pretty good guide: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

 

Ok, it's basic benchmarking scores but it gives a decent idea.

 

They also have GPU benchmarking, found that really handy when comparing AMD with Nvidia.