Amd or Intel for new Gaming PC

[sniperstorm1]

I am going to be building a new gaming pc here in the next week. I need help with opinions.

The 2 systems are either.


1:AMD Phenom 9850 Black Edition
ASUS M3A32-MVP Mother Board

2:INTEL Quad Core Q6600
ASUS P5N-D Motherboard.

The constants are 4 gigs of OCZ Ram
ATI 4850 From Saphire.

Also Running Vista Home 64bit.

What processor shold I go with and please tell me why. Also do you think there is a reason to goto 8 gigs or ram, and will running Vista 64 Be ok?

Thank you for any anwers.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Running Vista 64bit is fine. Vista 32bit is great for me and for 4GB+ you need 64Bit. Vista is a great OS with good features.

If it was me I would go for the Q6600. Its equal to the 9850BE and can OC easier and almost every single Q6600 can get to 3GHz with no voltage change.

I will let you in on my experience with the Q6600. Its fast, stable and very smooth. But to say the truth you should really get a E8400 as it will be better for gaming than a quad. But if you do go quad I suggest the Q6600.

Now I will just wait for kassler to bust in with his BS, please don't listen to him though as he is wrong.

 

[kassler]

If your monitor is 1680x1050 or above then AMD is better. Intel can't run fast video cards at full speed because the FSB limit. Also the socket is soon change so there is difficult to upgrade, Nehalem is knocking on the door.
AMD will last longer and you can upgrade

 

[gaiden]

you couldn't have just browsed the first 3 pages of here or the homebuilt section, no, you had to have that title.

word

 

[kassler]

Now I will just wait for kassler to bust in with his BS, please don't listen to him though as he is wrong.

The need for an IMC and why the FSB is dead

 

[galta]

+1 for jimmy.
+1 for stranger.

 

[jimmysmitty]

you couldn't have just browsed the first 3 pages of here or the homebuilt section, no, you had to have that title.

I know. Its sad. I tried to help him too.

I was right about kassler. And the stupid link he tries to use as proof only makes it that much more sad. A article talking about the uses of the IMC and he thinks it means the FSB is bottlenecked in the desktop market when thats clearly all about the server market.

Oh well.

LET THE FLAMIN BEGIN!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Gravemind123]

Ummm...WTF are you talking about, the FSB is currently no bottleneck in a single processor system, which is obviously what would be used for gaming. The Core2Quads outperform t he Phenoms despite the lower memory bandwidth, so buying something just for an IMC is stupid. The Core2Quads seem to be at least equal clock-for-clock, and some cases a bit higher then the Phenoms for gaming, and as far as overclocking it is no comparison, the Core2Quad wins hands down. The K10 architecture of the Phenom is a great architecture for servers and other multi-processor setups, but the Core2 architecture still shines in single processor use.

 

[epsilon84]

LOL I sense dejavu in this thread!

 

[Wisecracker]

Do I need to break out my AMD/Intel unpaid consultant cut 'n paste Budget Gaming Rigs of the week?

lol

 

[kassler]

but the Core2 architecture still shines in single processor use.

It shines on 800x600
Low graphics likes intel

Show one test with advanced/high graphics where intel wins over amd with a speedy card

I only know reviwes where AMD wins when the graphics is high for fast video cards

 

[rgsaunders]

Ummm...WTF are you talking about, the FSB is currently no bottleneck in a single processor system, which is obviously what would be used for gaming. The Core2Quads outperform t he Phenoms despite the lower memory bandwidth, so buying something just for an IMC is stupid. The Core2Quads seem to be at least equal clock-for-clock, and some cases a bit higher then the Phenoms for gaming, and as far as overclocking it is no comparison, the Core2Quad wins hands down. The K10 architecture of the Phenom is a great architecture for servers and other multi-processor setups, but the Core2 architecture still shines in single processor use.

Never argue with idiots like this, when you come down to his level he will beat you with experience.

 

[kassler]

Never argue with idiots like this, when you come down to his level he will beat you with experience.

I can tell you that if intel was better on high graphics there would be a lot of tests showing that. the have a lot of $$$$ and that is a selling argument.
I know a last three very big review sites that has some economical interest in showing better reviews for intel

 

[cjl]

It shines on 800x600
Low graphics likes intel

Show one test with advanced/high graphics where intel wins over amd with a speedy card

I only know reviwes where AMD wins when the graphics is high for fast video cards

See here for what REALLY happens when you bump up the resolution: the graphics card becomes the bottleneck, and the CPU is increasingly irrelevant.

 

[ZOldDude]

The bottom line is it does not matter who makes the CPU.
If you have a dual core running @ 3Ghz then you will never bottleneck your GFX card(s).
Games and office software are still P-4 rated on the boxs.

Go with the brand/company you want yet @ 3Ghz stock speed AMD is less cost (as low as $111 USD boxed with cooler) and the MB's for them are less as well.

 

[yomamafor1]

I would say it depends on the budget for your computer. If you have about 1500USD, quad core would make more sense, because game developers are starting to multi-thread game engines, and spin off physics and other calculations onto CPUs.

Generally I recommend Intel CPUs, because they're more suited for gaming, consume less energy, and have more performance. However, if you've decided to go quad, stick with Intel's quad core.

 

[yomamafor1]

It shines on 800x600
Low graphics likes intel

Show one test with advanced/high graphics where intel wins over amd with a speedy card

I only know reviwes where AMD wins when the graphics is high for fast video cards

Riiiiiight...

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1376/10/amd_phenom_x4_b3_stepping_analysed/index.html

Try harder next time.

 

[knotknut]

I'll answer your question.....

Intel CPU, check this one out for $279.00 http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0286543
However for present day use, E8400, E8500
Motherboard with Intel chipset, forget about that 750 junk
and your ATI 4850

 

[the last resort]

People really shouldn't ask which one is better. Intel fans will say Intel, and AMD fans will say AMD. ATM, Intel has the faster processors. DONE. NO other questions.
(And yes, I am an AMD fan)

 

[yomamafor1]

People really shouldn't ask which one is better. Intel fans will say Intel, and AMD fans will say AMD. ATM, Intel has the faster processors. DONE. NO other questions.
(And yes, I am an AMD fan)

Now if all AMD fan is as cool-headed as you...

 

[dratsabizan]

I say get the 2500+ barton with a Soyo dragon KT400 PLATINUM ED. and a 9700 PRO with 2 gigs of some GEIL Golden Dragon memory. That would be an awesome gaming machine. It would blow all these rigs away.I bet you could max out Crysis @ full settings.

 

[th_username]

9950 black edition and 3870x2

 

[kassler]

Riiiiiight...

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1376/10/amd_phenom_x4_b3_stepping_analysed/index.html

Try harder next time.

?

 

[jimmysmitty]

See here for what REALLY happens when you bump up the resolution: the graphics card becomes the bottleneck, and the CPU is increasingly irrelevant.

OMG NO WAY!!!!!!!!! Well its interesting how this conflicts with kasslers info.... I mean this just can't be because it makes sense and we live in a crazy world of make believe according to him.

?

Um he is saying you are wrong and that games are GPU limited normally when they hit a res os 1920x1200 or higher and that the CPU does not play any part in the FPS.

Was that clear enough?

 

[yomamafor1]

?

You wanted a site that proves Intel can outperform AMD at high resolution, which I provided. As evident in the site I linked, FSB is clearly not a limiting factor at high resolution (1600 x 1200).

Now, can you stop spreading misinformation?