GHz?

[dudka]

Just checking:

You can't really compare an intel 3.0GHz and an AMD 3.0GHz... right? Hence benchmark testing.

Also, what is more important if you stay within the same company (AMD or Intel)... GHz or number of cores?

Will I notice a difference between 2.9GHz quad and a 3.2GHz quad?

Thanks

 

[jaguarskx]

If you are just referring to general usage of your PC like surfing the net, reading writing emails, watching movies, then you are not going to notice any significant differences between an AMD or Intel duo/quad core CPU that's 2.9GHz - 3.2GHz.

If you are going to be playing games, then you may notice a difference especially if you have a duo core CPU, but the game recommends a quad core CPU (like GTA 4). Most games are limited by the video card rather than the CPU as long as the CPU is fast enough. Also, games that can make use of more than two cores would play better on a quad core CPU. When comparing a quad core AMD vs. a quad core Intel CPU, it is possible to detect a difference, but most of the time you need to see benchmarks especially if the frame rates are high. Can you tell the difference between 60 frames per second and 66 frames per second? I bet most people will say no.

If you are doing something that requires a lot of processing power (like encoding video), then that extra increase in CPU speed can be worth it. If a 2.9GHz CPU takes 120 minutes to encode a certain video, but 3.2GHz CPU take only 110 minutes, then it may be worth paying for the extra $$ for the extra 300MHz if you encode video often enough.

Intel CPUs performs better than AMD CPUs at the same clock speed for both games and general programs (like video encoding). A modern quad core Intel CPU @ 3.0GHz will always beat a modern quad core AMD CPU @ 3.0GHz.

 

[dudka]

If you are just referring to general usage of your PC like surfing the net, reading writing emails, watching movies, then you are not going to notice any significant differences between an AMD or Intel duo/quad core CPU that's 2.9GHz - 3.2GHz.

If you are going to be playing games, then you may notice a difference especially if you have a duo core CPU, but the game recommends a quad core CPU (like GTA 4). Most games are limited by the video card rather than the CPU as long as the CPU is fast enough. Also, games that can make use of more than two cores would play better on a quad core CPU. When comparing a quad core AMD vs. a quad core Intel CPU, it is possible to detect a difference, but most of the time you need to see benchmarks especially if the frame rates are high. Can you tell the difference between 60 frames per second and 66 frames per second? I bet most people will say no.

If you are doing something that requires a lot of processing power (like encoding video), then that extra increase in CPU speed can be worth it. If a 2.9GHz CPU takes 120 minutes to encode a certain video, but 3.2GHz CPU take only 110 minutes, then it may be worth paying for the extra $$ for the extra 300MHz if you encode video often enough.

Intel CPUs performs better than AMD CPUs at the same clock speed for both games and general programs (like video encoding). A modern quad core Intel CPU @ 3.0GHz will always beat a modern quad core AMD CPU @ 3.0GHz.

Thanks, you've answered many of my questions before in the past as well. Would you mind helping out with this one....

I want to build a new Llano A8-3850 because all I really do is surf the web and play a few mmorpg games. I'm willing to toss in DDR3 1866 RAM to help boost performance. The safe bet would be a Phenom IIx4 955 with mid range discrete card, but I don't think I will really reap the benefits with web surfing. My multitasking consists of watching a high def clip from ESPN in one tab and downloading a song in another. No blue ray playing or video encoding. So, I figure the Llano A8 is perfect. I'm currently using an old intel 1.73ghz laptop so I know anything new will be a huge boost in performance. I've read reviews and know the limitations of dual graphics "hybrid" and direct x11 with Llano, but do you think it would be able to handle what I'm looking to do?

Thanks

 

[jaguarskx]

For your need the A8-3850 will be fine since that is what it was designed for.

Going with the Phenom II is generally a better option for future upgrades, but since you will not be playing games or encoding videos, then there's won't be much need to upgrade anytime soon. It would also be a little more expensive since you would need to buy a separate video card.

 

[dudka]

For your need the A8-3850 will be fine since that is what it was designed for.

Going with the Phenom II is generally a better option for future upgrades, but since you will not be playing games or encoding videos, then there's won't be much need to upgrade anytime soon. It would also be a little more expensive since you would need to buy a separate video card.

Nice, thanks for the help as always.

 

[dudka]

Best answer selected by Dudka.