Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Buying a new Computer

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 12, 2005 3:07:42 PM

Hi, I would like to know what is best computer for gaming such as DOom3, Unreal T 2004, World Of warcraft things with high frame rates.. I been reading and reading still cannot decide on intel or amd i am lookin to spend around 2500 could you smart guys please help me? One more little questing is Amd 3500 better then intel 3.0 ghz..? Thx

More about : buying computer

January 12, 2005 3:40:17 PM

Either recent Intel or AMD processors will work just fine, it's your graphics card, sound card, speakers and monitor that will ultimately determine how good your gaming experience is, not who made the processor inside.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/myanandtech.html?member=114979" target="_new">My PCs</A> :cool:
January 12, 2005 4:22:52 PM

Athlon64 is the best for gaming. But also make sure that you get a good graphics card like GeForce 6800GT

------------
<font color=orange><b><A HREF="http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox" target="_new">Rediscover the web</A></b></font color=orange>
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
January 12, 2005 5:50:40 PM

Quote:
is Amd 3500 better then intel 3.0 ghz..? Thx


In every way. For gaming, an A64 3500 is better than a P4 3.6.
A64s have always been faster than thier P4 equivalent, while the new winchester cores make them the best OCers, and, the P4e (prescott) has an annoying habit of throttling it's own speed, because it gets too hot.
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2005 3:47:54 AM

I don't know d00d, the XP2800+ to 3200+ range didn't seem to have much lead in any particular applications, and seemed to fall behind a bit more on a few. So "always", well, always seems to apply only to A64's and pre-200MHz bus XP's.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
January 13, 2005 4:28:41 AM

Well, the pre barton xp2800+ was a nice chip, too bad they didn't make more. If you want to look at my post again though, it does say the A64 chips. The only bartons I like are the xp2500, and if there is an m in thier name, all the better. Actually, most of the xp-m bartons are okay, on desktop.
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2005 5:59:07 AM

Sh-eye d00d, I misread what you wrote as "AMD has always been better than their P4 equivalent" rather than "A64's". Sorry.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
January 13, 2005 8:18:43 AM

Iv read that AMDs are better for gameing then Intel's chips. But that Intel's chips have the edge when it come to video encodeing. Also the chip numbers can be a bit misleading, for example I have an AMD athlon xp 2200 (dnt laugh!) but it only actually runs at 1.8ghz. And then theres some debate over weather ghz are the be all and end all of processer power anyway. sorry if thats made it even more confuseing for you!
January 13, 2005 8:45:30 AM

AMD have the edge in <i>everything</i> apart from some encoding tasks, and then Intel Don't lead by much. When you factor in that AMD are generally a bit cheaper, are 64-bit capable, run cooler (less noise for cooling!), and use less power, the choice becomes something of a no-brainer really, if you're building a new system.

---
"Sex without love is an empty experience...
But as empty experiences go, it's one of the best" - Woody Allen
!