An exclusive gaming industry community targeted
to, and designed for Professionals, Businesses
and Students in the sectors and industries
of Gaming, New Media and the Web, all closely
related with it's Business and Industry.
A Rich content driven service including articles,
contributed discussion, news, reviews, networking, downloads,
and debate.
We strive to cater for cultural influencers,
technology decision makers, early adopters and business leaders in the gaming industry.
A medium to share your or contribute your ideas,
experiences, questions and point of view or network
with other colleagues here at iVirtua Community.
I would go with Intel, dispite what those MMORPG Fanatics () Say, the intel has always been industry standard; used in the creative industry. The AMD was for a time ahead of Intel with processor specs, but most games don't need this, over 2GB RAM is overkill on Counter Strike, and the AMD chips make a marginal, if unnoticable difference, the difference between some of the grahics cards cannot be noticed in alot of games. The Intel Core Duo is used, for this reason in Macs.
I think you can get the maximum out of it (what the game software can handle) with a High End (but not rediculos) grahics card, and a 3.2/4GhZ Chip, not even that to be honest, Gaming when you get above 3.0GhZ and 1-2GB RAM Is no were near as resource hungry as Image Handling, Web Development, Software Development, Movie Editing, Grahic Design, and animation. Infact, all of the Creative Industry. All Web Design/Visual basic/Software developemnt Windows PC's use Intel Chips, and Apple Macintosh.
Performance is better with Intel Thanks to the new core's ability to clock high, Intel has retaken the performance crown away from AMD and doesn't look like they'll be losing it any time soon.I know AMD loyalists will scream this "Ya, Intel has the performance crown, but their CPU's run 700-800 MHz higher then AMD's! That's not fair, also you can overclock an Athlon to beat a P4." First, life's not fai r- that should be pretty obvious and so what if Intel CPU's need to run 700-800 MHz higher in order to beat an AthlonXP 2200+ (1.8 GHz)? Faster performance is faster performance and Intel's wearing the crown at the moment. AMD CPU's do overclock well and they're more fun to play with thanks to the ability to unlock the multiplier but you can also overclock P4's. Almost all 1.6A's out there can hit 2.4 GHz without even breaking a sweat, and many even can do 2.7 GHz! Then again, whats the point in overclocking, when the game probably doesnt even need the power?
Cooling is better with Intel This is a place where Intel is far and away way superior to AMD. Of course, as they are a much larger company Intel can hire more dedicated engineers to design cooling solutions for their CPU's - but have you actually looked at the heatsink/fan's that come with retail boxed P4's and AMD processors?
The retail Intel heatsink is just designed so well. Not only does it have a massive amount of surface area to draw away the heat a P4 produces (highly clocked P4's can generate close to what high end AMD CPU's do), it also acts as a huge EMI shield! They're so good that even enthusiasts are using them to cool their overclocked processors! Another nice thing is just how quiet the fan is. In an enclosed case it's often almost impossible to hear it.
AMD could learn a thing or two from Intel on this, of course though I do understand that AMD is much smaller and cannot devote their engineer's time to designing better thermal solutions. They're moving in the right direction though, from those cheap generic heatsinks to Skive based models, to now requiring heatsinks to have a copper base in order to get AMD approval.
Ive even heard this... I don't frequent forums much myself anymore but whenever I see people claiming that the benchmarks being used are skewed towards Intel, it really makes my blood boil. That has got to be the most uninformed thing I've ever heard. Yes, there's a huge conspiracy against AMD and all the hardware sites are secretly being paid off by Intel to run "Intel based benchmarks", that's the only reason why Intel beats AMD... ludicrous!
AMD CPU's are damn fast and can give Pentium 4's a good run for its money but in the end P4's are faster!
Then then we have the Intel Core 2 DUO Extreme Edition.
I don't think AMD will come close to matching it; but it is over £600...
Intel’s Conroe design makes their older Pentium chips look very, very ordinary. For example the X6800 is able to beat the Pentium 4 631 clocked at 3GHz by as much as 180%. As far as gaming performance goes, Intel is looking very strong and as we have predicated and Intel told many people at the Computex show throughout the week, Intel is looking like they will be the gamer CPU of choice in the remainder 2006 and all of 2007. The Core 2 Extreme clocked at 2.93GHz was able to beat the AMD Athlon FX-62 on average by 15-25% in the latest gaming tites such as Fear, Quake4, Doom3, Oblivion and many more games. The performance improvements in media encoding task is even larger. If you crave the absolute quickest CPU for your PC their is nothing faster than Intel latest Conroe processors, be prepared as you will be amazed.
- Dual Core Technology
- 2.93GHz clock speed
- 4MB L2 Cache
- Intel Speedstep Technology
- EM64T 64-Bit Technology
- Execute Disable Bit
- Cooler running technology, less heat and less noise!
- Supplied with Intel referance heatsink & fan
Last edited by Editorial Team on Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:41 am; edited 1 time in total
I was Told AMD is slightly faster then intel. My computer is a 2.10ghz Athlon cpu. It is supposed to be as fast as intel 3.0ghz But I don't relly know the differences for sure.
Hey hey, Gamers; if you read the post above, you'd see what i'm tring to say; AMD is not necessarily best; why is Intel used in macs, creative industry and workgroup servers? Dont go thinking "Intel is for Laptops", Intel is a far bigger company than AMD, and i'm just saying, if you try not to worship one company,you will see that the new Intel Core Duo Processors don't need to be "overclocked"; they are just faster and more efficient.
Please re-read my post above and understand what I am saying, and not use your AMD Religion to back yourselves up.
Personally I use AMD Athlon. Not the highest spec AMD processer around but it's fine for waht I want. I think people know the name intel far more than they do AMD, but at the same time, there probably isn't enough of a difference to rank one against the other
Some decent CPU comparison charts can be found here It has it's flaws but it is generally correct.
Clock speed means very little nowadays. A 2.4ghz Core 2 Duo is more often than not far better than a 3.8ghz Pentium D or a 2.4ghz AMD X2 4600+ for instance. I say more often than not because it always depends on the application being used to measure performance with.
I tend to closely follow the computer hardware scene and do my best to keep up with the latest graphics and CPU hardware, and how they relate to previously released tech. Currently Intel offers the best performance, best performance per watt, and best price/performance ratio when talking CPUs. For the extremely low end their Celerons are so cheap now that you can find a high-clocked Celeron of "Pentium" origin that outperforms an equally priced AMD Sempron based system. This extends all the way up to QuadCore systems, where Intel still has better priced, higher performing parts. AMD has seriously trounced Intel CPUs in the past for the longest time, but currently Intel has come back swinging.
AMD's new micro CPU architecture is slated to launch this June/July, and could very will outperform Intel's best chips by up to 40%. Only time will tell though, as no concrete benchmarks are out there yet to prove either way.