Amd: PC: Athlon, Sempron, Phenom (the knew one I think) Laptop:Turion VS Intel: PC/Laptopentium, Celeron, Core. Which do you think is the better processor for pc and laptop? Discuss. Personally, I have an AMD Sempron which works pretty good-speed, overclocking etc. It's the only one I've ever had so..
my heart says amd but my logic says intel but in all truth the differences are so small between amd and intel (MULTI-CORE) you won't be like "OMG! if i had intel i'd get an extra few FPS's in my games!" intel are playing dirty with their prices, trying to drive amd out, and it's good for consumers, you can pick up a core 2 quad that can overclock from 2.4 Ghz up to almost 4Ghz (some people claim) on air. but if amd go down intel prices will soar.
Intel Core 2. It is like the Athlon64 of the Pentiums, only the companies are switched this time. I don't think that AMD will disappear. It would give Intel a too large marketshare.
intel are over priced there cpu's are twice as much as amd and altho a little bit better its not enough to warrent the difference in money. AMD won't go down because they are the preffered cpu by gamers. also there is no point in spending money on quad-core type cpu's at the moment as no much supports them. games have only just started to support dual-core. one of the best processors at the moment for gaming is the AMD 6400+ value for money and fast.
The Intel Core 2 Duo for both PCs and Laptops. Less power consumption and more processing power. They are also competitively priced and decently overclockable.
AMD traditionally out perform Intel equivalent processors, they are also cheaper, and judging by thermal output, more efficient. The difference was so big that Intel declared their Pentium 4 chip architecture 'a failure' and thus the new processors are based on the Pentium III architecture.
equitypetey's right about quad core... that's why my next cpu will be an amd phenom quad core black edition ;D
if i'm right you don't want quad there is no point nothing supports it save money and have a faster pc get a 6400+ black box edition
Some programs support it. I imagine Sony Vegas does. Windows XP might have issues with it though (don't think XP supports more than 2 processors)
yeah see you can only name one program, there is more but not enought to need one and you need vista realy and if your the type of person who would need a super fast cpu you would not want vista. its a paradox......... stick with dual-cores at the moment. think about it only the only the one core gets used most of the time and it all deppends on the software used wether the other processing paths are used. most software at the oment only uses two paths and still alot only use the core of the cpu so you realy want something with a large core so untill the majority of software supports quads, duals will be faster as they have larger cores currently
not yet, they're still working on vista server, which I predict will be the biggest flop since windows ME
Also, more cores aren't always useful for more power. Multi-tasking is another main factor with multiple cores. They allow you to choose what processes run on what cores, and in turn you can allow a process to have an entire core to itself by having all necessary system processes on another core. Four cores just means that you can customise your processes CPU usage even more - until more programs are written that support multiple cores. Further Intel's new quad core processors use 45nm technology and are therefore even more power efficient while the Phenom is still 65nm. Before that Intel CPUs were much quicker to take up the 65nm architecture for the early Core 2 Duos. And those of you who say that Intels are twice as expensive as AMDs - the newer ones aren't. I can get an Intel quad core Q6600 2.4GHz for $369 compared to an AMD quad core Phenom 9600 2.3GHz for $389. (Thanks Loony )
Oh ok my bad. I only really thought about the newer processors. Last post edited to reflect my mistake
yeah intel costs alot more than amd here and its not worth it. but the biggger point i was making is quads are not supported buy alot and in my case i'd be doing high end gaming and games don't support quads yet so a dual will run better then a quad
if amd can make an improved quad and re-engineer the dual core it would be worth owning then intel. amd changed the idea of speed on the cpu, it's no longer about the ghz, as it was proved during amd's xp era. also, how is it that amd has processors that use less cache and yet runs equally the same with intel. intel on the other hand have like 1-4mb of cache, yet amd only uses 512kb-1mb of memory for their cache. it says something about their engineering ideas.
