Halo 1 & 2 for PC
This topic has moved here: Subject: Intel and Nvidia
  • Subject: Intel and Nvidia
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: Intel and Nvidia
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Moderator Notice: This user has been blacklisted from this forum. Until the user is removed from the blacklist, all posts this user has made have been hidden, and all topics created by this user have been censored.
  • 11.06.2005 9:55 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Well, prove it.

Give us benchmarks, reviews, comparasions to ATi, ect., even your own experiences would help this statement.

Simply put, we can't just take your word for it.

  • 11.06.2005 11:15 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

How do we know that's the best combination? I mean, AMD's got processors that actually give you what you have. Intel's celeron processor can be advertised at 2.6GHz, but in actual performance, it puts out only 1.5. Now, an AMD Athlon can be advertised as 1.6, but you can be sure that you'll get every gigahertz of that 1.6 they tout it as.

But either way, my point is, we need facts. Data charts, etc, they all help.

  • 11.06.2005 11:44 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Oh my sys specs are
Intel p4 2.2ghz
80gb hd
512 ram
nvidia egeforce 6200 256mb

and it is my baby, and my baby it will be

  • 11.06.2005 12:31 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Thats nice, too bad it doesn't render camo right.

  • 11.06.2005 5:32 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: likeomgpownzers
Is the best combination. -NVIDIA THE WAY IT'S MEANT TO BE PLAYED-


By just saying that and not giving any reasons, you're probably one of those people who doesn't know the difference between a CPU and a GPU..... Please use 3dmark 05 and send us a link to a screenshot the benchmark. You can use www.imageshack.org to host it once you have the screenshot. List your system specs also. I bet you don't even know the frequencies on your videocard.

ATI = Good for direct 3d games
Nvidia = Good for Open GL

If you knew anything about videocards you would know that the following is true:

ATI x1800XT > Nvidia 7800GTX

If you think you know about computers then you should have no problem naming all of the parts in your computer now (the models). If not then you have no business answering to this post. Even if you bought a computer like a dell or vaio you should be able to name the different part's brands(if you believe you know alot about computers). We dont need any of you people who "think" they know alot about computers to answer because your just spamming the forum. I'm not saying I know A TON, but I know alot more than the average person. I'm in college for computer engineering....

My pc...
AMD 64 3200+ Newcastle OC'd from 2.2 to 2.45, upgraded aerocool heatsink.
OCZ platinum ddr pc 3200 OC'd to 225mhz
ATI X800 XL OC'd - Mem speed: 1050mhz, core speed: 440mhz
ASUS K8V Se Deluxe mobo
WD RAPTOR - 2 X 74GIG 10,000 RPM hd's

This is not meant to be offensive to you guys, just to get rid of the noobs!

[Edited on 11/6/2005]

  • 11.06.2005 9:53 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: me15ter
How do we know that's the best combination? I mean, AMD's got processors that actually give you what you have. Intel's celeron processor can be advertised at 2.6GHz, but in actual performance, it puts out only 1.5. Now, an AMD Athlon can be advertised as 1.6, but you can be sure that you'll get every gigahertz of that 1.6 they tout it as.

But either way, my point is, we need facts. Data charts, etc, they all help.



WTF is that supposed to mean....

Intel has higher clockspeed, but since AMD's have better architecture they are much faster for gaming. Another reason why AMD's seem to outpreform intel is that they have the memory controller on the die of the processor, and not on the north bridge, allowing it to access it much more effeciently. I kinda see what your saying about ghz's of both brands, but that isn't exactly right....

ex.... A celeron runs at 2.6, but since the architecure on it sucks it doesn't preform very fast. It is basically modeled after a pentium 3, and is slow. The L2 cache on celerons is only 256 while most AMD's are at 512 or 1024. The celeron is running at the full 2.6 ghz, but since it has poor architecture, it is comparable to say a p4 running at 1.6. The celeron is putting out a full 2.6ghz but it just sucks.

Put it this way AMD > Intel for gaming. Try to match any processor up against an fx 57 and try to outbench it. Celerons just arent meant for gaming. Theyre good for very simple work like email and suring the web.

[Edited on 11/6/2005]

  • 11.06.2005 10:13 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Mr B
Errr, everyone might have the wrong idea here. Note the keyword

is

in his sentance.

He may just be asking and forgot a question mark.



either that or he doesn't know a thing about videocards....

  • 11.07.2005 10:29 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

or he was finishing his sentrance from the title...

  • 11.07.2005 12:29 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Chewy Gumball
or he was finishing his sentrance from the title...



lol I didnt notice that before. He is DEFINATELY a retard with computers if he said that Intel is better than AMD for gaming. Anyone with 1/2 a brain would agree with me on that one.

Ex 1. My parents dell has a 3.4 ghz p4 processor, 1 gig of ram.
My computer has an AMD 64 3200+(meaning it is equal to a 3.2 ghz p4), but it is actually 2.2ghz, and I have 768mb's of ram.

On pcmark 05 my computer scores over 3,000 points higher than my parents computer that has a "faster" processor and more ram.

Could someone else that knows about computers please explain that AMD's are much better for gaming. Unless you get an extreme edition p4 which cost about $1000 your not going to beat an AMD that is comparable to it.

[Edited on 11/7/2005]

  • 11.07.2005 1:55 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

just wondering but likeomgpownzers, the person who started this thread, what kind of computer did you BUY pre-assembled. I can tell just from what you said that there is no way you built a computer. Either that or someone bought all the parts for you and built it.

  • 11.07.2005 1:57 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

AMD = cheaper, more effective than Intel. AMD just grabbed a majority in the market, recently too. Signs that Intel can no longer hide behind its corporate safe house. AMD's architecture is better, and Intel admitted that when they dropped NetBurst for their up-and-coming line of processors. Thing is, AMD has started getting a bit more expensive, especially in the dual cores. I'd hate to see them become another Intel, but it was bound to happen.

nVidia vs. ATi = no argument. Both have the same products, basically. I end up buying whatever is the best at the time. Honestly, if one was not very good, the other would have no competition to make as good of cards as they do now. When the 7800GTX hit, I was praising nVidia. I recommended it. Now that the X1800XT is upon us - I'm sort of weighing both companies as even.

I guess it depends on which games you like to play, as well. I play a lot of CS, so ATi is pretty much the way to go for me, since their cards do so much better with Source. If you play a lot of Doom 3, then nVidia is the way to play. Otherwise, both companies have relatively the same performance in other games and engines.

  • 11.07.2005 3:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

AMD has affordable, everyday 64 bit proccesors, intel doesn't.

  • 11.07.2005 4:33 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Mr B
....

Not sure what AMD were doing with their 754 pin range, which seems to have died very quickly. I look upon that as a poor mans 64bit system. ok for now, but with very few upgrade oppurtunities in the future.
.



what are you talking about very few upgrades in the future. AMD is not going with DDR2 ram because their method with having hte memory controller on the processor die is more efficient than on the northbridge. Almost all new motherboards have both pci-e and agp. There are socket 754 motherboards that use pci-e.

I dont understand where your coming from with the no future upgrades. Almost all new technology can be used with any AMD. Please explain your reasoning...


[Edited on 11/7/2005]

  • 11.07.2005 5:28 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: TMH1988
WTF is that supposed to mean....


Hm. As much as I value your input, TMH, and see that you've got a pretty good working knowledge about computers, most of your responses have been in the form of a flame directed at another member. Merely because someone else doesn't have all the knowledge that you have doesn't mean you flame them for it. We were all n00bs at one point ^_^ (Although I gotta say, whoever started this thread seemed a bit "troll"-ish in his intentions.)

As far as my argument being wrong, when I find proof to the contrary (read: when I get my lazy arse up and look up comparitive charts for AMD/Intel), I shall stand corrected and will readily admit my error. But before I do so, I'll need some solid proof.

  • 11.07.2005 5:54 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Sorry if i offended anyone here. When it comes to computers I can get pretty worked up :)

  • 11.07.2005 6:10 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I'm not sure if anybody here will understand these, mainly because some of you don't know the differences in the various AMD/Intel CPU models.

anyway i found some benchmarks proving that AMD is better than intel for gaming. If you have an understanding of the verious intel/amd models you will clearly see that AMD's line of processors are overall better than Intel for gaming.

Check here. Might I add that the chunk of AMD's at the bottom of the list are the lowest model AMD is currently making, and they are beating pentium 4's which cost about double the price. Pentium 4's are also alot more expensive than AMD's.

Here is another benchmark series

if you understood those benchmarks you could see that AMD has a better bang for buck. I'm not saying that intels suck, but they generally are more expensive. Both processors have their advantages/disadvantages.

  • 11.07.2005 6:30 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Although, TMH1988, you are correct, i disagree with your approach to "educating" the other members of the forum. I mean thats all we are here for isnt it? If someone doesnt know something, it'd be nicer to talk about it, rather than to just say "no you're an idiot because ______. with __ representing alot of pc tech talk that they might not even understand.

You are correct though, AMD processors are better for gaming, while intel's strength seems to be with video encoding and other boring stuff that we dont care about much. And AMD is really only a better bang for its buck in single core processors it seems like.

I disagree with your comment ATI x1800XT > Nvidia 7800GTX. Both of them, as is the usual with nVidia and ATi cards, do well in their respected areas. (nVidia with Open GL, and ATi with Direct 3D. Not only that, but it's alot easier to setup an SLi machine, and the 7800GTX only requires one PCI-E slot, not a PCI-E and a PCI slot.

And for the poster, I prefer AMD and nVidia to intel and nVidia. I dunno why but intel and ATi seem to work better together.. weird huh?

  • 11.07.2005 6:55 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

yea like i said earlier, sorry for being an -blam!-, i can get a bit crazy when it comes to computers....lol

anyway I'll try to find some more benchmarks with ATI vs Nvidia so everyone can see the comparison. I will give it to nvidia, dual 7800GT's are god.

  • 11.07.2005 8:22 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Found it...

HERE!!!!!

as you can see, the x1800 outpreforms the 7800GT, but it does consume a little bit more power. You wouldn't be able to notice the difference in the 2 top of the line cards.

I think for higher cost stuff nvidia takes it, but for the mid-lower end stuff (which the majority of people have) ATI takes it for the best bang for buck. everyone has their opinions, but ive clearly shown some facts here in this post supporting my ideas.

  • 11.07.2005 8:29 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

You can always go here.

Heh, sorry about the obnoxious lack of an update, I sort of made it and forgot about it. It's not that updated any more, and needs a new additions, namely in the GPU section.

Has anyone else mentioned how cooler AMD runs? That's always a plus. My 3200's load is lower than a standard P4's idle.

  • 11.07.2005 9:13 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

o yea i forgot to mention that p4 prescott cores can very easily catch on fire without a heatsink.

My 3200 runs at 36*C, while my parents p4 prescott runs about 59*C idle.

  • 11.07.2005 9:27 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3