- 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]