Is Intel really so bad?

[t3h l337 n3wb]

Yeah, there's no point in selling now. You alrady got it, so don't waste your money. An X2 would run cooler and more efficiently, but the performance increase isn't that much. It would be better at gaming though, so you'll just have to buy a better video card to mak up for that

 

[bamacre]

Intel cpu's are cheaper than AMD when you find a deal on a Dell, but otherwise, if I were building for gaming, A64 all the way. As far as laptops are concerned Pentium M's are the best. I think the Pentium M is proof Intel has the capability to be better than AMD in the desktop market, but it's just not financially beneficial for them to do so, yet. They are not exactly losing money folks, while marketing an inferior product. Personally, I am gaming on a Pentium 630, and for the price I paid for my Dell, I certainly have zero regrets.

OP, keep what you have. The difference is not worth what you'll take as a loss. I have a 630 running with 2GB of ram and a 7800 GTX, and I assure you the performance is great.

 

[Cheesetogo]

If you haven't purchased a graphics card yet, I would suggest nvidia because of the support for dual core proccessors in their drivers.

 

[imported_Gimli]

The last 5 computers that I built were Intel and the lastest one is AMD, but I really can't see why people bash Intel (or AMD) for these computers are fast where an extra few FPS or GHz aren't noticeable to ordinary people. just my .02 cents.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

You do realize AMD doesn't support DDR2, yet, right? That means, unless by some freakish chance your Pentium D system used PC3200 DDR, you're going to have to get new memory, too.

 

[t3h l337 n3wb]

By ~Q1 2006, Socket M2 will support DDR2 RAM, so he'll be able to keep his old DDR2 RAM from the Pentium D build.

 

[Sureshot324]

Keep it. Most games are more limited by the graphics card than the cpu, especially when you play at high resolutions with AA/AF.

 

[IronMentality]

Hold onto it.

 

[Uclagamer_99]

keep it, don't listen to the people on these boards, most of them are enthusiasts with money to burn who seem to upgrade their systems every 6 months or so. this advice is assuming your financial situation is the same as mine when i was 21 and still in school...i.e. POOR.

 

[Markbnj]

[Actualy it doesn't look like anything you are planning to run will use the second core.]

Using Task Manager, run a bunch of the apps you normally run, and tell me how many of them load cycles onto just one core.

 

[Agnostos Insania]

Originally posted by: HenHowC
keep it, don't listen to the people on these boards, most of them are enthusiasts with money to burn who seem to upgrade their systems every 6 months or so. this advice is assuming your financial situation is the same as mine when i was 21 and still in school...i.e. POOR.

So true it hurts. On the plus side I save money by having very little if any social life.

I'll see how things go on Ebay. Thanks again, guys!

 

[mrza]

Rather than make a new thread, I thought I'd ask this here. Is Intel's 2.4ghz = to AMD's 2.4ghz or is one faster than the other. What would Intel's equivilant to an AMD 3800+ be?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Intel's speed vs AMD's PR rating is a little off. AMD is faster slightly in more benches. 3200+ > 3.2 ghz... By the time you hit 3700+, that stuff rocks with teh 1mb cache and so Intel is even more behind.

 

[mrza]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Intel's speed vs AMD's PR rating is a little off. AMD is faster slightly in more benches. 3200+ > 3.2 ghz... By the time you hit 3700+, that stuff rocks with teh 1mb cache and so Intel is even more behind.

So is a 3800 faster than an Intel 3.8?

 

[mrza]

Originally posted by: mrza

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Intel's speed vs AMD's PR rating is a little off. AMD is faster slightly in more benches. 3200+ > 3.2 ghz... By the time you hit 3700+, that stuff rocks with teh 1mb cache and so Intel is even more behind.

So is a 3800 faster than an Intel 3.8?

anyone?

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: mrza

Originally posted by: mrza

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Intel's speed vs AMD's PR rating is a little off. AMD is faster slightly in more benches. 3200+ > 3.2 ghz... By the time you hit 3700+, that stuff rocks with teh 1mb cache and so Intel is even more behind.

So is a 3800 faster than an Intel 3.8?

anyone?

It really depends on the application. For example, when I look at benchmarks, my eye is always drawn to the audio/video encoding tests, because that's what I do that takes the most time. This site shows the Venice 3800+ lagging behind the P4 560 (3.6 GHz) in every test. In gaming, it's just the opposite. The Venice 3800+ tops the benchmarks in almost every test. Of course, I don't game, so I don't really give a gosh darn who tops those benches.

It's all about what you do, and what you care about.

EDIT: On a side note, you may be wondering why I have an AMD system, since Intel seems to dominate A/V benches. That's because there's no other chip under $80 that will do what mine does @ 2.4 GHz. I'm counting the days until someone releases a dual-core budget chip! Imagine that: a dual-core Sempron! Or, dare I say... a dual-core Celeron?

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Intel's speed vs AMD's PR rating is a little off. AMD is faster slightly in more benches. 3200+ > 3.2 ghz... By the time you hit 3700+, that stuff rocks with teh 1mb cache and so Intel is even more behind.

Thats a good one.

3200+ Barton can't even touch a 3200+ Venice/Winchester or a 3.2 Ghz Northwood/Prescott