Intel vs AMD for games (has it changed now)??????

[Arklight1 140]

I am currently considering a major upgrade to my computer (in the end it'll probably be a new computer, lol) and I was wondering how Intel compares to AMD for games currently. It used to be AMD all the way for speed and such but nowdays it looks like Intel has caught up and perhaps passed AMD...not to mention AMD isn't/wasn't exactly known for being the most "stable" platform out there, lol.I currently own an XP2100 but I am considering an XP2700 OR a P4 2.66(533).What would you guys reccomend???Also which mobo would you choose with your selection????If you choose Intel is it better to go with one of the mobos that uses the DDR technology or is it better to stick with the RDRAM technology??Any comments/suggestions/insights would be GREATLY appreciated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks to all who respond!!!:)Shane

[John_Tavendale 453]

Shane,If money is no object for an upgrade, I's probably suggest Intel.Forget RDRAM, is is basically dead and buried. The price for RDRAM doesn't justify the small performance boost over DDR. And now with Intel boards that support Dual DDR you can get a lot of bandwith from your memory.You know my suggestions for AMD Boards ;) Asus A7NX8, EPoX 8RDA+ (Rev 1.2) Abit NS-7 (Rev 1.2) The Asus (Deluxe) and Abit motherboard feature SATA, and other goodies, also Soundstorm onboard Audio which is pretty good I hear.If you decide to go Intel, look for the new Intel E7205 chipset. There are a few boards to consider, the Asus P4G8X and the Gigabyte SINXP1394. They both support Dual DDR and are the newest chipset for P4's. If you want a slightly cheaper option for the motherboard, look at Asus P4PE, it's a very good board and pretty cheap.Good luck :)

[Tabs 2,790]

I'm sticking with AMD for my next upgrade coming up here in a few months - the new "Barton Core" Athlon 3000+ performed extremely well against the 3.06Ghz P4 in some recent reviews and it would seem that if AMD could just get the clock speeds up even with the P4's (instead of the XXXX+ crap) they'd be completely destroying Intel...I think my new system will look something like this:Soyo Dragon KT400A mobo or Nforce2 (depending on the performance reviews)AMD Athlon XP 3x00+ (whatever is highest at the time)1GB Crucial DDR400ATI All-In-Wonder R350 based video cardSB Audigy 2 Platinum soundBiggest IDE HD outI think that should have me pretty much set for FS:ACoF ;)

[Guest]

18 months ago, I jumped the Intel ship for AMD. At the time, AMD had the upper hand with mature DDR solutions and much better price for the same level of Intel performance.Recently, I moved back to the Intel fold. I did this because Intel DDR solutions are now well established, the price difference was viturtally nil (Intel CPU slightly more expensive, but higher AMD mobo price countered it) and, most importantly for me, stability at last with my USB controllers (VIA chipset + CH products controllers generally spells trouble!). Intel still charges a mighty premium for its flagship CPU, but I never buy the fastest anyway, so this wasn't a factor for me. Oh and did I mention noise - Intel stock fans run at about 2700-3000rpm vs the chainsaws that come with AMD chips.FWIW, I'm running a P4 2.4 @ 2.7GHz on an ASUS P4PE, with 512M DDR @ 400MHz. I am very pleased with the performance, stability, reliability and quietness I am now experiencing.

[Guest Rob]

Tabs .. you seem misguided. The Barton has been level-pegging with the 3Ghz Intel chip. Easier to get a Thoroughbred and overclock that mother. Barton's are (and will continue to be) silly money for a good while yet.Take a look at this page for AMD's demise: http://www.bit-tech.net/review/180/5

[Arklight1 140]

In terms of performance, between the P4 2.66(533) and the XP2700 which one would be the better performer?Also I noticed there aren't many P4 mobos out there that are AGP 8X...is this really an issue? From what I've read there is no real difference in performance between AGP 4X and 8X is this because there really isn't any games out there that take advantage of this or is it because having 128mb of RAM on the video card pretty much negates the use of having an 8X AGP??Thanks for all the comments, keep them coming guys PLEASE...this stuff is a great help to me!!!!! :)Shane

[michal 44]

>Tabs .. you seem misguided. The Barton has been >level-pegging with the 3Ghz Intel chip.I agree. Barton seem way overpriced and still falling short to the performance of P4 3.06 in MSFS. I am afraid it will be Athlon 64 in September before we see some meaningful progress from AMD.Michael J.

[John_Tavendale 453]

AMD has pretty much always had the upper hand in gaming performance.I don't think the AGP 8x is an issue. The Asus P4G8X motherboard I mentioned is 8x AGP.

[Arklight1 140]

Oops! Sorry John...I didn't see the 8X designation, my mistake. lolI always thought that AMD had the upper hand as well...but more recently it seems like Intel is starting to take over. I know certain games like IL-2: Forgotten Battles are optimized for the P4 so I'm sure that has something to do with it.I'm not sure what is going on with AMD....the price of that new "Barton" chip is ridiculous. AMD better watch it, if they lose the "we are cheaper" ace in the sleeve they are going to get waxed by Intel. LOLShane

[michal 44]

>I always thought that AMD had the upper hand as well...but >more recently it seems like Intel is starting to take over. >>They definitely always offered much better benefit/cost ratio and held slight lead in absolute performance for some period of time. But like you said - the landscape today looks different. Barton is not only way too expensive for what it offers but is also behind in absolute performance (at least for us playing FS).Michael J.

[Guest]

>AMD has pretty much always had the upper hand in gaming >performance. In general I agree, but reviews I've seen at SimHQ.com between equiv speed Intel and AMD CPUs (eg. 2.8GHz Intel vs XP2800+ AMD) on FS2K2 with otherwise similar rigs come out with Intel an fps or so ahead.

[John_Tavendale 453]

Maybe so, but the actual speed of the P4 is 2800Mhz compared to the AMD CPU that has an actual speed of 2250Mhz. They may have similar performance yet there is a difference of 550Mhz.So I'd say they still have the upper hand.

[Arklight1 140]

>Maybe so, but the actual speed of the P4 is 2800Mhz compared >to the AMD CPU that has an actual speed of 2250Mhz. They may >have similar performance yet there is a difference of >550Mhz. >>So I'd say they still have the upper hand. LOL, good point John.I think AMD named their processor line up XP2100, XP2600, etc.. becuase they were trying to say the XP2100 was equal to a P4 2100mhz, XP2600 was equal to a P4 2600mhz, etc.....Is that correct??Shane

[michal 44]

>So I'd say they still have the upper hand. :-lol:-eekKidding or Serious ? What does Mhz have to do with it, or even what the label says for that matter ???. What good is AMD's **low** Mhz if this is max they can deliver today ! The only thing that matters for consumer is price/performance and availability. Michael J.

[Guest Sabadin]

Yup, they got sick of losing sales just because the P4's had a higher clock.