Why AMD for gaming?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eddie G
  • Start date Start date
E

Eddie G

Why is AMD preferred for gaming? Intel has dual-core CPU's at 3.4 ghz
(and 3.6 iirc) and the fastest AMD x2 is what...2.6 ghz? I'd rather
get the faster Intel.

Please explain if you can...

Eddie g
 
Eddie G said:
Why is AMD preferred for gaming? Intel has dual-core CPU's at 3.4 ghz
(and 3.6 iirc) and the fastest AMD x2 is what...2.6 ghz? I'd rather
get the faster Intel.

Please explain if you can...

Eddie g
Click to expand...

Because in gaming benchmarks, the AMD is faster.
 
Eddie said:
Why is AMD preferred for gaming? Intel has dual-core CPU's at 3.4 ghz
(and 3.6 iirc) and the fastest AMD x2 is what...2.6 ghz? I'd rather
get the faster Intel.

Please explain if you can...
Click to expand...

Different CPU designs accomplish different amounts of work for each
"tick of the clock". You cannot compare CPU performance by comparing
clock rate. Instead use benchmark-test results of the CPU running the
application(s) that you are interested in.
 
chrisv said:
Different CPU designs accomplish different amounts of work for each
"tick of the clock". You cannot compare CPU performance by comparing
clock rate. Instead use benchmark-test results of the CPU running the
application(s) that you are interested in.
Click to expand...

It's simple SLI is faster on AMD systems right now!

Your running SLI , or Crossfire right? In a day or so you ain't jack
unless you have quad core SLI!

Now if someone is a causual gamer then it doesn't matter that much.

On some of the gammer forums, I have already seen post's about
core2duo, but this is just fanboism at it's best. We still don't know
how quad core setups will work on Intel's best. We should know more
about it a couple of months.

Until then buy what ever floats your boat, be it AMD, or Intel.

Gnu_Raiz
 
Why is AMD preferred for gaming? Intel has dual-core CPU's at 3.4 ghz
(and 3.6 iirc) and the fastest AMD x2 is what...2.6 ghz? I'd rather
get the faster Intel.

Please explain if you can...

Eddie g
Click to expand...

Easily done: clock rates aren't the governing factor.

Please absorb if you can...
 
from said:
Why is AMD preferred for gaming? Intel has dual-core CPU's at 3.4 ghz
(and 3.6 iirc) and the fastest AMD x2 is what...2.6 ghz? I'd rather
get the faster Intel.

Please explain if you can...
Click to expand...

MY 50cc motocycle revs to 15krpm. My corvette redlines at 8500. Please
explain why the corvette appears to travel faster.
 
Easily done: clock rates aren't the governing factor.

Please absorb if you can...
Click to expand...


Probably you overestimated absorbing capacity of the OP. Or
underestimated - in case he was deliberately trolling, which I
suspect.

NNN
 
It's simple SLI is faster on AMD systems right now!

Your running SLI , or Crossfire right? In a day or so you ain't jack
unless you have quad core SLI!

Now if someone is a causual gamer then it doesn't matter that much.

On some of the gammer forums, I have already seen post's about
core2duo, but this is just fanboism at it's best. We still don't know
how quad core setups will work on Intel's best. We should know more
about it a couple of months.

Until then buy what ever floats your boat, be it AMD, or Intel.
Click to expand...

Just ignore this guy. He is either trying to mislead you, or just doesn't
know what he is talking about.
 
I've heard that AMD names its processors after what kind of Pentiu
they would represent. For example AMD Sempron (Athlon or whatever
2800+ would roughly be equivalent of 2,8 GHz Pentium, even thoug
AMDs use seemingly lower clock frequencies. Not sure about tha
naming system though... like I said: just something I heard

But one thing IS sure: you can't compare the processor performanc
just by looking at the clock speeds (frequencies). Differen
processors outperform other processors in different tasks. Althoug
I'd go for AMD if it's a gaming PC you want
 
I've heard that AMD names its processors after what kind of Pentiu
they would represent. For example AMD Sempron (Athlon or whatever
2800+ would roughly be equivalent of 2,8 GHz Pentium, even thoug
AMDs use seemingly lower clock frequencies. Not sure about tha
naming system though... like I said: just something I heard

But one thing IS sure: you can't compare the processor performanc
just by looking at the clock speeds (frequencies). Differen
processors outperform other processors in different tasks. Althoug
I'd go for AMD if it's a gaming PC you want
 
Probably you overestimated absorbing capacity of the OP. Or
underestimated - in case he was deliberately trolling, which I
suspect.
Click to expand...

Why do you suspect I'm trolling? I'm just curious, is all...
 
GSV said:
MY 50cc motocycle revs to 15krpm. My corvette redlines at 8500. Please
explain why the corvette appears to travel faster.
Click to expand...

The more I thought about your analogy the more I do not understand it.
In your analogy I think the 50cc motorcycle is the AMD...smaller engine
(lower ghz) but it has more RPM's (clock cycles). Is this correct?
Yet you ask how is the corvette faster? The corvetter appears to
travel faster because it has a bigger engine with more HP. How does
this explain my query? Unless my interpretation is incorrect.

Eddie G
 
The more I thought about your analogy the more I do not understand it.
In your analogy I think the 50cc motorcycle is the AMD...smaller engine
(lower ghz) but it has more RPM's (clock cycles). Is this correct?
Yet you ask how is the corvette faster? The corvetter appears to
travel faster because it has a bigger engine with more HP. How does
this explain my query? Unless my interpretation is incorrect.

Eddie G
Click to expand...

you totally got it ass-backwards, which is why you're struggling with the
concept.

grasp this: the bike (the "Intel processor") runs with a much higher rpms -
ie: much faster "clock" - than the 'Vette (the "AMD processor"), yet the
'Vette has much more power.

Why?
Because RPMs alone don't dictate pecking order when it comes to producing
power...
 
from said:
The more I thought about your analogy the more I do not understand it.
In your analogy I think the 50cc motorcycle is the AMD...smaller engine
(lower ghz) but it has more RPM's (clock cycles). Is this correct?
Yet you ask how is the corvette faster? The corvetter appears to
travel faster because it has a bigger engine with more HP. How does
this explain my query? Unless my interpretation is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Your interpretation is incorrect. You are measuring CPU performance by
looking at the rev counter, not the speedometer.
 
The more I thought about your analogy the more I do not understand it.
In your analogy I think the 50cc motorcycle is the AMD...smaller engine
(lower ghz) but it has more RPM's (clock cycles). Is this correct?
Yet you ask how is the corvette faster? The corvetter appears to
travel faster because it has a bigger engine with more HP. How does
this explain my query? Unless my interpretation is incorrect.
Click to expand...

You definitely got it wrong. Try this one and see if you can
understand it better.

An Intel car is capable of carrying 4 persons and runs at a top speed
of 300km/h at full load. An AMD van is capable of carrying 10 persons
and runs at a top speed of 200km/h at full load. Now the job is to
ferry 100 persons over a distance of 300km and see who finishes first.

Do you see how although the Intel vehicle has a higher top speed, it
would take more time (25 trips 25hrs) to do the work compared to the
"slower" AMD van (10 trips 15hrs)?
 
Why do you suspect I'm trolling? I'm just curious, is all...
Click to expand...

While you might in fact be as innocent as you claim, in my experience
usually Intel vs. AMD threads around here are not started out of plain
curiosity.

NNN
 
Why do you suspect I'm trolling? I'm just curious, is all...
Click to expand...

He probably figures that "curious" can be satisfied by any number of
websites which cover CPU performance. You may also be interested to know
that you fit the customer err, mold for Craig Barrett's declaration that
"They buy the MHz"... which was what got Intel misdirected with their
desktop/server CPUs for the past 5 years or so.
 
heavyfuel said:
I've heard that AMD names its processors after what kind of Pentium
they would represent. For example AMD Sempron (Athlon or whatever)
2800+ would roughly be equivalent of 2,8 GHz Pentium, even though
AMDs use seemingly lower clock frequencies. Not sure about that
naming system though... like I said: just something I heard.
Click to expand...

Not quite. If this was true, then there would be no reason to prefer
an Athlon over a Sempron. The Sempron numbers were aligned with the
old Celerons (not Celeron D).
 
Bitstring <[email protected]>, from the
wonderful person Johannes said:
Not quite. If this was true, then there would be no reason to prefer
an Athlon over a Sempron. The Sempron numbers were aligned with the
old Celerons (not Celeron D).
Click to expand...

=Officially= all AMD xxxx+ numbers were supposed to be aligned to a
'vanilla model' Athlon, iirc. (Back when a 1000+ ran at 1000 Mhz).
They'd get into trouble comparing vs competitors products.
 
GSV said:
Bitstring <[email protected]>, from the


=Officially= all AMD xxxx+ numbers were supposed to be aligned to a
'vanilla model' Athlon, iirc. (Back when a 1000+ ran at 1000 Mhz).
They'd get into trouble comparing vs competitors products.
Click to expand...

This doesn't apply to Semprons. Various posters have reported that Sempron
numbers performs like Athlon minus 400.
 
Back
Top