AMD vs Intel?

[Rodion Romanovich]

dual core isn't implemented in most programs yet, and particularly not in many games. Right now, you get faster prestanda with a non-dual core but with more Ghz for that single core. I.e. a dual core 3 GHz is slower than a single core 4GHz. That's bound to change, but it'll probably take at least 1-2 years or more until dual cores prestanda is used by most programs. If you use several programs at the time in Windows, you get a prestanda boost even today, but when running a single program you'll not notice any improvement from dual cores yet.

[Leftenant Moley]

Intel > AMD

but

ATI > Nvidia

so

AMD + ATI = Intel + Nvidia

Is it ture that that ATI on Intel board have some compatibility issues as well as Nvidia on a AMD board? If so how significant is it?

[PwnageBot2000]

Intel > AMD

but

ATI > Nvidia

so

AMD + ATI = Intel + Nvidia

Is it ture that that ATI on Intel board have some compatibility issues as well as Nvidia on a AMD board? If so how significant is it?

lawl. I have an AMD and a nVidia GeForce 7900 GS SLI.
Also I have a question. Why do the more recent intel and amd processors have less clock speed than the older pentium 4?! also, most recommended settings require 3 ghz. My AMD 4200 only has 2.2! Will this effect gameplay adversly? (assuming the 7900 GS SLI is there)

[screwtype]

Also I have a question. Why do the more recent intel and amd processors have less clock speed than the older pentium 4?! also, most recommended settings require 3 ghz. My AMD 4200 only has 2.2! Will this effect gameplay adversly? (assuming the 7900 GS SLI is there)

No it won't. Later model CPU's have much more efficient architecture which more than makes up for lower clock speeds.

As I understand it, higher clock speeds mean more heat, and CPU development has hit something of a wall in that high clock speed CPU's are harder to keep cool. Some late model Pentiums for example have had overheating issues.

It's partly for this reason that CPU manufacturers have stopped concentrating on just cranking up clock speed in favour of more sophisticated solutions, ie better architecture. This way they can keep clock speed, and thus heat production, down, while actually increasing overall performance.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I got a Intel, 2.80 GHz, 512 RAM, 80 GB HD, ATI Radeon X1300 series, and it runs good IMO..

[BDC]

No it won't. Later model CPU's have much more efficient architecture which more than makes up for lower clock speeds.

As I understand it, higher clock speeds mean more heat, and CPU development has hit something of a wall in that high clock speed CPU's are harder to keep cool. Some late model Pentiums for example have had overheating issues.

It's partly for this reason that CPU manufacturers have stopped concentrating on just cranking up clock speed in favour of more sophisticated solutions, ie better architecture. This way they can keep clock speed, and thus heat production, down, while actually increasing overall performance.

The new cpus run more efficiently, have loads of extra functions and things. Plus there tends to be 2 cores...

I think the Core 2s have 64-bit functions and stuff. Run an awful lot faster than the older P4s anyway.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Ive got 500 dollars to buy a new pc so I can play MTW2. Can I get a Core 2 Duo with a decent graphics and sound card in a tower for that price?

[Geezer57]

It would be hard to configure a Core 2 Duo, plus motherboard, new RAM, and a graphics card within that budget. The least-expensive e6300 processor costs just over $180, a decent gaming motherboard would be at least $100, a gig of good DDR2 RAM also about $100, so that would leave only about $120 for the graphics card and everything else.

Assuming your current machine has regular DDR memory that can be re-used, and that the new system will primarily used for gaming over other applications, then a socket 939 Athlon 64 single core based machine will give you 95% of the CPU performance (in games only) of a Core 2 Duo, at less than half the price.
For example: an Athlon 64 3200+ retail (with heatsink/fan) for $61.99 including free shipping (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103535), eVGA makes a nice SLI-capable micro ATX NForce4 chipset board for $61.40 shipped (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813188007), upgrade the RAM (assuming you've got 512mb, but want at least a gig) for about $60. That leaves over $300 for the graphics card (the most important single component for gaming) and other stuff, which should make a much more satisfying system for your (presumed) MTW2 needs. With that much left you might afford an x1950XT 256mb (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102067) or any one of a number of GeForce 7950GT's with 512mb (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...k=&srchInDesc=).

[TosaInu]

dual core isn't implemented in most programs yet, and particularly not in many games.

True, very true. In benches (including running games) C2D will already crush any other processor. And they are cheap and they consume less power and they can be overclocked. Imagine games to support the 2 cores

When you have to buy a PC now, get C2D.

[Husar]

Actually, the fact that a Core 2 Duo using only one Core gives about the same or more speed than a single Core AMD tells me that Core 2 Duo is the way to go. Apart from that, Falcon 4 Allied Force, Gothic 3 are two games I can name that use two cores. For other games I am not sure, but I would guess they are coming.