[t-man]

I was wondering if there is any major problem with AMD processors because they are cheaper? I am looking for a desktop and most of the desktops with the intel processors cost a lot more than the desktops with AMD. Are you just paying for the brand name? If AMD does not have problems, which processor would be good to get for about 2.7-3.0 GHz?
Thanks,
T-Man

[Advertisements]

Well speed is a relative term there isnt alot of meaning to it in fact the fastest processors available at the moment are slower thna 3Ghz. There is nothing wrong with AMD at all and they are often a good choice it depends on what the system is for and what the rest of the system is like.

[warriorscot]

Well speed is a relative term there isnt alot of meaning to it in fact the fastest processors available at the moment are slower thna 3Ghz. There is nothing wrong with AMD at all and they are often a good choice it depends on what the system is for and what the rest of the system is like.

[t-man]

I am going to use it to play games and to browse the internet, so i was wondering if that would be O.K. for this. Also I read an article that said the AMD processos would run about 0.6 GHz faster than the similar Intel processor, would this be corect?
Thanks,
T-Man

[t-man]

I am going to use it to play games and to browse the internet, so I was wondering if that would be O.K. for this. Also I read an article that said the AMD processos would run about 0.6 GHz faster than the similar Intel processor, would this be corect?
Thanks,
T-Man

[t-man]

I am going to use it to play games and to browse the internet, so I was wondering if that would be O.K. for this. Also I read an article that said the AMD processors would run about 0.6 GHz faster than the similar Intel processor, would this be corect?
Thanks,
T-Man

Edited by t-man, 03 September 2006 - 11:00 AM.

[t-man]

sorry about the reapeats, I don't know what happened?

[jrm20]

sorry about the reapeats, I don't know what happened?

Yeah I have noticed lately the site has been acting kinda funky and stops responding for a minute to 3 mins..


Right now, I would get the Intel Conroe core 2 duo processors. They are the fastest DESKTOP processors currently on the market. The E6600 is 2.4ghz with 4 mb cache and it beats the AMD FX-62 at all benchmarks including gaming and the E6600 is over half cheaper than the fx-62 is.. The Fx-62 is amd's highest end processor at the moment costing $827.00 in the usa on newegg.com

The E6600 is $360 thats less than half the price with better performance. Amd used to be the better chip for the money for GAMERS but not as of right now... The Conroe is the fastest chip, costing less..

[Facedown98]

Hi, I prefer AMD, especially for gaming, becuase it makes more clocks per second as opposed to Intel, thus making it a faster processor. If I would have had the option on this computer, I would have bought the AMD.

[jrm20]

Hi, I prefer AMD, especially for gaming, becuase it makes more clocks per second as opposed to Intel, thus making it a faster processor. If I would have had the option on this computer, I would have bought the AMD.

That doesnt make since.. Have you even read about the new Intel Conroe core 2 duo that just came out?? It would of made since before the Intel conroe came out, but read up on your knowledge and stay current.

It USED to be that amd was the better price to performance ratio and usually faster chip for the money but that has all changed now Stormknight6. In google look up the Conroe, core 2 duo chip. There is many benchmarks on there with the new intel conroe vs the fx-62 by amd and the Intel conroe chip owns it completely.. Even the E6600 conroe core 2 duo beats the amd fx-62 at every benchmark including gaming...

Intel completely redesigned the chip, its a brand new chip. They got rid of pentium/pentium4 all together.


About this....

Hi, I prefer AMD, especially for gaming, becuase it makes more clocks per second as opposed to Intel, thus making it a faster processor.

What you said above is not true about the new Intel conroe chip.. The conroe is completely redesigned as I said before and they are clocked lower just like amd does. The E6600 chip is only 2.4ghz with 4mb cache and it beats the fx-62 by 30% in every benchmark including gaming..

I would of agreed with you Stormknight6 if the conroe chip didnt exist but it does.. The conroe is the fastest chip on the market right now.. I know many many amd die hard fans that converted over to the Intel conroe chip because of its price and performance and stability and overclockability... The e6600 already beats the fx-62 at stock speed, people have overclocked them to 4ghz on air, im not fibbing you just need to go on google and look it up about this new chip.

The e6700 is 2.66ghz 4mb cache and there is an Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 Conroe 2.93GHz 4Mb cache that utterly destroys any amd desktop chip. The x6800 is too pricy though $1,039.00. People take the e6600 at 2.4ghz stock with 4mb cache and they overclock it to the extreme x6800 conroe speeds and ends up saving a bunch of money.. The e6600 is only $370 at newegg.com and it absolutely demolishes the amd fx-62.

What im trying to say is the e6600 is less the 1/2 the price and its already faster, get the old pentium 4 speeds out of your head. The conroe chips dont run on the pentium core LOL...

You are probably thinking about the older pentium d dual core processors and I have to agree with you on that one Stormknight6 that they arent that great but the conroe is totally different than those chips. Get this INTEL is slower out of your head, They are faster than amd as of right now..