#4
Because intel's core2duo's are much better than amd's. It's that simple. Go to tomshardware.com and check the cpu benchmarks and you'll see.
#5
Quote by killthekingx
Because intel's core2duo's are much better than amd's. It's that simple. Go to tomshardware.com and check the cpu benchmarks and you'll see.



But dont they have to be overclocked ?
#7
Quote by metaldud536
But dont they have to be overclocked ?


Clock speeds mean next to nothing in todays processing world... For the same reason it never really has from what I can see. AMD used to never really break 2-2.4GHz and used to outperform Intels 3.5GHz or whatever processors at the time.
#8
AMD's aren't better than Intel's. AMD don't have an American Chopper!
Moonchild of Rory Gallagher Fan Club PM dazzler16 to Join

Quote by PinkIsCool
UG- The only place where a heartwarming moment can easily be turned into an act of homosexuality and incest.


#9
trust me dude. Get a core 2 duo e4300 for $115 bucks. I have one and I overclocked it to 3.0ghz using stock coolings. (stock was 1.8ghz). You won't regret it. I play a **** load of demanding games and this thing doesn't even break a sweat.
#10
They are more expensive than the AMD's because of the performance they give you. They outperform AMD's considerably. Not only that, but they use less power, which makes them more efficient.(save energy) Clock speed means nothing nowadays, as someone stated before. But the Intel's can be clocked to insane speeds, because they run at such cool speeds which makes them more stable while overclocking.
Be cool.
#11
it's just a toss up no real winner until you get to things like gaming vs office
AMD does better with larger chunks of processing - better for games
intel does better with smaller chunks of processing but it can do it slightly faster - better for office based stuff

but it really doesn't matter both are great just make sure for 100% that your motherboard can use it.
#12
Clock speed sometimes counts for less than the latenc and, to some extent, the size of the processor cache. If it's low, then many cycles of potential operations are wasted as the processor waits for data.
Bigger, lower latency cache = better performance.
#13
Quote by Tuek
it's just a toss up no real winner until you get to things like gaming vs office
AMD does better with larger chunks of processing - better for games
intel does better with smaller chunks of processing but it can do it slightly faster - better for office based stuff

but it really doesn't matter both are great just make sure for 100% that your motherboard can use it.



Thats where you are wrong. Perhaps in the last gen of processors (s939). But that is no longer the case. Intel's Core 2 Duo now wins in every category, including gaming.
Be cool.
#14
ahhh not at all, but it's not that huge of a difference with intel your paying extra because of it's name on it. Thats only because intel has been around longer so it's a house hold name, so it's like med's there a brand name and the generic same stuff inside but minus the huge name and the extra $ for it
#15
Cuz AMD's are better and Intel's are just marketing **** heads and their products are inferior...
Last edited by af_the_fragile at Jul 19, 2007,
#16
Quote by Tuek
ahhh not at all, but it's not that huge of a difference with intel your paying extra because of it's name on it. Thats only because intel has been around longer so it's a house hold name, so it's like med's there a brand name and the generic same stuff inside but minus the huge name and the extra $ for it



You're not paying extra because of the name, you're paying extra because of the performance benefit and cost of production. Obviously you have no clue what you are talking about, because in the last generation of processors, which would be socket 939 for AMD, you were paying much more for AMD's Athlon 64 series than you were for Intel's Pentium 4. This is because of the performance, and also the cost of production. Which is also the case for Intel's new line of processors. It is a completely new architecture, while AMD is still using their Athlon 64 series, just upgraded with Dual Core. So it is basically the same architecture which = lower R&D cost, lower cost of production= savings for us. So now are you going to say that the AMD's were more expensive because of the name? I thought not. People always bash Intel because its a big brand name, and when they finally release something better than AMD, everyone denies it and blames it on Intel's marketing and size of the company. Open your eyes, the proof is in the performance. So Tuek, you are not only wrong, you are a fool.
Be cool.
Last edited by thedude051 at Jul 19, 2007,
#17
did you even read my ****ing post you, I don't think so. just cause your an intel baby born and raised doesn't make it any better, and yes intel are more, the always have been and it's probally doing to stay that way. And i'm not bashing intel, they are good for what they do just like amd no brand has clear ahead of the other the only difference in with the price range you are going for, and for the actual real people who aren't going to spend 500 bucks just on a processor amd is the way to go. so maybe you should actually take the time to read next time
#18
Quote by Tuek
did you even read my ****ing post you, I don't think so. just cause your an intel baby born and raised doesn't make it any better, and yes intel are more, the always have been and it's probally doing to stay that way. And i'm not bashing intel, they are good for what they do just like amd no brand has clear ahead of the other the only difference in with the price range you are going for, and for the actual real people who aren't going to spend 500 bucks just on a processor amd is the way to go. so maybe you should actually take the time to read next time



Did you NOT READ MINE. I clearly stated that THE LAST generation of AMD's were cost more than the Pentium 4's. Bah!! You say I can't read...Talk about yourself. Oh yeah, I don't even own an Intel. I own an AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+. So think before you start calling me an Intel baby born whatever. Guess what my previous processor before that was? An AMD Athlon 64 3000+..Imagine that!! So maybe you should stop to read next time. hahaha, PWN3D by yourself. Priceless. I can't believe you thought I was talking about this generation of AMD's being more expensive. That just shows you are more of a n00b. Because anyone that knows anything about computer hardware knows that a about a year or two ago AMD's were more expensive than Intel's P4.
Be cool.
Last edited by thedude051 at Jul 19, 2007,
#19
Quote by Tuek
did you even read my ****ing post you, I don't think so. just cause your an intel baby born and raised doesn't make it any better, and yes intel are more, the always have been and it's probally doing to stay that way. And i'm not bashing intel, they are good for what they do just like amd no brand has clear ahead of the other the only difference in with the price range you are going for, and for the actual real people who aren't going to spend 500 bucks just on a processor amd is the way to go. so maybe you should actually take the time to read next time


You have no idea what you're talking about. The only reason AMD is so cheap right now is because they are on the verge of going broke. You think they would pull off the major price drops to be nice? No. Intel has good prices for its processors, amd has better prices, but at this point the products aren't as good as intel's.
#20
A price drop should come later this month for Intel C2D's.
Yeah and AMD procs used to be more expensive than intels.
Ron Paul 2008
#22
ahhh I own a p4 and guess what it cost more than an AMD. so stfu, oh and also when the 64 bit era and the dual core hit they STOPED making p4's the went to the cel and the core duo's no pentiums they are more or less dead, though they might be brought alive later. And trust me you will see a big jump in quality from going from the 3800+ to lets say the 4800+, but for laptops intel hand downs wins it because of the battery usage and still give you the great bite for power and you can't base what a processor can do with out some good stats behind it like you can have a quad core and only have 256 ram it's going to choke out on word, thats why I went to AMD this time around aloud me to upgrade my video card without breaking the bank.
#23
Quote by Tuek
ahhh I own a p4 and guess what it cost more than an AMD. so stfu, oh and also when the 64 bit era and the dual core hit they STOPED making p4's the went to the cel and the core duo's no pentiums they are more or less dead, though they might be brought alive later. And trust me you will see a big jump in quality from going from the 3800+ to lets say the 4800+, but for laptops intel hand downs wins it because of the battery usage and still give you the great bite for power and you can't base what a processor can do with out some good stats behind it like you can have a quad core and only have 256 ram it's going to choke out on word, thats why I went to AMD this time around aloud me to upgrade my video card without breaking the bank.



First of all, are they comparable models? You can't just say that. How do I know it isn't a 3.6Ghz you own and are comparing the price to a cheap low end Athlon 64 3000+? Plus, I have no idea what you said after that because it is all jibber jabber that has no relation to this topic. Laptops wtf? You are wrong. I said so, others said so. So please leave my internetz. K thx bi.
Be cool.
#24
Yeah, I don't know why P4's still cost more than many AMD procs that would simply outperform it.
Ron Paul 2008
#25
are you a ****ing **** tard, go **** your god damn grandma you **** sucking dip ****. honestly your worse than a god damn n i g g er I should hang your ass mother f u ck er
#27
Quote by operationska00
Yeah, I don't know why P4's still cost more than many AMD procs that would simply outperform it.



That is because they aren't being mass produced anymore, and the left over stock is being jacked up in price. That is what happens to processors when a new socket comes out. The old socket being used usually drops rapidly in price, than after a few months, they hike the price up because it is hard product to come by now.
Be cool.
#28
Quote by Tuek
are you a ****ing **** tard, go **** your god damn grandma you **** sucking dip ****. honestly your worse than a god damn n i g g er I should hang your ass mother f u ck er



See, I just proved you are an idiot. Now you have to revert to swearing and racial slurs because you have nothing left to say. So this proves you are wrong even more. I pity you. As my last parting gift....*reported*
Be cool.
#29
go fuc k your self you god damn ni gger, fuc king jew lovers today I swear
#31
^ *reported*
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#32
I had no idea anyone could get so passionate over a chunk of silicon.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#33
Quote by Jackal58
I had no idea anyone could get so passionate over a chunk of silicon.


You've clearly never seen a porno then...
Proud owner of an Engl Thunder 50 Reverb and an Ibanez S470

"The end is extremely fucking nigh..."
#34
Quote by Jackal58
I had no idea anyone could get so passionate over a chunk of silicon.




I've been using AMD chips... well I've never bought an Intel processor. Probably because my school computers were powered by Pentium IIIs back in the day and they were awful slow. But back at home my parents had an Athlon XP and it outperformed it by far. I know it's not a fair test though, the school PCs were flooded with useless security software and, well they didn't even have a local hard disk.

Right now I'm running on an Opteron 146, that's right, a server processor. It runs just fine, I don't see why I'd ever need a shiny new Core 2 Duo, it's absurd. I don't plan on running virtual reality simulators on my machine, so I don't need 3.5 billion processes per second.

Both companies are great. Whenever one comes out with a new innovation, the other is not far behind with its new top-of-the-line $500 silicon concoction. In my eyes, they are equal, and always will be. I realize technology will keep getting better and better, faster and faster, but will we ever need more than an Athlon 64 3500+? I don't think I will.
Quote by Godzilla1969
I love you, Muphin. You have great taste in music.

Quote by Pacifica112J
Muphin > You

The Cooperation
#35
Quote by Muphin


I've been using AMD chips... well I've never bought an Intel processor. Probably because my school computers were powered by Pentium IIIs back in the day and they were awful slow. But back at home my parents had an Athlon XP and it outperformed it by far. I know it's not a fair test though, the school PCs were flooded with useless security software and, well they didn't even have a local hard disk.

Right now I'm running on an Opteron 146, that's right, a server processor. It runs just fine, I don't see why I'd ever need a shiny new Core 2 Duo, it's absurd. I don't plan on running virtual reality simulators on my machine, so I don't need 3.5 billion processes per second.

Both companies are great. Whenever one comes out with a new innovation, the other is not far behind with its new top-of-the-line $500 silicon concoction. In my eyes, they are equal, and always will be. I realize technology will keep getting better and better, faster and faster, but will we ever need more than an Athlon 64 3500+? I don't think I will.


You may not, but I need one more powerful. I play PC games, which become more and more demanding. Unfortunately, because of more demanding games, this = me buying new computer parts=me using money=
Be cool.
#36
Quote by thedude051
You may not, but I need one more powerful. I play PC games, which become more and more demanding. Unfortunately, because of more demanding games, this = me buying new computer parts=me using money=


Yeh, as long as I can play Counter-Strike Source every once in a while I'm all set

I haven't bought new components in over a year, most of my cash goes to studio gear and instruments though
Quote by Godzilla1969
I love you, Muphin. You have great taste in music.

Quote by Pacifica112J
Muphin > You

The Cooperation
#37
Quote by Smokey Amp
You've clearly never seen a porno then...

microclit ?
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#38
Quote by Jackal58
microclit ?


Silicone titties.
Quote by Godzilla1969
I love you, Muphin. You have great taste in music.

Quote by Pacifica112J
Muphin > You

The Cooperation
#39
Quote by Muphin

Both companies are great. Whenever one comes out with a new innovation, the other is not far behind with its new top-of-the-line $500 silicon concoction. In my eyes, they are equal, and always will be. I realize technology will keep getting better and better, faster and faster, but will we ever need more than an Athlon 64 3500+? I don't think I will.


Except in Market share and income, because in that case Intel seriously destroys AMD.
Moonchild of Rory Gallagher Fan Club PM dazzler16 to Join

Quote by PinkIsCool
UG- The only place where a heartwarming moment can easily be turned into an act of homosexuality and incest.


#40
Quote by Muphin


I've been using AMD chips... well I've never bought an Intel processor. Probably because my school computers were powered by Pentium IIIs back in the day and they were awful slow. But back at home my parents had an Athlon XP and it outperformed it by far. I know it's not a fair test though, the school PCs were flooded with useless security software and, well they didn't even have a local hard disk.

Right now I'm running on an Opteron 146, that's right, a server processor. It runs just fine, I don't see why I'd ever need a shiny new Core 2 Duo, it's absurd. I don't plan on running virtual reality simulators on my machine, so I don't need 3.5 billion processes per second.

Both companies are great. Whenever one comes out with a new innovation, the other is not far behind with its new top-of-the-line $500 silicon concoction. In my eyes, they are equal, and always will be. I realize technology will keep getting better and better, faster and faster, but will we ever need more than an Athlon 64 3500+? I don't think I will.
"No will ever need more than 640kb of memory" - Bill Gates