AMD or Intel? For gaming.. for everything.. and upgrade city in 3-5 years would be nice.. *dodges beer bottle* Also does over clocking any PC product.. lessen it's life? Just wondering..
uhh... what?!? Amd for gaming, duel core athlon should work.. Intel is good to.. core 2 duo, maybe even a quad core proc.
Intel Core 2 Duo, and only an Intel Core 2 Duo. A quad's unnecessary, and an Athlon is slower, simple! Also, you can overclock the core 2s a lot more. Unless you do something very wrong, overclocking doesn't reduce the lifespan of quality components very much. If you get cheap parts though, don't bother trying.
well that is the problem.. AM2 or duo/quad for intel, all I know.. is I'd like to build something and not have it be obsolete in a year. I'm using my dad's AMD athlon XP 3200, had to shove a gig of ram and agp video card in it to make it happy but I need something for me.. ^_^ Is intel hyped? or AMD? or should I just pick one and shut up now..
Yea intel are the best right now. I just heard somewhere that AMDs were better with video processing, but overall intel is a better choice.
Core 2 Duo is the best choice. It's cheap, reliable, and you can overclock the heck out of it. Like sammoris said don't bother with the quad cores.
Indeed, unless you need to do something incredibly demanding, like rip a DVD whilst folding and then playing a game (and how often does that happen?) You wont need a quad core for many years to come.
I have used both over the years and i find the AMD better for gaming and providing you get a good motherboard you will be able to over clock the cpu.I'm currently running my AMD at x2 2.67ghz and i have not pushed it to the limit yet i'm sure it will be able to be pushed some more if i wanted to.I use my PC alot for gaming at the moment as i have not upgraded my ps2 or xbox to newer consoles yet and it really does play all the latest games really well.I'm sure intel will do the same as long as you have a good motherboard fast running dual channel memory and a good graphic card both AMD and Intel will do the business it's just my personal preference.
"better for gaming" is a loose term. No processor is much better than another at specific tasks, they're both usually just "generally faster" than each other, and Core 2 Duos not only overclock far more than AMDs, even on cheap-ass motherboards, but also run faster to start with.
Ahhh but Intel have clocked on their newer batches of core 2 duo's are less over clocking friendly. You should go to a shop and check the batch numbers before you buy if you intend to over clock. I was lucky when I bought mine I did not know this but I ended with a batch that had been over clocked from 2.4 GHz to 4.2 GHz cooled on air to 34c. http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=179984
Just chipping in my 2 cents, the Athlon 64's used to rule the CPU playhouse. But the even some of the loweliest Core 2 Duo's can put the hurt on some of the fastest Athlon 64/AMD chips. So to be "future proof" go with Intel Core 2 Duo.
Lies. No matter how high the clock speed started, and how good the revision was, You can't go beyond 4Ghz with air cooling and it not overheat, let alone stay at 34C. Unless this was in a cryo-locker, it's false.
Sam, why can't you go beyond 4ghz with air cooling and not overheat no matter how high the clock speed started? I'm not saying you can (and staying at 34C seems ridiculous) but 4ghz is an arbitrary figure. Do you mean that all current speeds of core 2 duo have been found to have a limit of around 4ghz with air cooling? What if you are starting with an e6850 @ 3ghz? Is it possible the cpu in question was more like an e6850 but badged as an e6600? Would this still not allow 4ghz on air? Also, whats the difference between the "extreme" core 2 duo's and the rest? For instance theres this: http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/112728 and then there's this: http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/prod...hvd19wcm9kdWN0X3Jldmlld3M=&product_uid=130483 Now, I might be just plain stupid, but why is the slower (clock and fsb) "extreme" e6800 over £400 more than the e6850?!
