QUESTION, please help!!!!

[Rico]

Alot of people I have talked to say AMD processors can run at speeds equal to or higher then Intel Processors.

Can a 64 Athlon 3200+ rated at 2.2GHz run at speeds of say 2.4 / 2.6 / 2.8? Or ever 3200+ (3.2 GHz)?

I don't see why AMD puts the ####+ when the processor can't run at that speed (correct me if I'm wrong)

Anyway, I've always swayed towards Intel, but somethings i looked up a few days ago are puching me towards the AMD now.
Give me some reasons WHY AMD is better then Intel processors for gaming (other then their 'relative' cheap price.)

THANKS

 

[Charlieb000]

Intel has set the "standard" with megahertz and AMD Designs the cpus differently. With the "XP" series cpus AMD reintroduced the P-Rating (XXX+) with with more cache then intel cpus. This increases performance but keeps the MHZ low.

 

[Death_Shadow]

Who told you that AMD were better for gaming, thats not strictly true, usually they are because they are more powerful but if you got an Intel and AMD processor that run at the same clock speed exactly, then they should be about the same, depending on your cache speed and graphics chip etc....

 

[[tab]]

If they're both the same clock speed, the AMD would (supposedly) run faster as it has a larger cache...

 

[Death_Shadow]

that's still debatable tho right?

 

[4W4K3]

not debatable if you have a 1MB L2 cache AMD running 2.6 and an Intel P4 2.6C processor. the same speeds..but the extra cache makes a big leap ahead of the P4. Intel and AMD are both very good processors...its really a preference of how much $$$$ you got and what you like better. decide for yourself. i chose AMD cuz it was cheaper for the same performance as Intle. havent regretted it..but i wouldnt say it's "better" either. i run both and like both.

 

[Praetor]

AMD reintroduced the P-Rating (XXX+) with with more cache then intel cpus.

Typically Intel procs have more cache than AMD ones ... the higher click speeds come from the fact that with the Netburst core of the P4 they have a hugeass pipeline which allows them to have the massive clock speeds.

if you got an Intel and AMD processor that run at the same clock speed exactly, then they should be about the same

If you could ever get that, the AMD chip would destroy Intel -- AMD chips are much much more efficient.... consider that they are at the least, comparable to intel chips which run, on average 1Ghz "faster".

If they're both the same clock speed, the AMD would (supposedly) run faster as it has a larger cache..

AMD systems for the most part have 512K cache and most P4s have 1MB of cache (and if not, they have 512K)

if you have a 1MB L2 cache AMD running 2.6

Aside from the K6 line of processors, the only AMD chips to have 1MB of cache are the new A64 chips which are far more advanced than the P4C-2.6Ghz

I don't see why AMD puts the ####+ when the processor can't run at that speed (correct me if I'm wrong)

The ####+ isnt a measureable quantity of speed so we really cant say it "cant" run at that speed. In fact, Intel has adopted this with their next generation of processors.

Give me some reasons WHY AMD is better then Intel processors for gaming (other then their 'relative' cheap price.)

1. They have a low price -- its not relative.
2. You can OC an A32-Barton system sky-high and for the cost of a cooler you're still saving money
3. With regards to A64 chips, I would suspect the trend continues and most benchmarks agree. I dont personally own an A64 so i wont really comment until ive tried it.
4. If you're busy bragging/arguing with your buddies over a dozen benchmark points here and there -- what's the point: a newer better chip will be released on short order that will own both There comes a point when "fast enough" really is "fast enough" and everything becomes a pissing contest.