amd or intel

[billybobjoe]

i do a lot of gaming and alot of multitasking which processor does both really good

[wayout44]

Re: amd or intel

In that case the Athlon 64 X2 4200+ would be your best choice.

[billybobjoe]

Re: amd or intel

how much does that cost

[billybobjoe]

Re: amd or intel

and would this work fine for gaming and some multitasking

i play battlefield 2 would that work on that processor

[Darthtanion]

Re: amd or intel

I don't think there is anything that the X2 processor wouldn't work for. They are quite expensive, however. Athlon64 is the way to go, so if you can afford the big boy it will work. I'm partial to the Athlon64 FX series myself, which has exceptional power but in a single core flavor. If this is beyond your budget, then you can pick up a low-end SanDiego core Athlon64 and overclock it.

[billybobjoe]

Re: amd or intel

would this processor work fine for gaming and multitasking http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...?EdpNo=1366608

[billybobjoe]

Re: amd or intel

would this processor work fine for gaming and multitasking http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicat...p?EdpNo=1366608
<!-- / message -->

[wayout44]

Re: amd or intel

The single core Athlon64 is great at gaming but poor at multitasking where as the Athlon64 X2 is great for both but if the X2 range is to expensive for you then you'd be better off with a Hyperthreaded or dual core P4 which won't be so great for games but are great at multitasking.

[Black Cloud]

Re: amd or intel

It's all bull**** bbj. Any top end processor will do anything u want it to. Just, some perform better than others at certain tasks. Basicly, u get what u pay for. My FX55 is great, but dissapointing. Simply, my mates P43.8 was cheaper & does everything better. The only time I can displace the mates P4, is in game benchmarks. AND ****ED IF WE CAN TELL THE DIFFERANCE. Basicly, i think the online comunity are running a sympathy program for the underdog - A.K.A. - A.M.D. I own 4 AMD computers.(have 6 children) So i'm not some Intel nutter. Once upon a time, AMD were value for money. To be honest; (**** the power requirements) go with the P4(3.8Gb top o th line screamer)

[Yawgm0th]

Re: amd or intel

Damn... three in a row.

If your friend's P4 is beating you in anything short of video encoding, then it's either that something else is different between your two systems (RAM, video card, hard drive, etc.), or that your incompetent and haven't installed drivers properly. But you're right about the cost. But that's your fault. You could have gotten a much cheaper AMD that would have outperformed your friend's 3.8 in most applications. IF you overclocked it, it would beat the hell of his 3.8 in ust about everything.

Now I don't follow Australian processor pricing, but for the rest of the world, AMD is the best value for your money for everything ranging from a $400 office computer to a $2000 gaming computer.

Recommending a P4 3.8GHz for this is pretty stupid when Intel's own dual-core processors will beat it in multitasking. But you seem to be ignorant of the possibility that this user doesn't want to go with a top-of-the-line processor.

I think what everyone else has said here makes sense. If you're on a tight budget and want great multitasking performance at the cost of single-threaded performance, a low-end Intel dual-core is actually a good buy. If you'd rather lost some of the multitasking performance but gain gaming performance, than an AMD single core is the best choice. If you have a little more money, than an Athlon 64 X2 makes the most sense as you get the best of both worlds.

[wayout44]

Re: amd or intel

Who is that Black Cloud idiot?

[Yawgm0th]

Re: amd or intel

Couldn't tell you... By his join date, it looks like he's been hanging out here for a couple years and sunddenly decided to grace us with some posts.

[Darthtanion]

Re: amd or intel

Maybe he'll go back into hibernation... like real soon.