Why Intel

2007-03-14 10:13:06

#1

Stun_Gun: The Tom Cruise of BF2 pilots; +102|7237|California, US

OK i was going to build a new rig, but was wondering why everyone is picking Intel over AMD,
how big is the difference between the E6600 and the X2 5200 besides the price?
And why pick Intel over amd?

2007-03-14 10:15:04

#2

HeimdalX: Member; +37|7115

because amd's lineup sucks right now.

The E6600 will smoke an FX-62 and X2 6000 easily, and it overclocks well

2007-03-14 10:22:07

#3

Stun_Gun: The Tom Cruise of BF2 pilots; +102|7237|California, US

HeimdalX wrote:
because amd's lineup sucks right now.

The E6600 will smoke an FX-62 and X2 6000 easily, and it overclocks well

well i wont be overclocking it. and how does it suck when amd runs at 2.6 and the 6600 at 2.4 (might be a stupid question but i dont know that much about cpus)

2007-03-14 10:24:21

#4

CrazeD: Member; +368|7137|Maine

HeimdalX wrote:
because amd's lineup sucks right now.

The E6600 will smoke an FX-62 and X2 6000 easily, and it overclocks well

Uhh...

No.

An FX-62 owns an E6600 stock vs stock.

2007-03-14 11:57:05

#5

[TUF]Whiskey_Oktober: mmmm...Toasty!; +91|7186|Oregon

CrazeD wrote:
HeimdalX wrote:
because amd's lineup sucks right now.

The E6600 will smoke an FX-62 and X2 6000 easily, and it overclocks well
Uhh...

No.

An FX-62 owns an E6600 stock vs stock.

wrong!!!

http://xtreview.com/review115.htm

2007-03-14 13:56:46

#6

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|7045|SE London

CrazeD wrote:
HeimdalX wrote:
because amd's lineup sucks right now.

The E6600 will smoke an FX-62 and X2 6000 easily, and it overclocks well
Uhh...

No.

An FX-62 owns an E6600 stock vs stock.

Not at all. An FX-62 is a very similar speed to an E6600 and a much worse overclocker. The FX-62 also consumes more power and due to the different pipelining techniques the E6600 should gain greater advantages with faster memory.

The FX-62 (in the UK at least - £293.74 compared to £193.86) is about 1/3 more expensive than the E6600, which makes it a very poor choice.

2007-03-14 13:59:42

#7

TrollmeaT: Aspiring Objectivist; +492|7136|Colorado

Because Intel has taken the edge & it will be a while before Amd can compete again. Quad core FTW!

2007-03-14 14:09:44

#8

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|7045|SE London

Stun_Gun wrote:
HeimdalX wrote:
because amd's lineup sucks right now.

The E6600 will smoke an FX-62 and X2 6000 easily, and it overclocks well
well i wont be overclocking it. and how does it suck when amd runs at 2.6 and the 6600 at 2.4 (might be a stupid question but i dont know that much about cpus)

It is a bit of a silly question. But to be expected really. The clock frequency, that is the number of GHz, is not that important. It is deceptive to use as a comparison between different architectures because they work so differently - it's like comparing engines purely on the number of RPM or something like that.

Ultimately at the moment it is quite simply that Intel's chips are better and more affordable than the AMD alternatives. The E6600 is on a par with anything AMD produce and yet isn't that near the top of the Intel line (the Q6600, E6700, QX6700 and X6800 are all faster than any AMD CPUs).

2007-03-14 14:13:50

#9

David.P: Banned; +649|6738

CrazeD wrote:
HeimdalX wrote:
because amd's lineup sucks right now.

The E6600 will smoke an FX-62 and X2 6000 easily, and it overclocks well
Uhh...

No.

An FX-62 owns an E6600 stock vs stock.

The only thing i hate worse then bf2 noobs are fanboys. My e6400 smokes the fx-62 hell it even smokes the x2 6000 !Listen stop being a fanboy please they ruin the internet. I know i used to be an amd fanboy on so many tech site's until i hot banned. And wqhen they bought ati and betrayed nvidia the people who helped the a64 get to where it is today with their nforce4 and sli techs. That just made me mad.

2007-03-14 14:18:46

#10

R3v4n: We shall beat to quarters!; +433|6951|Melbourne

Is there not an FX-70 out now?

~ Do you not know that in the service … one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?

2007-03-14 14:22:34

#11

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6986|...

The fact is, Intel currently has the faster chips ... its not an opinion, its a fact. Odd thing is the AMDs aren't much if all cheaper. So you must choose between price/performance or fanboizm/propaganda.

2007-03-14 14:34:48

#12

[TUF]Whiskey_Oktober: mmmm...Toasty!; +91|7186|Oregon

just get the goddamn intel.

2007-03-14 14:49:20

#13

LT.Victim: Member; +1,175|7027|British Columbia, Canada

[TUF]Whiskey_Oktober wrote:
just get the goddamn intel.

2007-03-14 20:33:30

#14

Bell: Frosties > Cornflakes; +362|7013|UK

LT.Victim wrote:
[TUF]Whiskey_Oktober wrote:
just get the goddamn intel.

That is the non-tech answer

Simple mate, Intel is just on superior technology and AMD wont make ground back until next year, listen to whiskey he is a man of knowledge!!!!!!!!

Martyn

BF2S Forums Why Intel

HeimdalX wrote:

HeimdalX wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

HeimdalX wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

HeimdalX wrote:

Stun_Gun wrote:

HeimdalX wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

HeimdalX wrote:

[TUF]Whiskey_Oktober wrote:

LT.Victim wrote:

[TUF]Whiskey_Oktober wrote:

Board footer