Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

Intel vs AMD & ATI vs nVidia

Recommended Posts

I never wanted to this but....

....this could start a flame war....

Which is better?

- Intel or AMD

- ATI or nVidia

Now, maybe Intel are leading the markte right now (I dunno) but in six months time it could be a different story.

I been lookin' at AMD processors to find a suitable processor for my ne super-rig that I gettin' soon. I wanna get something like an AMD Athlon XP 3200....but there's something I don't understand.

3200 = 3.2 right? 3.2 is the processor I want. The processor I got in this rig (the rig i usin now) is an AMD Athlon 1200 (1.2) that runs at 1.2. But the AMD Athlon XP 3200 DOES NOT run at 3.2....I been lookin' in a PC mag, it says here:

CPU Type/ Clock (Ghz): Athlon XP 3200/2.20

Therefore the 3200 runs at 2.20....or am I mistaken? Bah, I dunno....I no understand, pleeeeese rrrrepeeeeet!! :wall:

So I thought, I'll look at Intel....Intel Pentium 4 3.2 runs at 3.2 right? Ah, what the hell, I dunno. Help me out here guys. I'm sick of this "Laginator Deluxo" rig I usin at the mo'. Me wanna have no lag in games with me new rig! 2.20 won't do.... 3.2 will!

Also, is the Athlon 64 processor better than the Athlon XP processor?

Link to post
Share on other sites

amd processors do not run at the number they are named, due to different internal construction amd cpu's do more per cycle of the clock than intel so can do as much as intel's equivalent cup at a lower speed. i think the number in amd cup's name refers to what speed you'd need if you were running intel

and the AMD64 is a 64bit processor thus better and faster than non-64 AMD's

in referance to the topic title, AMD all the way and i'm leaning toward ATI at the moment

Link to post
Share on other sites

I run with AMD and ATI, tho i used to run Intel and Nvidia.

my present rig was built to last me awhile and i wanted the best my meagre dollars could buy and to allow easier upgradability of certain components hence AMD, but at the end of the day its your choice both camps have equal quality and peformance

my tbred 2700 runs at 2170 actual clock speed but its more than enough for me till i switch to 64 bit

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nvidia has good support for Linux drivers but currently I would say ATI has the faster cards. As for AMD and Intel, Intel is usually a little more reliable and a little more expensive. But as was stated with the new 64bit support... AMD proves they are worthy to take on Intel for the number one spot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Intel more reliable? No. They're equal. The person that makes the difference is the driver/software designer, both have they're bad apples in that department. You can just about say the same for nVidia vs Ati.

AMD proved they were worthy when they introduced the original Athlon line and were the first to hit 1ghz. Since then its been a battle with AMD playing catchup because they mostly hold the low end sector and didn't want the top end bad enough. With the new 64's, they still match any P4 currently available in 32bit mode, let alone 64, while still costing less. That may change with the next P4 revision, but for all intents and purposes, as fast as PCs are today it doesn't matter one bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic sure seems to come up often. :wacko: Common sense would tell you that if one company was that much better than the other we would all know it and that company wouldn't last long in this competitive market because nobody would want to throw their money away on junk. I use Intel and Nvidia because I've never had any failures with their products not because I think one is better than the other. Buy what you think will be best for you. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackMamba,Mar 17 2004, 11:15 ] So let me get this straight cos im still confused.

A 3200 AMD even tho its not 3.2GHz runs as fast as a 3.2Ghz Intel?


AMD preforms better in some applications (specially floating point) than Intel and vice versa. Games are a good app for AMD CPUs. AMD CPUs can do as much if not more than an P4 with fewer clock cycles.

One reason why custom builders use an AMD chip vs an Intel chip is price vs performance. AMD CPUs are cheaper than a comparable P4, I.E. AMD64 FX-51: $600+; Intel P4EE (Extreme Edition and aimed at gamers) $900+.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I don't care what you say, I ain't gonna build me own PC. I gonna get a custom built PC. I thinkin about getting a Maxx 4D puter from Special Reserve. Special Reserve are best known for their games PC's.

Will an Athlon 64 (64-bit) 3200 run faster than/as fast as an Intel P4 (32-bit) 3.2?

I can get this puter with an Athlon 64, it got Microstar K8T800 NEO mainboard too - that any good?

Edit: link - Maxx PC Check the Maxx 4D range, not the 4DV range. Edit edit: you can customise PC on there too.

Alienware puters are way too expensive for me. Help me out here guys.

Edited by -[NCM]- .:Nightmare:.
Link to post
Share on other sites
- .:Nightmare:.,Mar 20 2004, 11:05 ] Hmmm....Athena Sword does'nt support Radeon 9800 or higher....it only supports up to 9700....Gimme my GeForce FX 5950!!

Just curious where you came up with this? RvS and AS both say they support up to only the 9700 and Ti4600... but they both run with 9800's and FX cards ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ nightmare

I personaly would go with technology. If you can get 64 compaired to 32 then get 64. because in buying a new system what do you have to lose. 32 bit stuff is going to die once the price of 64 hits the break. (unless there is some new technology that I dont know about that only uses 64) think of future upgradeing. there is a possiblity that your motherboard will take a higher 64 chip with just a bios firmware upgrade. thats just smart so instead of haveing to buy a new computer in 2 years you may have to just buy a processor.

thats my 2 cents



Link to post
Share on other sites
- .:Nightmare:.,Mar 20 2004, 11:05 ] Hmmm....Athena Sword does'nt support Radeon 9800 or higher....it only supports up to 9700....Gimme my GeForce FX 5950!!

No problem with high end cards on any of the newer games it's the older cards you have problems with as a lot of them don't support T&L and most new games use it. :shifty: FX 5950 sounds good give me one to. :santa:

Link to post
Share on other sites

all it means is someone was too lazy to update the original raven shield system requirements, i play rvs with a 9800 pro max everything and its beautiful.

Minimum Requirements

Windows® 98/ME/2000/XP ONLY

800 MHz Pentium® III, AMD Athlon, or equivalent

128 MB RAM (XP users: 256 MB RAM required)

32 MB DirectX 8 compatible 3D video card with hardware T&L ***(supported chipsets listed below)

DirectX 8.1 compatible sound card

DirectX 8.1 or higher (DX9 included on the disc)

CDROM 16x or faster (NOT recommended for use with CDRW drives)

2 GB minimum hard drive space

Windows® compatible mouse required

Internet connection for play on ubi.com (56k modem supported but not recommended)

Recommended System Specifications

Windows® XP Professional

1.3 GHz Pentium 4, AMD Athlon, or equivalent

512 MB RAM

128 MB DirectX 8.1 compatible 3D video card ***(supported chipsets listed below)

High Speed Internet connection (Cable/DSL)

Supported Video Chipsets


RADEON™ 9700 Pro

RADEON™ 9000 Pro


RADEON™ 8500

RADEON™ 7500





GeForce 4 Ti 4600

GeForce 4 Ti 4400

GeForce 4 MX 460

GeForce 4 MX 440

GeForce 3 Ti500

GeForce 3

GeForce 2 GTS

GeForce 2 MX400

GeForce 2 MX

Geforce 256 DDR

GeForce 256 SDR

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

From Google Answers:

Why are Intel Processors more expensive than AMD Processors?

This is a very simple question... The fact is that Intel likes to do

things right, they spend millions of dollars testing there processors

and trying to make them best that they can be for the right price. AMD

is a great company dont get my wrong, I happen to be A+ certified and

I dont think that they spend as much time mastering the art of

processors as much as intel does. They dont have as much money

backing them. Also AMD is kinda  like the poor mans processors, they

developed a way to make processors cheap for the public and trying to

get the same quality as you would with an intel processor (great

inovators). They kinda cut corner and dont add as many pipelines as

much as intel does which damages the overall speed but yet they manage

to some how keep up with Intel Processors. If you are worried about

what type of processor to pick you have to ask your self... How much

am I willing to spend? If it was me I would say, If I had the cash Go

for an Intel P4, My personal experience is they have rock solid

performance. But, I've also made my sister a AMD Athlon XP computer

and it gives my pc a run for its money... In the end it really doesnt

matter which one you go for. It all boils down to $.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not another Intel vs AMD, or ATI vs Nvidia. Wake me when everyone shares the same opinion to say winner is in the eyes of the beholder. No true winner in this debate other than they all win all the way to the bank. :whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not another Intel vs AMD, or ATI vs Nvidia. Wake me when everyone shares the same opinion to say winner is in the eyes of the beholder. No true winner in this debate other than they all win all the way to the bank. :whistle:

:rofl: Looks like Intel and Nvidia are the ones with the fat piggy bank. :rofl:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...