| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Basa Walachi
   |
Posted - 2005.10.11 17:49:00 -
[1]
I have a choice between a P4 660 3.6Ghz or an Athlon 3400 64bit for my next PC and would really really appreciate any opinions from my fellow EVE addicts to aid my choice.
Any opinons would be welcomed ty.
|
Deka Kador
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 18:00:00 -
[2]
I'll always go for AMD since they tend to be better for games while not losing out on desktop.
|
Amataras
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 18:07:00 -
[3]
AMD
--------------
The Eve Diplomacy Table |
Kurren
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 18:08:00 -
[4]
It really is just a matter of opinion
Intel = 2x the speed of AMD
AMD = 2x the load of Intel
I use a P4 and have no problems honestly... though Eve is a rather tame game when it comes to MMORPGs, but... I don't have problems with anything when it comes to playing other games either. Half Life 2, Far Cry, Everquest 2(no flames please, I stopped playing it!!)...
If I was you, I would go with whatever processor offered you what you were looking for motherboard wise. Do you want S-Li? Dual-core? Dual-processor? Cause there are way more AMD motherboards that offer S-Li than Intel boards, but at the same time... with the coming of 512 graphics card... who really needs S-Li... that's more of a really want factor.
Not to mention Intel chips are usually a tad cheaper than AMD's...
Hope that helped...
************************************************
I'm not a pirate, I'm a business-extremist... |
ApophisXP
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 18:20:00 -
[5]
AMD 4TW 
INTEL 4TL! |
DTM2752
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 18:22:00 -
[6]
Edited by: DTM2752 on 11/10/2005 18:22:29
AMD's high performance single core processors give the largest framerates for games and that is pretty undisputed. They also tend to run cooler as well. Some of the P4's can get to some insane temps with the included cooling systems. Then again I never use the stock cooling so.. =)
Dual core Pentium D's are cheaper than AMD but again they run hot as hell, especially the dual cores.
Edit: Grammar
|
Reiisha
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 18:40:00 -
[7]
Dual core is pretty much useless atm since almost no application uses it, least of all, games. They're overpriced in comparison for what they give.
I'd go for an AMD 64, 3200+ or higher. These give, in games, maybe about 10% better performance than Intel, and also: AMD's use about half the power as an intel uses. This can lighten the load on your powersupply considerably - AMD pc's can stand heat a lot better because of this, and overclocking possibilities are slightly more numerous for AMD cpu's.
Save Darwinia! |
My grandfather
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 19:02:00 -
[8]
I run EVE on a laptop with P4 2.39Ghz. Very happy about it, but if I had the choice I would go for AMD. Slightly better framerates and ofc the powerload makes a difference.
It's nothing personal. It's just galactic domination.
|
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 19:31:00 -
[9]
i'd get a single core socket 939 64bit AMD. theyre best performance to money atm
--
This Zig. For great justice!
|
FalloutBoy
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 20:50:00 -
[10]
AMD 4tw! although for a laptop I would have to go with a Pentium M.
need a sig? Gallery Contact me for more info |
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 21:28:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 11/10/2005 21:29:38
Same as above--AMD is undisputed king for high-powered desktop machines. Less energy required than Intel, much faster, much lower heat output, 3 times the memory bandwidth, etc.
--
Proud member of the [23].
|
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 21:29:00 -
[12]
 Originally by: Kurren
If I was you, I would go with whatever processor offered you what you were looking for motherboard wise. Do you want S-Li? Dual-core? Dual-processor? Cause there are way more AMD motherboards that offer S-Li than Intel boards, but at the same time... with the coming of 512 graphics card... who really needs S-Li... that's more of a really want factor.
What does SLI, a method of doubling graphics power, have anything to do with slapping more expensive memory on a card that doesn't need it, creating a 1000 dollar paperweight?
The only reason I can see for a 512MB graphics card is if you want to run more than 5 EVE clients at once.
--
Proud member of the [23].
|
Basa Walachi
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 21:32:00 -
[13]
Thanks for the opinions peeps. good info and it all helps 
|
Wrayeth
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 22:24:00 -
[14]
I haven't used an Intel chip in a long time, but I can tell you that the combination of an AMD Athlon 64 3200, 1 GB of RAM, and an overclocked GeForce Fx 5700 pwns EVE. I generally leave turret effects on unless the fight is truly huge, if that tells you anything about performance.
-Wrayeth
|
Braaage
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 22:47:00 -
[15]
AMD = Games
Intel = everything else
___________________________________________
http://www.eve-tutor.com
Picture based tutorial site for EVE-Online
*New - Building an Outpost |
|
Vanamonde
|
Posted - 2005.10.12 00:20:00 -
[16]
Personally I like Intel. Also with the intel chips you will be able to load the new upcoming Mac OS X x86 version.
|
|
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2005.10.12 00:45:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Braaage
AMD = Games
Intel = everything else
Not really. I haven't found anything yet, including video coding, that my stock A64 3500+ doesn't own my 3.2Ghz overclocked P4 at.
--
Proud member of the [23].
|
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2005.10.12 00:46:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Vanamonde
Personally I like Intel. Also with the intel chips you will be able to load the new upcoming Mac OS X x86 version.
OS X x86 will have a lockout, making it only run on Apple computers. And, if you circumvented it, it would run on any x86 chip, not "only" Intel chips. I would not be surprised if it in fact ran better on A64s.
--
Proud member of the [23].
|
FalloutBoy
|
Posted - 2005.10.12 01:03:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Originally by: Vanamonde
Personally I like Intel. Also with the intel chips you will be able to load the new upcoming Mac OS X x86 version.
OS X x86 will have a lockout, making it only run on Apple computers. And, if you circumvented it, it would run on any x86 chip, not "only" Intel chips. I would not be surprised if it in fact ran better on A64s.
already been done :) but does require A64s so my mobile barton is out 
need a sig? Gallery Contact me for more info |
Airpizza II
|
Posted - 2005.10.12 01:21:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Kurren
It really is just a matter of opinion
Intel = 2x the speed of AMD
AMD = 2x the load of Intel
I use a P4 and have no problems honestly... though Eve is a rather tame game when it comes to MMORPGs, but... I don't have problems with anything when it comes to playing other games either. Half Life 2, Far Cry, Everquest 2(no flames please, I stopped playing it!!)...
If I was you, I would go with whatever processor offered you what you were looking for motherboard wise. Do you want S-Li? Dual-core? Dual-processor? Cause there are way more AMD motherboards that offer S-Li than Intel boards, but at the same time... with the coming of 512 graphics card... who really needs S-Li... that's more of a really want factor.
Not to mention Intel chips are usually a tad cheaper than AMD's...
Hope that helped...
Intel Dual Cores are cheaper..but slower...AMD Single cores are Faster and Cheaper. 512mb of Memory on the Graphics card wont give a boost to many games as 256mb isnt being used up usually. SLI gives you two graphics proccessors which is what really matters. Crossfire (ATI's Version) is also available if you buy a crossfire enabled motherboard.
|
Basileus
|
Posted - 2005.10.12 01:59:00 -
[21]
Haven't had such great experiences with AMD when stability was the issue. Intel I was most pleased with. Spend the extra cash, it's worth it.
|
Luc Boye
|
Posted - 2005.10.12 06:48:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Kurren
It really is just a matter of opinion
Intel = 2x the speed of AMD
AMD = 2x the load of Intel
Gotta be kidding me.
Intel = 2x cpu freq. of AMD and 1.x heat dissipation of AMD (both are bad things if you're slow).
AMD = more work done per cpu cycle then Intel
in total AMD > Intel compared to prices, tech level, and heat/power issues.
The only thing Intel beats AMD is in market monopoly and shady deal tactics. Which are (as long as they are within legal loopholes) valid tactics, but still frowned upon. Intel blackmails smaller manufacturers to deliver their PCs with Intel chips, so a great number of PC selling with Intel is not because Intel is better, but because they have no choice.
|
sidthesexist
|
Posted - 2005.10.12 07:13:00 -
[23]
i got an old amd 3200 socket 754 proccesor 1 gig of ram and a nvidea fx 5950 graphics card and it flies although the newer amd chips are even better. The only thing an intel processor is any good for is using as a heater due to the amount of excess heat they give off
|
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2005.10.12 09:26:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Basileus
Haven't had such great experiences with AMD when stability was the issue. Intel I was most pleased with. Spend the extra cash, it's worth it.
Exactly the opposite.
I've never understood how people can trust a chip that runs at 80 degrees Celcius, puts out 150 watts of heat, and doesn't come with a Peltier as its stock cooler to be "reliable."
--
Proud member of the [23].
|
ihate thisgame
|
Posted - 2005.10.12 10:42:00 -
[25]
Edited by: ihate thisgame on 12/10/2005 10:41:59
FX55 + 6800 WTF Every time 
intel dont make anything that beats it yet
and when they do, AMD will make something fast still
Choke the ?#!?! |
Troezar
|
Posted - 2005.10.12 12:28:00 -
[26]
AMD. 3500+ and 9800pro (my X800XT just died ) runs EVE very easily, oh and 2Gb corsair RAM
|
Alysia Jade
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 02:52:00 -
[27]
Intel has admitted to taking shortcuts on their next gen chips, even if that isn't one, I would avoid them altogether. AMD just has better gaming cpu's anyways.
|
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 09:43:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Alysia Jade
Intel has admitted to taking shortcuts on their next gen chips, even if that isn't one, I would avoid them altogether. AMD just has better gaming cpu's anyways.
I believe their most recent shortcut went like this:
1) Intel chips don't have 64-bit, A64s do... so they needed to get it fast.
2) "Great idea--lets get a microscope and steal it off an A64!"
3) *does it*
4) Except, wait a minute, we are missing a couple instructions, and its a 64-bit system designed for a short-pipeline A64 rather than a Netburst Pentium 4!
5) It sucks? Nevermind that, its 64-bit!
--
Proud member of the [23].
|
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 11:18:00 -
[29]
I am a big fan of Intel chips but I do prefer AMDs even back in the days of 486 DX-100, felt for a compatible company they were pretty good. Have been using AMDs these days, and have to say their chips are good. Only problems are some software are properly written for Intel's does not like to be run on AMDs but not these days though.
I would go for AMDs. However, my past experience, warranty claims for Intel are much better than AMDs though. Then again, it was just my experience and some others may had better ones. Not mentioning, AMDs are better valued for money, reasonably cheap and good.
RecruitMe@NOINT! |
FireFoxx80
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 12:29:00 -
[30]
I used to love Intel, especially seeing the old AMD chip bursting into flames without a heatsink. But AMD are a lot cheaper, and seemingly more powerful.
The only concern I have, is the worrying amount of hassle/risk involved in mounting a heat sink.
23? # Missile Tool # ex: P-TMC : USAC |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |