what is better to play games on intel or Amd

[sammorris]

Stock:
Intel: Marginally more expensive, more power efficient (for the same performance)
AMD: Cheaper, less efficient (for the same performance)
Overclocking:
Intel: Good overclockers, high speeds attainable with acceptable increases in heat and power
AMD: Mediocre overclockers, lower speeds attainable, high power & heat output.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Stock:
Intel: more expensive, more power efficient (for the same performance)
AMD: Cost less (for the same performance),similar power consumption at idle,less power efficient although not significant in most cases unless PC is at 100% 24/7.
Overclocking:
Intel: Good overclockers but YMMV, high speeds attainable with acceptable increases in heat and power,very hard to get budget overclocking motherboards for under £65 now.
AMD: Mediocre overclockers, lower speeds attainable, higher power & heat output.

Changed for you. Sammorris tends to bang on about the power requirement of AMD processors although loads of us still use overclocked Intel Q6000 series and E6000 processors which are just as bad(or even) worse than the current AMD ONES.

[sammorris]

Cheaper and Cost less? They're the same thing. The inefficiency stands. When there's a 65W version of the 955 black edition I will remove it. I wouldn't want to overclock an AMD on a sub £65 board anyway, it would melt...

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Cheaper and Cost less? They're the same thing. The inefficiency stands. When there's a 65W version of the 955 black edition I will remove it.

Stop banging on like a broken record as it is getting as it is getting a bit tiring TBH. Loads of us still use Q6600 processors and the like and many use i7s too which are not the most efficient ones powerwise though. These even run hotter than any 45nm Phenom too and consume more power too especially if you have a Q6600 B3 stepping or later manufacture high VID G0 Q6600 which I have.

With socket 1156 cpus coming along I think people should ditch their socket 1366 cpus as they seem to have lower performance per watt.

I wouldn't want to overclock an AMD on a sub £65 board anyway, it would melt...

Maybe for you it would. I think Guru3D overclocked OKwith one of the AM3 ones which is around £70.The 770 motherboards I am talking about has 8+2 phase power. Of course you could always add additional cooling to the VRM areas like many people have done with their Intel motherboards in the past. One of the best clocking AMD motherboards(reviewed by many websites such as bit-tech) has only 5 phase power too. Heck even people with X3 720s are getting decent oveclocks on a £56 Gigabyte AM2 motherboard.

[sammorris]

Banging on? You're the one editing perfectly well formed posts. I thought I'd offer a reasonable summary about it, you're intent to perfect anything I write to show AMD in the best light possible given the circumstances. Are Core i7s really relevant in a £400-£500 build? I normally give this caveat about Intels if you look at my post, but I thought I'd spare it here as nobody would be thick enough to consider i7s in this price bracket - alas, you have. Q6600s are out of the discussion as they are now last-gen and way overpriced - they're still usable as CPUs, but they're not at all wise choices for new builds.
Also, last time I checked, £70 isn't less than £65. Besides, you can still overclock quads on something like an Ep43-DS3 for £60. I wouldn't go mad with the volts, but I wouldn't with a £60 AMD board either. For £79 you can pick up a more robust EP45 board, which I daresay is similarly priced to the equivalent AMD board.
Every time I post something that concerns both manufacturers I'm hounded for showing bias. No bias - simply stating the truth - stock, AMDs are better value but use more power (not the i7s obviously), Intels are more expensive, but overclock better.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Banging on? You're the one editing perfectly well formed posts. I thought I'd offer a reasonable summary about it, you're intent to perfect anything I write to show AMD in the best light possible given the circumstances. Are Core i7s really relevant in a £400-£500 build? I normally give this caveat about Intels if you look at my post, but I thought I'd spare it here as nobody would be thick enough to consider i7s in this price bracket - alas, you have. Q6600s are out of the discussion as they are now last-gen and way overpriced - they're still usable as CPUs, but they're not at all wise choices for new builds.
Also, last time I checked, £70 isn't less than £65. Besides, you can still overclock quads on something like an Ep43-DS3 for £60. I wouldn't go mad with the volts, but I wouldn't with a £60 AMD board either. For £79 you can pick up a more robust EP45 board, which I daresay is similarly priced to the equivalent AMD board.
Every time I post something that concerns both manufacturers I'm hounded for showing bias. No bias - simply stating the truth - stock, AMDs are better value but use more power (not the i7s obviously), Intels are more expensive, but overclock better.

No need for insults and who the heck do you think you are calling thick you muppet?? I have never insulted you in any post so try to keep things civil. You keep on banging on about power consumption and even in a few of your early posts a while back you were trying to calculate total power consumption differences(and hence costs) of an AMD Phenom and Intel Core2 running at 100% CPU utilisation for a YEAR. Now that is taking things a bit far especially when in normal use(for most people) power consumption figures are not that different.

99% of the population do not keep their primary desktop desktop on for 365 days a year at 100% utilisation so it is pointless and you seem to be able not grasp the reason why I mentioned the Q6600 and even the fact that the Core i5 seems to be more efficient than the socket 1366 Core i7.

[sammorris]

Usually I tend to give a figure of load for an average of a few hours a day for a year, not 100% 24/7, as that is unrealistic. Link me to where I said that and I'll remove it.
I called you thick because you have so far managed to misinterpret pretty much every one of my posts here at hexus. Is it really that hard?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I called you thick because you have so far managed to misinterpret pretty much every one of my posts here at hexus. Is it really that hard?

And you are thick since you resort to childish name calling when somebody does not see your way.Also over a CPU choice too...! Its like you are trying to justify your purchases or something along those lines. Even you dismissed the Phenom II entirely in your early posts and started disagreeing with scaryjim about the Phenom II X4 955 and misinterpreting his posts. By your standards it would mean that you are "thick".

[sammorris]

On a more serious note, it's difficult to find some accurate power measurements for the Socket 775 CPUs as all the review sites test them with the X48 chipset, one of the most power hungry chipsets Intel produce.
Excluding the power argument since it seems to wind AMD fans up so much, this is a recently published article that could prove interesting:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/16796/1

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Anyway to the OP what you get is dependent on your budget and what you will use the computer for. Hence it is not only the CPU but the entire CPU and motherboard package which is important.

With the Core i5 coming out in September it will shake things up a bit and IMHO looks quite exciting TBH. As with anything pricing will be important but think of it as Core i7 light. It would probablly be outside a £500 budget but it will push down the prices of the Phenom and Core 2 hopefully so you will get better value for money.

[sammorris]

Core i5 certainly looks interesting, but the fact it and the core i7 8 series is on a separate socket to the i7 9 series will upset a fair few people. Still, it draws an absolute line between what is a midrange PC and what is a high-end PC - no double bandwidth graphics on P55/P57/Q57/H55/H57 without an nF200 chip (Yuck!)

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Still, it draws an absolute line between what is a midrange PC and what is a high-end PC - no double bandwidth graphics on P55/P57/Q57/H55/H57 without an nF200 chip (Yuck!)

I suppose if you are running a single graphics card setup it should be fine. However I this means there will be a limit on the maximum number of additional PCI-E cards(like for example sound cards) you can run.

I suspect Intel wants to make sure that high-end enthusiast sales are not eaten into. However this also means that there will no ATI crossfire at PCI-E 2.0 16x for the P55/P57/Q57/H55/H57 since the nF200 is only for Nvidia cards AFAIK!! Thats a bit crap!! It must be the evil LARRABEE at work!!

[kalniel]

Core i5 certainly looks interesting, but the fact it and the core i7 8 series is on a separate socket to the i7 9 series will upset a fair few people. Still, it draws an absolute line between what is a midrange PC and what is a high-end PC - no double bandwidth graphics on P55/P57/Q57/H55/H57 without an nF200 chip (Yuck!)

What could possibly require more than 8x PCI-E 2.0 per card anyway? We're so far from that limit that we'll have moved to another platform before that's a problem.

[sammorris]

Well, even a single HD4870 is affected by having 8x PCIe 2.0 to some extent, it isn't much but the effect is there. I suspect it will become much more apparent with the DX11 generation.

[kalniel]

Well, even a single HD4870 is affected by having 8x PCIe 2.0 to some extent, it isn't much but the effect is there.

I don't think so, but maybe I'm out of date - have you got a link to tests?

[shaffaaf27]

umm going from a 4870x2 PCOE 16x 1.0 to 2.0 made no difference......

also i7 use less power at idle as they power down individual cores, or something to that effect.

also who cares abotu powerusage if one is overclocking anyhows LOL. we are enthusiasts, if we cared we'd be using a ps3/xbox 360 and a nettop/netbook.