Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD or Intel for UT3?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #46
    Originally posted by {AW} l3fty View Post
    Well it doesn't look like he OC's but I agree. Get the E6600 IMHO.

    While the article does show a trend. That trend is starting to swing the other way as newer technologies in rendering and programming are being implemented. Plus if you use your PC for things other than gaming. You'll be much happier. This coming from a long time AMD fan.

    MR said in an interview that the programming of the game to take advantage of dual cores is what has been the most costly for Epic. Thus I'd go with Intel as they're definitely leading the pack. Oh and go with nVidia also.
    Then he should go for a q6600. Benchmarks show that a non overclocked q6600 at 2.4ghz beat out a 4ghz e6600 dual core overclocked in lost planet benchmarks (and don't forget the unreal engine supports quads). Don't believe me? http://www.hardspell.com/english/doc...p?news_id=1355

    Comment


      #47
      Tim Sweeny mentioned that U3 engine wont get a huge boost from four cores.

      Barcelona is launched tomorrow by the way.

      Comment


        #48
        Originally posted by SKaREO View Post
        I went with the AMD FX-62. Intel advertises a lot more, probably because they have an inferior product. I don't want my money spent on an advertising budget, I would rather just spend it on better hardware. It's much the same as I drink Coca-Cola because Pepsi advertises too much and tastes like ****.
        Do some research, Intel has had the superior product for over the last year since C2D has launched. Unless your buy the bottom of the barrel processors (why would you do this and play games like UT3 I have no idea) or your not going to overclock one bit.

        The C2D are so easy to oc I cannot see why anyone would not. Plus the Intel Quad cores are are sitting at $270s why there even question about AMD vs Intel. Until AMD offers some competition there is only one choice these days. it doesn't take much research on some of the hardware reviews sites, Anandtech, X-bit Labs, etc., to find this one out.

        BTW: Intel is a $35 billion dollar company where as AMD is about a $10 billion dollar company these days thats the reason one advertises and the other doesn't. It also the reason Intel starting pushing the price/performance war so hard on AMD.

        Comment


          #49
          Originally posted by Luseferous View Post
          Tim Sweeny mentioned that U3 engine wont get a huge boost from four cores.

          Barcelona is launched tomorrow by the way.
          but that's different from than a "quads performing worse" statement.

          quads will have a performance boost... whether or not it's worth the price difference, is another story.

          quads have the benefit of being slight more "future proof" than dual core... so you could easily get more benefit for whatever else you may be doing... and not just UT3 (like playing music in the background ).

          Originally posted by ]-[itman View Post
          BTW: Intel is a $35 billion dollar company where as AMD is about a $10 billion dollar company these days thats the reason one advertises and the other doesn't. It also the reason Intel starting pushing the price/performance war so hard on AMD.
          AMD advertises... just not as much.

          Comment


            #50
            Sorry, I was really only comparing to this :

            Then he should go for a q6600. Benchmarks show that a non overclocked q6600 at 2.4ghz beat out a 4ghz e6600 dual core overclocked in lost planet benchmarks (and don't forget the unreal engine supports quads).
            Don't believe me? http://www.hardspell.com/english/doc...p?news_id=1355
            And more specifically this:
            http://www.hardspell.com/pic/pic.asp...1d73b72ebb.jpg

            Your right a quad core certainly won't hurt

            Comment


              #51
              AMD sucks! Intel for me! Here's the best cheap Intel processor. Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor

              Comment


                #52
                Originally posted by Brutal View Post
                If your going 2 buy a new computer and your not sure if to buy AMD or Intel. This will help you.

                http://www.legitreviews.com/article/490/3/



                Need I say more?

                Comment


                  #53
                  It doesn't matter.
                  Drop your fanboy bantering.

                  Comment


                    #54
                    Originally posted by Perfect_Dark View Post
                    No debate for me, AMD
                    AMD dual core 5600+ ftw.

                    Comment


                      #55
                      Originally posted by EddyVercetti View Post
                      AMD sucks! Intel for me! Here's the best cheap Intel processor. Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor
                      I don't agree that AMD sucks, however I did check the link that you provided and I do have a Mobo that supports that chip and it's got my interest, so thanks for the link.

                      Comment


                        #56
                        Phenom when it arrives towards Christmas might just be an Intel killer. Well for a few months anyway
                        I take that back, It looks like its not going to happen judging from some early Barcelona benchmarks its better than K8 but not really any faster than core2 on a clock for clock basis. Unfortunately it runs at a slower clock speed at the moment.

                        With Nehalem (Core 3 Duo for want of a better name) not too far away looks like tough times for AMD.

                        Comment


                          #57
                          I would go for an intel any day now.
                          I used to be AMD only, until the DUO came out, and still now AMD don't have much to compete with them. The 4MB cache makes a BIG improvement to CPU, AMD is still stuck with 1MB, a shame they have not yet come back at Intel. Price is not an issue, as spending an extra $50 or $100 to get 2x or even 3x the speed is worth it.

                          Comment


                            #58
                            Originally posted by Luseferous View Post
                            I take that back, It looks like its not going to happen judging from some early Barcelona benchmarks its better than K8 but not really any faster than core2 on a clock for clock basis. Unfortunately it runs at a slower clock speed at the moment.

                            With Nehalem (Core 3 Duo for want of a better name) not too far away looks like tough times for AMD.
                            It's all speculation at this point until the AMD chips are actually here. Let's see real-world benches before making any judgments.

                            Comment


                              #59
                              hmmm...... maybe your right!

                              Comment


                                #60
                                It's all speculation at this point until the AMD chips are actually here. Let's see real-world benches before making any judgments.
                                There are some benchmarks up already:

                                http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=3092

                                http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3091

                                http://techreport.com/articles.x/13176

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X