AMD good enough for HL2's graphics?

Personally im running an AMD and ive never had any problems w/ it at all and im planning on upgrading and staying w/ AMD b/c for one there cheaper and run just fine for me. Im not a fan boy of any sort. I just dont see why you would pay more for something when u can gat almost the same thing for alot cheaper.
 
Literal:

Noobs

pheer my leetness

Real:

Newbies

fear my eliteness
 
AMD makes great cpu's. So does Intel.

Cost/Speed AMD wins usally. Ultra fast high end is so close you wont notice but Intel is faster.

Intel wont have a 64 bit workstation cpu till 2005 I hear. AMD will have one out this year in a month or two.

If it wasnt for AMD we would still be running pentium 2's and paying 400$ each for them. Compitation is great.
 
The only real noob here is PappaSmurf, he thinks he can come in call ppl noobs?!?!?!
 
Originally posted by PappaSmurf
$niper

93% is probably more accurate
:cheese:

Ok, not all stupid nubbies but a large proportion :p
Click to expand...

i said the same thing...before he even said it..... :(

damn people dont know there jiggawats from there killamegs :p
 
Originally posted by A2597
I WILL say that the top of the line intel beats top of the line AMD (Until the 64 bit proccs are out). But who spends 700$ for a proccessor?!?
Click to expand...


how about someone with cash to blow? sound good? :p


im not gonna get into this AMD vs INTEL arguement.. i have owned both, and for the most part, enjoyed my time using comps with these cpu's.


the current one i have is an AMD Athlon and it has lasted me 5 years.. its safe to say i got a good bang out of the bucks i spent..

i haven't owned an Intel for 6 years now and am curious about how well an Intel cpu performs.. im undecided which way im going as far as upgrades go (upgrading in October-ish) but i have been saving enough moolah to get most of the top-line hardware out there ;)

i don't favor one company over the other, i have been happy with all but the very first comp i bought (hey i was an honest nub back then.. :angel: ) and the smart thing to do would be to research the stuff before u buy so u get the best u can with the budget u set :dork:
 
Im pretty much one of that 93%-who cares if I don't know my whatchamacallits. It seems so nerdy-I'm really into sports.
 
Ahh why not. My specs:

cpu:p4 2.4Ghz (512k, 800FSB) <-- this could OC way past 3.0Ghz
vid card:Ati 9700pro
ram:Corsair 1024MB PC-3700 TwinX DUAL CHANNEL
sound card: Audigy 2

Upgrades once HL2 comes out:

cpu: AMD (whatever is the fastest) Maybe the 64bit.
vid card: Prolly keep the 9700pro till Doom]l[ comes out.
ram: Keep same ram.
 
ok...lesson 1.......amds are not better for overclocking

....it depends alot on the exact individual cpu you have(not even the speed....i mean the one that you have in your possesion).

.....and from what i read and heard amd has a lot more variation in the overclockability (is that a word?) of its cpus....

From my personal experiance...when they are operating at stock rated speed...they are both equally stable. my only experiance being with the sligthly older cores for the 2 brands

<amd=TBa TBb>
<intel=p4 400fsb 533fsb>(cant remeber core names)
 
Originally posted by Dr. Freeman
how about someone with cash to blow? sound good? :p


im not gonna get into this AMD vs INTEL arguement.. i have owned both, and for the most part, enjoyed my time using comps with these cpu's.


the current one i have is an AMD Athlon and it has lasted me 5 years.. its safe to say i got a good bang out of the bucks i spent..

i haven't owned an Intel for 6 years now and am curious about how well an Intel cpu performs.. im undecided which way im going as far as upgrades go (upgrading in October-ish) but i have been saving enough moolah to get most of the top-line hardware out there ;)

i don't favor one company over the other, i have been happy with all but the very first comp i bought (hey i was an honest nub back then.. :angel: ) and the smart thing to do would be to research the stuff before u buy so u get the best u can with the budget u set :dork:
Click to expand...

if your looking for top-o the line......intel wins.....they are just faster in the topend.
 
Its insane that people here are even posting. Someone actually said its not the Ghz/Mhz that matter.......Its the clockspeed thats important ahahahahlol, that is funny. Now to the question at hand. Do not listen to anyone here as most are ignorant as to what they are writing. An athlon XP 3200+ with a 400mhz Front Side Bus, or FSB is just as fast as a P4 3.2ghz if not faster, just depends on the benchmark, both processors have their respective high and low points, however both are great processors, it just depends on what u prefer and how much u want to spend. A P4 3.2 ghz with 800mhz FSB is very expensive, around 655 $ american online. That is expensive compared to an athlon XP 3200+ with 400mhz FSB for 435$american, especially when considering how u want to impelment the processors meaning what chipset u plan on using. For instance i would suggest an nForce2 400pro for the athlon which u can get for 60$ and is the fastest solution for the XP right now. Now there are many choices for the intel as well as many choices for which ram to use, DDR, DDR2, or RDRam, which again all have cost factors. Intel is the very expensive, and u get what u pay for, but the athlon is not very expensive and is alot more than what u pay for. Have fun, oh and btw anyone who says u cant run halflife2 on max settings with a radeon 9800 and an athlonxp 2500 with 333mhzfsb is a fool. Go to www.hardocp.com for great computer information, learn be happy :)
 
Originally posted by CriticalBill11
Its insane that people here are even posting. Someone actually said its not the Ghz/Mhz that matter.......Its the clockspeed thats important ahahahahlol, that is funny. Now to the question at hand. Do not listen to anyone here as most are ignorant as to what they are writing. An athlon XP 3200+ with a 400mhz Front Side Bus, or FSB is just as fast as a P4 3.2ghz if not faster, just depends on the benchmark, both processors have their respective high and low points, however both are great processors, it just depends on what u prefer and how much u want to spend. A P4 3.2 ghz with 800mhz FSB is very expensive, around 655 $ american online. That is expensive compared to an athlon XP 3200+ with 400mhz FSB for 435$american, especially when considering how u want to impelment the processors meaning what chipset u plan on using. For instance i would suggest an nForce2 400pro for the athlon which u can get for 60$ and is the fastest solution for the XP right now. Now there are many choices for the intel as well as many choices for which ram to use, DDR, DDR2, or RDRam, which again all have cost factors. Intel is the very expensive, and u get what u pay for, but the athlon is not very expensive and is alot more than what u pay for. Have fun, oh and btw anyone who says u cant run halflife2 on max settings with a radeon 9800 and an athlonxp 2500 with 333mhzfsb is a fool. Go to www.hardocp.com for great computer information, learn be happy :)
Click to expand...
b
your just an amd fanboy.......ive only seen 2(synthetic) benchmarks..... and no games at all that the 3200+ beats the 3.2 ...........i have no idea where you got that idea from

stop spreading bullshit like that. yeah its more expensive....but its also anywhere from 15-30% faster

hardocp.com sucks btw
 
Originally posted by crabcakes66
if your looking for top-o the line......intel wins.....they are just faster in the topend.
Click to expand...


thanks for the tip :)


anyone know how soon the 9900 Pro will be available? :cheese:
 
yeah, but absolute top of the line costs you 700 bucks
 
Originally posted by Doobz
yeah, but absolute top of the line costs you 700 bucks
Click to expand...


yes.. it does..

i haven't spent any cash on this or any computer in 5 years.. i think im ready for $700 dollars of cpu power and probably much more than that ;)
 
Again you get what you pay for AMD is cheap and breaks alot more then Intel cpu's its a fact. Hardocp is a crappy place for benchmark reviews
 
for 700$ I could build a PC that would run HL2 at 60FPS and run a home gaming lan...
 
http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/

The P4 3.2GHz beat the Athlon XP 3200+ in EVERY test they threw at them... almost every time the time the P4 2.8GHz beat it... more than one fourth of the tests even showed the P4 2.4GHz ahead of it.

Considering that a 2.8GHz P4 ($260) costs a little more than half the price of an Athlon XP 3200+ ($440) the Athlon's good performance/price ratio doesn't hold true anymore. A P4 3.0GHz also costs less ($390).

... and about AMDs being good for overclocking: I've known a couple of people that have overclocked their 3GHz P4s to a stable 4Ghz with proper water cooling. That is quite a significant jump. If something happens to the cooling the P4s will slow themselves down or shut off completely before toasting the CPU... last time I checked AMD processors had a basic version of this but it didn't work very well (this may be fixed, now).

Hopefully the next generation of AMD processors will be able to renew the competition but as of now Intel has the decisive lead.
 
Originally posted by TrueWeltall
Again you get what you pay for AMD is cheap and breaks alot more then Intel cpu's its a fact. Hardocp is a crappy place for benchmark reviews
Click to expand...

ive never heard of of a defualt clocked amd "breaking" any more than i have an intel cpu.......

please show me the scource for this info....or is it just your opinion/rumour


QUOTE]Originally posted by OCybrManO
Hopefully the next generation of AMD processors will be able to renew the competition but as of now Intel has the decisive lead.[/QUOTE]



not true at all...in the mid-low range computer amd is still the winner

intel only pulls ahead when you get up to the 2.6c .........

and you can get a 2800+ for 30$ less than a 2.6c ...and although it cant be overclocked as much it is still almost as fast a a 2.6c

thats where they meet ....below that its all amd
 
Originally posted by OCybrManO
http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/

The P4 3.2GHz beat the Athlon XP 3200+ in EVERY test they threw at them... almost every time the time the P4 2.8GHz beat it... more than one fourth of the tests even showed the P4 2.4GHz ahead of it.

Considering that a 2.8GHz P4 ($260) costs a little more than half the price of an Athlon XP 3200+ ($440) the Athlon's good performance/price ratio doesn't hold true anymore. A P4 3.0GHz also costs less ($390).

... and about AMDs being good for overclocking: I've known a couple of people that have overclocked their 3GHz P4s to a stable 4Ghz with proper water cooling. That is quite a significant jump. If something happens to the cooling the P4s will slow themselves down or shut off completely before toasting the CPU... last time I checked AMD processors had a basic version of this but it didn't work very well (this may be fixed, now).

Hopefully the next generation of AMD processors will be able to renew the competition but as of now Intel has the decisive lead.
Click to expand...


eh, the ratio to price doesn't hold true at the top most level, but a 2800+ still beats a p4 2.8 GHz, and a 3000+ competes at least with a p4 3 GHz
 
Clock speed for clock speed, AMD CPU's are generally cheaper than Intel while yielding comporable performance. I know people love comparing benchmark numbers and that kind of crap, but really, there aren't any discernable differences between the two when used in the real world. Just buy the fastest processor you can afford and don't worry about it.
 
Originally posted by TrueWeltall
Again you get what you pay for AMD is cheap and breaks alot more then Intel cpu's its a fact.
Click to expand...
Fanboy alert! So where are you getting these "facts"?

Look, I have a 1GHz AMD T-Bird Athlon that I ran in this system for three years without encountering a single problem. I now have a 1.33 GHz and not a single glitch after several months of use. AMD's don't break. You're just being ignorant.
 
Originally posted by TrueWeltall
Again you get what you pay for AMD is cheap and breaks alot more then Intel cpu's its a fact. Hardocp is a crappy place for benchmark reviews
Click to expand...

"breaks alot more" ? well not in my experience of building computers for hundreds of people, no.

"hardocp is crappy" explain? reasons why?
 
This isn't about intel at all, I just wanted to know if a 2500 barton would would play HL2 at it's fullest potential with a 9800 Pro... [according to the current recommendations]
Can someone tell me, opinions?
 
According to early reports, Valve said that a 2.5GHz CPU and a GeForce 4 Ti4600 would be able to play Half-Life 2 at maximum settings. Your CPU/video card combo should run HL2 like a dream.

Edit: This article gives you a nice run down of what to expect from Half-Life 2 with different hardware configurations. It's very informative.
 
Originally posted by Mountain Man
According to early reports, Valve said that a 2.5GHz CPU and a GeForce 4 Ti4600 would be able to play Half-Life 2 at maximum settings. Your CPU/video card combo should run HL2 like a dream.
Click to expand...

I guess i'll be fine with my 2.4 ghz then.
 
I figure I'll be able to run medium- to medium-high details on my system:

1.33GHz T-Bird Athlon
GeForce 4 Ti4200
512MB PC166 RAM
Sound Blaster Audigy

My system's not exactly bleeding edge, but it gives me solid performance and I'm happy with it.

It's also worth noting that the Source engine seems more dependent on your video card than most games, so I'd think a good video card would be more important than the fastest CPU.
 
Originally posted by Doobz
eh, the ratio to price doesn't hold true at the top most level, but a 2800+ still beats a p4 2.8 GHz, and a 3000+ competes at least with a p4 3 GHz
Click to expand...
What does an Athlon XP 2800+ beat a P4 2.8GHz in?
What does an Athlon XP 3000+ beat a P4 3.0GHz in?
From what I can see on every recent test is that the only times Athlons beat P4s is in certain business applications and synthetic benchmarks and I haven't even seen that lately.

Originally posted by Mountain Man
Clock speed for clock speed, AMD CPU's are generally cheaper than Intel while yielding comporable performance. I know people love comparing benchmark numbers and that kind of crap, but really, there aren't any discernable differences between the two when used in the real world. Just buy the fastest processor you can afford and don't worry about it.
Click to expand...
Clock speed for clock speed (as in a 2GHz P4 vs a 2Ghz Athlon, not an Athlon XP 2000) AMD's processors are more expensive but faster than Pentium 4s... but clock speed doesn't matter when comparing AMD vs Intel since they do things differently (AMD = more efficient processors that are more expensive compared to the clockspeed... Intel = brute force "bigger is better" processors that are cheaper compared to the clockspeeds). It is price vs the real world performance (which is what using games as benchmarks shows) that you need to compare... and in that, Intel has pulled ahead of AMD considerably.
 
Point is, the average consumer won't see any discernable difference between a system with an AMD CPU and one with an Intel CPU. Heck, even a knowledgable consumer would be hard pressed to note any differences.

Best advice: buy the fastest CPU you can afford.
 
AMD CPUs break more often? I've been installing Intel and AMD CPUs for 5 years now and in the shop we've had only 2 faulty AMD chips and 3 faulty Intel chips. Both have great track records. If your AMD processors keep breaking you should have a professional install and upgrade your system instead of destroying the CPU and blaming the company.

Mountain Man is right: Buy the fastest you can afford. That might be AMD, that might be Intel. The Intel boys can boast about having 2 FPS more and the AMD boys can smile knowing they saved enough money for beer and hookers later.
 
Originally posted by Mountain Man
Point is, the average consumer won't see any discernable difference between a system with an AMD CPU and one with an Intel CPU. Heck, even a knowledgable consumer would be hard pressed to note any differences.

Best advice: buy the fastest CPU you can afford.
Click to expand...

I garaun-mother****ing-ty i could tell the differance between a 2800+ and a new 2.8c with 800mhz fsb ........

one is alot faster than the other........

the 2.6c is faster than the 2800+ ..not by a damn lot ..but will get you 3-5 more fps in most games.......
 
since we are talking about PC specs heres my beast

P4 3.06Ghz
Radeon 9700 pro
2x 256mb RDRAM PC 800
and an Audigy 2 (which is a bugger sometimes)

im looking forward to HL2 and pumping it up to ultra high
don't be an ass to me about it, ive worked hard for it, before it had a p2 255mhz. so i know how some of u guys feel
 
Originally posted by Gordon'sFreeman
since we are talking about PC specs heres my beast

P4 3.06Ghz
Radeon 9700 pro
2x 256mb RDRAM PC 800
and an Audigy 2 (which is a bugger sometimes)

im looking forward to HL2 and pumping it up to ultra high
don't be an ass to me about it, ive worked hard for it, before it had a p2 255mhz. so i know how some of u guys feel
Click to expand...

I have same setup except for the 3.06 (2.4) and the 9700 (9800) and I have no clue what sound I have.
 
is the 9800 any good?
should i save for a 9900 or go for 9800 becuase i have not seen any specs on them?
 
Originally posted by Gordon'sFreeman
is the 9800 any good?
should i save for a 9900 or go for 9800 becuase i have not seen any specs on them?
Click to expand...

depends....if you have a card that is capable of running hl2 well...then wait for the next generation of gfx cards....if you have a geforce2 or something in that class ...then by all means get a 9800

edit: remeber that the 9900 isnt far away...so you may be better off waiting.
 
Well I don't have my 9800 pro yet, right now I have a GeForce 4 MX 440-SE, which sucks the poop so im getting the 9800 pro really damned soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dekstar
Counter-Strike: GOing Deep - Part 1
Replies
17
Views
5K
Ennui
Ennui
Warped
The Witcher: Enhanced Edition for....
Replies
29
Views
2K
Laivasse
Laivasse
Terminator
Time for a new build!
Replies
11
Views
1K
Ren.182
Ren.182
Man|-|unter
Intel vs AMD - Integrated graphics shoot-out
Replies
2
Views
542
operative x
operative x
S
guess I need a processer upgrade..
Replies
2
Views
400
colonelkadaffy
C
Back
Top