Melville
Member
Registered: 4th Jun 03
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
User status: Offline
|
Im looking at upgrading and was wondering what everyone thought was best? Im not a serious gamer, but I do play the odd one. Just clocked half life 2 on my current 1.7ghz P4, so Im not looking at anything stupidly fast and priced. I mainly use photoshop, office, the web, encode and burn a few dvds. Ive got a budget of £100
Thanks, Mark
|
Adam_B
Member
Registered: 13th Dec 00
Location: Lancashire
User status: Offline
|
to swap to an AMD chip you will need to change the mother board as well, not 100% but i wouldnt have thought you could do it for £100
|
Melville
Member
Registered: 4th Jun 03
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
User status: Offline
|
Yeah Ive got about £60 to spend on a motherboard budgeted in. I need a new one as Im still running on SD Ram 
So motherboard problems aside what would you pick for a budget of £100 or less?
|
supacook2k
Member
Registered: 26th May 03
User status: Offline
|
http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?rb=15057359386&action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=98783
£82.98 inc VAT
|
PK1
Banned
Registered: 27th Mar 05
User status: Offline
|
AMD is much better than Intel (ready for arguments)
AMD chips are actually clocked much lower, but they are larger chips, so get 'more done' in the same amount of time.
This means less chance of crashing and more stable in general, and you will find them cheaper too
|
Rus
Member
Registered: 24th Jan 05
Location: SE London, Kent
User status: Offline
|
intel = a ferrari
amd = monster truck
i prefer amd, there quicker.
|
Mase
Premium Member
Registered: 16th Sep 01
Location: Derbyshire
User status: Offline
|
amd
Mase
|
Corsa Sport Gav
Member
Registered: 12th Feb 03
Location: Durham, County Durham Drives: A6 Allroad
User status: Offline
|
u hav u2u
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by PK1
AMD is much better than Intel (ready for arguments)
AMD chips are actually clocked much lower, but they are larger chips, so get 'more done' in the same amount of time.
This means less chance of crashing and more stable in general, and you will find them cheaper too
They are larger chips. wtf
An AMD chip will be no more stable than an Intel one if both are set up properly.
They have a different architecture.
I personally like AMD because imo they offer better value for money.
Pound for pound you'll probably be better buying an AMD although i'm not sure how well either of them perform lately at the top end of the market.
Have a look and see what fits the budget, then search for reviews of them on google.
|
PK1
Banned
Registered: 27th Mar 05
User status: Offline
|
John, if you knew anything about microchip architecture then you would know AMD are in fact thicker and bulkier chips. This is how they are clocked lower yet are the same speed as a higher clocked Intel.
And yes, AMD chips are more stable.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
PK1 do you actually have a clue about anything.
Did you learn all this while you were studying for whatever law degree you managed to get at 18?
Thicker and bulkier chips does not mean it can be clocked lower and do more.
The only reason the die on the chip would be bigger is because AMD hadn't yet moved down to 90nm.
Do you even know what part of the chip is the actual chip.
How can AMD chips be more stable.
How do intel get away with selling chips that aren't stable.
Only problem in recent times with intel was the floating point bug which is no longer there.
Please will you go away and stop misinforming people on any subject you decide you are an expert in that day.
|
PaulW
Member
Registered: 26th Jan 03
Location: Atherton, Greater Manchester
User status: Offline
|
AMD can handle more insturctions per cycle, due to better architecture & pipelining than intel chips...
intel chips have a far more quicker memory bus than amd chips
AMD are a better processor for games & such, where its raw processing power & not memory bandwidth which is the key
Intel chips are better for video & sound encoding, due to the quicker memory access speeds
HOWEVER
Intel Pentium-M chips (which can be used in desktop systems) are similiar to AMD's performance stakes, where a 1.4Ghz chip is actually on par with the 3ghz P4 equivelant, BUT the memory bandwidth is also quicker than AMD's but not as quick as the original desktop P4
therefor, the Pentium-M chips are better still for gaming, IF you clock them up a bit (say to 1.8 to 2ghz from a 1.6ish ghz chip)
again... the argument for which is better can go on & on & on, but it depends what your gona do...
If its just normal word processing & gaming, go for AMD
if your doing alot of video encoding (DVD-ripping & authoring for example) then stick with Intel...
|
PK1
Banned
Registered: 27th Mar 05
User status: Offline
|
see john you were wrong again
ya wanker!
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
If this is a competition to be wrong can I ask that you compare your post to that which is acceptable under policy, and see how far away you are there.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by PK1
see john you were wrong again
ya wanker!
Thanks for the u2u mate, I think i'm a twat to
I don't see where I was wrong?
I'm fully aware of the differences between chips and architectures.
I'm just fed up with people posting utter rubbish in reply to questions incase people actually go and take their advice.
|
