Computer Geeks

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by t-rock

I like first person shooters more than anything. Far Cry 2, Counter Strike: Source, and Left 4 Dead are the three I've been playing the most on friends computers. I originally looked at getting the Intel E8500 and motherboard to go along with it. A few other friends have told me to look at spending more on a power supply, also.

CPU questions.

1) Does anyone have a legitimate debate for AMD v. Intel? Everyone seems to have a preference, but can't explain why one is better than the other.

2) Should I go with a 3.0 GHz dual core or 2.5 GHz quad core? Which will be faster for first person shooter and driving games on max settings.

Intel has a superior lineup with the Core2 line, and recently released I7.
AMD fell behind and tried to rely on low price points. The Phenom series are slower clock per clock against Intel but AMD tried to attract people with price. The PhenomII series is a lot better. Perhaps offering 95% -99% of comparable Intel offerings at an attractive price.

Going with an AMD isn't the worst decision, if you have strict price points. However overall peak performance goes to Intel. Benchmarks showing this are widespread. Once again, I'm going to say that the Phenom II 940 is a great buy at $220 and competes well with Q9400-Q9550. However, be mindful that a lot of the mobo's out right now need a bios update to support it....kind hard to update a bios when you don't have a CPU that works in the board (early adopter had to buy cheapo AMD processors in addition to 940 just to update the board)


As for Quad vs Dual.
A lot of titles prefer clock speed and a 3.0 or 3.1 Dual core will keep up or slightly edge out a lower clocked Quad core (at say 2.66 ghz). However, more and more titles are coming out optimized for 4 cores and will take advantage (FarCry 2 being an example).

If you decide to go Dual don't bother with an E8600. E8500 is the most you should get on dual. Anything more expensive better be a Quad Core.