which is better?

NVidia


If that's what you're talking about. I know fuck all about computers.

*Leaves*

Intel FTW.

If only for the videocard/CTRL + ALT GR + CURSOR KEYS trick.

Intel are great at making there processors. i5, i3, i7's are all great processors but they cost a lot of money. AMD's processors are cheaper. I was reading the other day that AMD's processors are better on games if that is true or not.

Matt you are way off. Nvidia makes ok cards but they have no DirectX 11 cards on the market yet. The latest Nvidia card is DirectX 11 but it is not as different as ATI cards that have DirectX 11. ATI is better than Nvidia IMO because there cards are cheaper and are up to date with the latest tech.

Think that was sarcasm Joey. Maybe. Hard to tell with fagalos.


Intel.

Depends on what you're asking it to do.

Gaming, there's very little in between the two, especially if you've got a co-processor handling physics interactions (something like an nvidia GPU with PhysX enabled. Physics interactions were the single biggest load on a CPU during a game).
HD encoding, folding@home, anything requiring sheer flop power, then you're sadly mistaken if you think AMD are ahead in that department.

At the top end of the range, Intel's CPUs are clocked higher, so work much better with CPU intensive work.

For those of a technical minding, here's why AMD and Intel are neck and neck during random interactions in a gaming enviroment. Processor pipelining is MUCH shorter on an AMD chip, just by design. This gives the chip the ability to handle randomised dynamic data much more efficiently than the Intel counterpart. Due to ease of coding, interactions to outcomes are usually coded in the game itself, and handled as a single string. Of that interaction, if a random occurance happens (say you knock something over, then put something strangely shaped in that objects path, as a very crude example), then that string is rendered useless. As the Intel chips have a longer processor string by design, this means that more cycles are wasted by clearly that pipeline.

And the reason why Intel aren't miles behind in gaming because of that design? Random occurrences on an interaction are very rare, to the point that Intel don't care to make a shorter pipeline in the chips. High clock speed means that there's a greater overhead for inefficiency, caused by a chanceable event.

which is why if you're building a gaming rig most go with AMD for price.

I just built one on newegg ( saved my cart in my email for future buy) It is no that expensive and it has an i5.

You are seriously one of the few in the world who has a family that'll spend $1,400 on a computer for you on request.

To most of the world, $1,400 isn't "not that expensive."

That's around £912, right?

That's pretty expensive, my friends both built pretty high spec PCs for between £500 and £600

Intel, you can't argue with it, it's the only Processor with 6 cores.

That's if you are buying a i7 extreme.

Intel's chips in the same price ranges as AMD are far better. I'm not sure where this cheaper idea comes from. Maybe if you want an inferior product.

There was a time when the price argument held it's merit, but not so much anymore.

just a quick look on newegg

I can get a 3.0 dual core AMD for $65 or a 2.6 dual core Intel for $67

$2 less and 400 Mhz more. Sounds and looks cheaper to me...

Tell me which AMD CPU has six cores? Oh wait....