OK, I found a laptop, for 500 bucks, and it's perfect for me.
Except... it has an AMD processor. It's like Intel's Dual Core but it's AMD...
Now the store I'm getting it from said that AMD is better suited for games, but I don't believe him. Should i get the laptop even though it has the AMD? Does anyone recommend AMD processors? I've heard they aren't compatible with a lot of stuff, although I might be wrong.
Yeah... about AMD processors...
This topic is 15 years and 11 months old. Instead of replying, please begin a new topic, or search for another related topic that may be more suitable.
Re: Yeah... about AMD processors...
I'm using an Athlon X2 dual core and it sucks. For any game released before 2006, they will either get all choppy or start skipping which looks like digital fast-forward on crack. No amount of vsync fixes these problems. You have to either disable your second core on the individual process, or download their "Dual Core Optimizer" which I believe doesn't fix all the issues.
You wouldn't believe how long it took to figure out what the hell was going on.
You wouldn't believe how long it took to figure out what the hell was going on.
Re: Yeah... about AMD processors...
AMD dual cores fail. AMD's processors have been designed to work efficiently for a SINGLE core, not multiple. I strongly suggest a Core 2 Duo.
Re: Yeah... about AMD processors...
Yeah, I say go for an Intel. I have an Intel Core 2 Duo E7300, and the thing is amazing. It plays new games with no problem. I can do most things with hardly any load.
Re: Yeah... about AMD processors...
The price-point of AMD processors generally lower than that of Intel processors. Clock-for-clock, Intel processors are significantly faster than AMD ones.
If you can pay the premium, an Intel platform system will give you the best performance. But of course, you'll pay a little more.
If you can pay the premium, an Intel platform system will give you the best performance. But of course, you'll pay a little more.
Re: Yeah... about AMD processors...
Don't fall for the salesman trick. AMD have been inferior to Intel for a while now. Up until the Pentium 4, they could compete, because they had an efficient processor architecture that could rival with Intel's Netburst. However, since Intel made the jump into Core 2, AMD eats dust. I would not recommend AMD for mobile platforms, especially since Intel's price range is very competitive, and generally performs better, even with inferior clock speed. The thing about them not being compatible with a lot of stuff is not an issue, though.
You should post the laptop's specs and your alternatives to see what would be better. Maybe the AMD would compensate on the long run if your price range is 500$.
You should post the laptop's specs and your alternatives to see what would be better. Maybe the AMD would compensate on the long run if your price range is 500$.
変なの、信じられない
- vedicardi
- Member
- Posts: 8616
- Joined: August 22nd, 2007
- Location: 近寄らないで、汚らわしい
- Reputation: 6
- Contact:
Re: Yeah... about AMD processors...
Rapt0r wrote:AMD dual cores fail. AMD's processors have been designed to work efficiently for a SINGLE core, not multiple. I strongly suggest a Core 2 Duo.
tru fax rite here
Re: Yeah... about AMD processors...
OK. That blows haha.
Time to look for a new one. :(
Thanks for the help guys.
Time to look for a new one. :(
Thanks for the help guys.
Sig disabled. ~nwru
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests