......and this same old arguement starts again.
AMD were faster than intel. they are not any more and have not been for a while now. i have always had an amd because the price/performance was better than intels. not because i felt amd were faster, but i could get more "cpu" for my money if i stayed with amd.
for example, to go to intel would mean another new motherboard which is money that can be spent on the cpu. an am2+ board supports am3 chips so that'll also bridge the gap for a while.
i have yet to own a game that my phenom duel core and nv8800gt can't cope with.
i can play arma2 on mid-max settings with a 6km drawdistance and have no problems. all the racing games are on full settings and play smooth as silk.
to give you an idea, try to pick an intel cpu that is better than my phenom 550 for the same price (£70). if you get the right motherboard, you can also unlock the other two cores and thus getting yourself a top end amd quadcore for £70. you can't do that with an intel.
AMD were faster than intel. they are not any more and have not been for a while now. i have always had an amd because the price/performance was better than intels. not because i felt amd were faster, but i could get more "cpu" for my money if i stayed with amd.
for example, to go to intel would mean another new motherboard which is money that can be spent on the cpu. an am2+ board supports am3 chips so that'll also bridge the gap for a while.
i have yet to own a game that my phenom duel core and nv8800gt can't cope with.
i can play arma2 on mid-max settings with a 6km drawdistance and have no problems. all the racing games are on full settings and play smooth as silk.
to give you an idea, try to pick an intel cpu that is better than my phenom 550 for the same price (£70). if you get the right motherboard, you can also unlock the other two cores and thus getting yourself a top end amd quadcore for £70. you can't do that with an intel.
