INTEL - AMD & NVIDIA - ATI

Discussion in 'Graphic cards' started by krishnandu.sarkar, Sep 20, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. krishnandu.sarkar

    krishnandu.sarkar Simply a DIGITian

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,693
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Kolkata
    Hi friends.....I know this is a tough ques but the name says it all....!!

    What's the diff b/w INTEL and AMD processors?? Which one is best in which field?? Like I heard AMD processors r cheap, multimedia and graphics task can be done better in AMD. As well INTEL chips r better for multitasking etc etc..

    So I want to know the diff or maily specialization of them in each fields.

    And also the diff b/w NVIDIA and ATI graphics cards.


    THIS IS NOT A CONTROVERSIAL THREAD. I JUST WANT TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCES AND THE SPECIALIZATION FIELDS.
     
  2. Krow

    Krow Crowman

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Messages:
    4,330
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Delhi
    Intel has an advantage for video processing AFAIK while AMD has always been better for a media center PC. The question you asked is a very general one and google would help you much better. As far as GFX cards are concerned, both are pretty much equal in terms of performance except the high end segment where nvidia wins. Nvidia has PhysX and CUDA technologies while ATI has DX 10.1 and now soon will have 11 too.

    Value for money wise, AMD is much better than Intel until core i3 comes out as even now AMD has a solid upgrade path, which Intel has never had. To upgrade the CPU, you almost always need to change the mobo with Intel which has not always been the case with AMD.

    Regarding GFX cards, both are equally VFM and as long as they keep competing, they will always be. AMD had heating problems with their 48xx series cards, but with the new 40nm manufacturing process that has also gone in favour of AMD. IMO both are pretty much level in this field.

    For better replies, go to google and ask specific terms. :)
     
  3. OP
    OP
    krishnandu.sarkar

    krishnandu.sarkar Simply a DIGITian

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,693
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Kolkata
  4. OP
    OP
    krishnandu.sarkar

    krishnandu.sarkar Simply a DIGITian

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,693
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Kolkata
    hiiiiii........ny more comments???

    Ny gud link will be appriciated.....!!
     
  5. hell_storm2006

    hell_storm2006 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kolkata, Nagpur, Pune
  6. pimpom

    pimpom Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,357
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Techalomaniac summed it up nicely. Before Intel came out with their Core 2 technology, AMD processors were cheaper and faster in most applications. But even in those days, more people bought Intel systems simply because they had more brand prominence.

    Now Intel is faster and if you want a high-end rig regardless of cost, Intel is better. But AMD still offers better VFM, especially for low to mid-range systems.

    There are many people who heard that Intel Core 2 processors are fast and go for an Intel system as a general-purpose low-cost machine - gaming, browsing, word processing, etc. They buy an Intel CPU on an Intel motherboard with onboard graphics. That's a big mistake because Intel graphics suck big time. For the same price, AMD systems are still much better.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page