h0tp0ck3t
OMG! Please do not buy a MAC to game on. Mac's do not get good specs. For the price of a decent mac you can get a godly AMD computer. Secondly MAC's cannot play a lot of games. Now let's do it this way. Intel vs. Amd, Intel's are good processors. But this being said intels overheat quite easily. They are fairly decent to game on, but mainly better for being able to open lots of lower end things at once, i.e youtube/facebook/msn messenger/installing some programs all at once. (FYI, Mac's use intel processors). So intel desktops or MAC computers are pretty much good for using for office work/school work. But if you want a graphic's based gaming computer. One that can run like mw3, bf3, crysis 2 without over heating your goning to want to go with an AMD processor.
Now lets compare price's. For a quad-core imac your looking at about $1200. For a quad-core AMD with a pretty nice ghx card you can get for about $800-900 if you know where to shop at. So now the price is much lower and the comparison is much more far off.
Moral to the story. Intel/Macs = Office work. AMD = Gaming computer.
And to all the kids that are going to troll and say everything im saying is wrong just dont bother. I've been doing computer work and repairs for over 10 years now. Well before most of you started junior high school. So don't bother telling me i'm wrong.
Thanks for the misinformation.
Macs CAN come with "good specs". You can buy upgrades to nicer graphic chipsets in the Macbook series or attempt installing your own in a Mac desktop.
OSX doesn't have a huge library of games, but now that Macs can run Windows natively and the hardware is completely compatible, most (if not all) games made for NT-based os's can run under Windows on a Mac assuming the graphics card/chipset is up to par.
Intel processors are good, and any system builder would know to go a little crazy with the CPU heatsink to overcompensate for higher operating temperatures. The temperature differences between like-stat AMD and Intel processors are nominal and not as drastic as they used to be with the P4/XP+ series.
AMD processors aren't better to run small tasks on. It doesn't help that you're mixing up CPU and RAM. RAM is what makes multi-tasking possible. You could argue that processor cores and load balancing have something to do with it, but AMD's main stay are 6-core and 4-core processors where half the cores only operate at half-perplexity. You're also referring to apps that are far more limited by internet speed than system speed.
If you want a computer that will play mw3, bf3, or crysis 2 without overheating, pick either AMD or Intel processors. Most of those games can depend on the CPU to compute in-game physics, but most new-ish graphics cards take care of that, too. If you want a computer that will play games well, you should be a little more worried about the graphics capabilities of the graphics card/chipset than worried about which CPU you purchase.
AMD processors are cheaper, but the current-gen have funky core configurations that don't compare to Intel's dual-core and quad-core offerings and the price offset isn't enough to consider the cut in performance.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Don't wave the "I've worked in the industry for more than 10 years" flag at the rest of us. I'm 30, and I've been rocking technology since I was nine. I'm not the only one around here, and experience doesn't automatically make you "more right". I'm not trying to attack you, but it's not chill to have this much bias and misinformation floating around the forums because people who don't know any better end up reading it and sharing your malformed opinion.
50
200
100
