[AMD Processor vs Intel Processor] -
AMD Processor vs Intel Processor
Discuss AMD Processor vs Intel Processor
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
Hi I just joined and I have a few questions. Are AMD processors any better than a Pentium? Is the switch from Pentium to AMD smooth? I was looking at getting a new computer and I was introduced to an AMD processor so I was a little intrugued. Please nothing too in-depth, I'm just starting out in the PC world. At the moment, i'm looking at a 3200+ AMD processor (got a quote and the guy didn't write down the full name of hardly any thing).
the full computer setup is this (the quote was written down as this):
NVidia 6800 GT 256MB video card
2048MB PC3200 DDR RAM
S939 3200+
S939 K8NS Ultra MB
240GB RAIDED SATA
16x Dual Layer DVD+RW
Windows XP
ATX case
500W power supply
17" LCD monitor
Is this good to run the newest games like Doom 3, Half-life 2, etc? Also, do you think i should get a better processor?
Posted by: Nvidia fan boy
**** skippy! thats almost as good as my computer! you might want to get a 3500+ but what you got should still be good enough to run anything.
Posted by: True_Orb
[b][color=red][size=15]AAAAAHHHHHHHH![/size][/color][/b]
Basically, Pentiums give you slightly higher performance for a huge increase in price, and are known to be better with high-demand apps than AMD, whereas AMD is generally considered better for gaming.
AMDs are also known to run a little bit hotter.
I think if you're on a budget, gaming only with your PC, or looking for a high performance/cost ratio you should get an AMD.
If you have a lot of money to spend and you run a lot of taxing progs, go Intel.
People argue over this topic day in and day out and solve absolutely nothing. It might as well be an argument between religions or politics.
Posted by: Leonidas
how much is he charging you? and at a glance i think it looks quite nice, but check all the prices and see if he is overcharging you much... and as for AMD they are the current performance leaders hand down in games and **** close to intel on everything else... on these forums AMD is king, and throughout most the people who know about computers AMD is king... unless you are photoshop editting or such things... that comp will do fine on all new games... even tho it seems like too much RAM perhaps
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Nvidia fan boy [/i]
[B]**** skippy! thats almost as good as my computer! you might want to get a 3500+ but what you got should still be good enough to run anything. [/B][/QUOTE]
My dad runs a business and it's getting quite successful so he wants me and my games off his computer so he is buying me this compter. i'm in love with that video card though. 6800GT. mmmmm.
with monitor it's about 1800 USD. and i was lookin at the Soudn Blaster Audigy 2ZS Plantium Pro video card. so that's around 200 right? basically it's 2 grand.
also the RAM is there to run UG (UniGraphics)
Posted by: Nvidia fan boy
yea so was i! it was the greatest card of all until recently...
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
should i stick with the 6800GT? the guy i got a quote from was a big gamer and he said it should be fine for a while.
Posted by: Nvidia fan boy
yea the 6800GT is the most promissing card right now. EEE? core 800? hmm gotta find it!
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
alright, thanks for you help! i was just browsing some of the other threads and some of this stuff you guys get REALLY into! it's just phenominal how in-depth one can get with computers.
i find it very cool =)
Posted by: Nvidia fan boy
its all in the territory. you like to argure, share, or w/e w/ what you love.
Posted by: Nubius
[quote]Basically, Pentiums give you slightly higher performance for a huge increase in price, and are known to be better with high-demand apps than AMD, whereas AMD is generally considered better for gaming.
AMDs are also known to run a little bit hotter.
I think if you're on a budget, gaming only with your PC, or looking for a high performance/cost ratio you should get an AMD.
If you have a lot of money to spend and you run a lot of taxing progs, go Intel.
People argue over this topic day in and day out and solve absolutely nothing. It might as well be an argument between religions or politics.[/quote] probably the best and straight to the point piece of info you need regarding your question. Intel's stock is also dropping currently. There is a big demand for AMD's in prebuilt computer from companies like dell and hp etc...etc...but there was this article regarding the CEO from Dell talkin about how they don't need AMD to make money. He was quite arrogant about it really.
Posted by: True_Orb
:)
Posted by: Leonidas
oh well my athlon(clocked at 2.55ghz) that i got for 83$ can outperform 3.6 ghz pentiums for 450.00 both found on newegg... on both multimedia and arithmetic benchmarks on sandra... just doesnt bode well when technology from AMD that has been around for quite a while is beating a top intel chip of today, and with the AMD chips catchin up in all other areas, there is no doubt if things continue like this then intel will be looking up at AMD for a while.
Posted by: slvrstang
I say dumb 1 of the gig sticks of ram for a better processor, 3500+ or 4000+:D
Posted by: Echo_
nvidia can i see a pic of your comp, like inside and stuff sounds like it would look awesome
Posted by: True_Orb
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by slvrstang [/i]
[B]I say dumb 1 of the gig sticks of ram for a better processor, 3500+ or 4000+:D [/B][/QUOTE]
Thumbs up to that.
Posted by: OIDanTheManIO
If you're going to do things like photo and video editing, go with Pentium. But for gaming, go with AMD :)
-Dan The Man
Posted by: beedubaya
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Echo_ [/i]
[B]nvidia can i see a pic of your comp, like inside and stuff sounds like it would look awesome [/B][/QUOTE]
He doesn't really have that PC, its all a lie. There are threads and threads about it.
Posted by: Sevoma
I also agree to dump a gig of ram and have just dual sticks of 512mb.
Posted by: Smokin-A.I.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by beedubaya [/i]
[B]He doesn't really have that PC, its all a lie. There are threads and threads about it. [/B][/QUOTE]
i really hate it when all i see are " FLAMES " on a post , please dont do this again!
if its a lie then he has to live with it and we DONT..but give credit where credit is due ..he does have a bunc of his S@#t together!
as far as ram , the more the merrier , or so it goes , but for now 1 gig is more than you will need, although if you look to the future, 1 gig may not be enough... these things are changing so fast today 1 gig is enough , then next week its no where near what you need !
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
do you think 1GB RAM is sufficeint enough for UniGraphics-type programs?? I'm going to be running those along with mah games.
Posted by: jaksback
[color=red][b]if there is even one more hint of a flame or sarcastic remark in this thread, be it Amd vs Intel or someones computer or whatever this thread will be closed immediatly!!
why does this always happen in **** vs **** threads?! "vs." does [u]not[/u] mean its a free for all battle discounting others' opinions (or computer or intelligence).
::head shaking::
--jak[/b][/color]
Posted by: GeckoEcho421
Way to take charge jak lol.
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
again i ask do you think 1GB RAM is sufficeint enough for UniGraphics-type programs??
Posted by: Nubius
[quote]do you think 1GB RAM is sufficeint enough for UniGraphics-type programs?? I'm going to be running those along with mah games.[/quote] That'll be more than enough. You really don't need more than 1gb these days. Not yet anyway. Use a program like FreeMem and it'll tell you how much RAM is left in your system.
EDIT: [quote]again i ask do you think 1GB RAM is sufficeint enough for UniGraphics-type programs??[/quote] You posted 20 mins ago and a moderator had to address something else before it became more of a problem than it should have been. Keep your pants on man, your questions don't go unseen, no need to double post.
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
alright thanks
Posted by: Blake
so i guess the majority of the people on the forums think AMDs are way better than Intels?
I have nothing against AMD but personally i'd prefer Intel over AMD. =]
Posted by: Nubius
[quote]so i guess the majority of the people on the forums think AMDs are way better than Intels?[/quote] That's how flames get started (not saying you're starting a flame just listen to me for a sec :p ) But it's from Intels assuming people think AMD's are 'waaay better' this isn't the case....it's just that here in particular, people prefer AMD whereas you prefer Intel and each person has their reasons. You can't really label everyone in here as them 'Thinking AMDs are way better than Intel'
Like in my case, it's simply I prefer AMD, whereas you stated you prefer Intel. I won't lie to you, I've mostly dealt with AMD so I'll blatantly tell you I'm biased towards them. The things I like about AMD are some really simple reasons like the fact that they aren't advertising whores like Intel and haven't been around as long, so it's that underdog factor that makes me like them. Beyond that it seems that they listen to their consumers and try to make the best chip possible, whereas Intel, it really doesn't matter. They put chips in dells, HP's, e-machines, all for grandmas and whatnot so the majority of the people who use Intel generally don't know squat about computers whereas someone with an AMD Built machine either built it themselves, or atleast ordered the parts for someone else to build.... You kinda have to know a little about computers just to know of AMD, whereas you're practically born knowing about Intel as the leading brand.
Not saying you don't know computers just because you have Intel, I'm more speaking of course in terms of Dell, HP, prebuilt machines like that that your grandma use.
The majority of the people on here choose AMD, and they have their reasons. There are a few who will blindly say 'NAH AMD IS BETTER' but they will have nothing to back it up, so you just ignore those people.
Generally the rule of thumb around here is:
Intel = Apps
AMD = Gaming
which for the most part seems fairly true.
Plus you gotta like the fact that AMD can do more with 2GHz than Intel can. It would take Intel 3GHz depending on the type of core the 2GHz AMD had....my chip is OC'd to 2.5 right now for temperature reasons, but when it was at 2.7 I have benches where it would easily beat a 3.6 and up to 3.8GHz Intel depending on the bench and Intel chip. Obviously it's not benched against an EXTREME EDITION!!! Intel or anything like that, but still....2.7GHz comparing to 3.8 is pretty nice.
Posted by: True_Orb
1GB is more than enough RAM, and that money would be much better spent elsewhere.
What's more, you can always add RAM to your computer at no sacrifice, and if you add it later when you actually need it, it will be less costly. Parts like a vid card on the other hand, can only be replaced.
Spare yourself $200 and buy a 6800 GT or 9800 XT or some other high-end graphics card...or just pocket the cash! :)
Posted by: Blake
i wasn't really starting a flame, just wanted to see the 2 sides. But thanks for pointing out some things Nubius. I personally am not a hardcore gamer where i need my machine to be overclocked to the max with extreme water cooling type of person. Generally, what Intel has to offer is enough.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but i heard from other people that AMD cpus tend to run hotter than intel chips because intel cpu's have better cooling methods? again correct me if i'm wrong. I just want to confirm if thats true?
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Blake [/i]
[B]Correct me if i'm wrong, but i heard from other people that AMD cpus tend to run hotter than intel chips because intel cpu's have better cooling methods? again correct me if i'm wrong. I just want to confirm if thats true? [/B][/QUOTE]
somewhat true. Intels do tend to run cooler than AMD processors. But it isn't cuz' Intel "cooiling methods" are better.
Intel chips can run at less voltage than AMD chips most of the time...but that's because they do less work per clock cycle than AMD and don't need as much power to stay stable.
Aftermarket coolers are not related to Intel or AMD, so they can't be tied into the equation. That's what REALLY makes a difference in temperatures.
Posted by: Blake
so AMD is capable of processing way more stuff than intels can?
interesting.. i never knew that... =]
but then again, the hotter the chip.. the shorter its lifespan??
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Blake [/i]
[B]so AMD is capable of processing way more stuff than intels can?
interesting.. i never knew that... =]
but then again, the hotter the chip.. the shorter its lifespan?? [/B][/QUOTE]
not not necessarily. AMD's get pwned in multi-media calculations compared to Intel. AMD is usually for GAMing, Intel for media apps and stuff.
and again...the chip isn't necessarily HOT because it's an AMD. I am running 27C @ 2.5GHz...this chip will last a long time. and even running 45C all day long it should last a good 5+ yrs. at least.
Posted by: Blake
45..? isn't that hotter than average?
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Blake [/i]
[B]45..? isn't that hotter than average? [/B][/QUOTE]
below 50C is considered "safe" in most circumstances. My chip can run 100C before it will either fry or damage. Hottest i've ever had it was 63C on stock cooling.
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
will ALL AMD processors run with Windows XP Home?
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Snake-Eyes [/i]
[B]will ALL AMD processors run with Windows XP Home? [/B][/QUOTE]
uh yah...dont matter what CPU you have XP is compatible with anything. I suggest Professional edition though...
Posted by: jblaze725
this is a topic where noone will give you an honest answer. all amd users will say amds are better and all the intel users say intels are better. i dont see what the big deal is none of us is gettin paid to promote these companies so why stress it. use what you wanna use and thats it. they both have fast expensive chips as well as cheaper slower ones. overall amd is lower in price but not by as much as used to be the case. you can build a ridiculously good computer using either of these cpus.
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jblaze725 [/i]
[B]this is a topic where noone will give you an honest answer. all amd users will say amds are better and all the intel users say intels are better. i dont see what the big deal is none of us is gettin paid to promote these companies so why stress it. use what you wanna use and thats it. they both have fast expensive chips as well as cheaper slower ones. overall amd is lower in price but not by as much as used to be the case. you can build a ridiculously good computer using either of these cpus. [/B][/QUOTE]
well pretty much true, i think ive provided a fair answer and un-biased explanation. Intel is better in multi-media and AMD is generally know for being better in games. AMD is usually cheaper while an Intel rig performing the same will cost you a lil' more. But if you want to photo edit/video edit or something huge like that an Intel will usually prove better in the end, if you don't skimp on hardware.
Posted by: Sh0r_ty
U talked about the AMD's running hotter than the P4 but with the release of the Prescot that would seem to no longer be the case. AMD has got no better in the department but P4's have got worse
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Sh0r_ty [/i]
[B]U talked about the AMD's running hotter than the P4 but with the release of the Prescot that would seem to no longer be the case. AMD has got no better in the department but P4's have got worse [/B][/QUOTE]
Both AMDXP line and P4 line have mobile versions, which are really popular. Intel mobile chips run cooler. a bonus for Intel, even if it cant compete with the A64 line. that's just fact, not bias lol.
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
well i bought it! 2600 dollars well spent :-)
Memory: 1 GB
Video card: Radeon X800 XT (wanted the platinum, but the pops wouldn't shell out the extra 100 bucks, oh well.)
hard drive: RAID 0 240 GB (120GB x2)
Sound card: Creative Audigy 2ZS
Monitor: 17" LCD
Processor: AMD 3500+
mobo: VIA K8T800 Pro
PSU: 480W
All packed into an Alienware :-) can't wait until i get it! Doom 3/Half-life2 here i come!
Posted by: Nubius
[quote]this is a topic where noone will give you an honest answer. all amd users will say amds are better and all the intel users say intels are better.[/quote] Umm not hardly. If you look on page two I gave him a fine explination of the two as did 4W4K3, although in mine I blatantly I like AMD better. Regarding cooling you gotta remember Intel has real fat pipelines carrying that clock speed where as AMD has more shorter compact pipelines. This allows for AMD to do more calculations per cycle than Intel and also since Intel has those fat long pipes for those bigger clock speeds then they can remain cooler. The fact that AMD can do more per clock cycle makes up for the fact that Intels run a little cooler which like I said is simply because AMD does more with 2GHz than Intel would. It would take ATLEAST 2.5GHz Intel to compete with 2GHz AMD, this depending on which chips you use of course.
I'm not a 'hardcore gamer with extreme watercooling setup for overclocking' either. I got the XP-Mobile which runs at lower voltages, has a higher temp die of 100C compared to most desktop chips are 80-90C. The result in running lower voltages are lower temps. The chip is stock 1.8GHz but I'm running 2.5GHz at 28-30C Idle at depending on if I have my fans on full blast or not it might hit 40C which is WAY below what the chip would normally face stuffed inside a laptop.
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
oh gee not another one of these. Look Nvidia or ATI: Amd or Intel; its all personal preference. Its all in what you want and like. really one is better than the other in diff thigs and they all actually line out to be the same really so just anybody get what you want.
Posted by: Apokalipse
personally I like Athlon 64's better than Pentium 4's, and Pentium 4's better than Athlon XP's
the Athlon 64's don't really run hot, I would say 45C is about average with stock cooling
Pentium 4's own the Athlon 64's when it comes to decoding, .zip and .rar files, calculations, and whatnot, but the Athlon 64's get better gaming performance than Intel's CPU's, and that's why a lot of people like AMD, because most of what they do is games
BTW nice comp Snake-Eyes
the X800 XT is bound to give you really good gaming performance, even if the 6800 Ultra beats it in a lot of benchmarks
the 6800 Ultra with 800 core sounds really good too, I wonder if video cards will get over 1GHZ?
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by apokalipse [/i]
[B]the 6800 Ultra with 800 core sounds really good too, I wonder if video cards will get over 1GHZ? [/B][/QUOTE]
im sure they will. i know memory passed 1000MHz a while ago. and overclocked i think some card can do 1000MHz with extreme cooling. can't recall a pic though...
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
hince nvidia 650 core. anybody remember that one?
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by P.P. Mguire [/i]
[B]hince nvidia 650 core. anybody remember that one? [/B][/QUOTE]
i believe that ran at 250MHz correct? My 9200 runs at that speed...wonder what core it is...
EDIT: nope, uses the RV280 core. o well
Posted by: Kadahaf
Gaming=AMD
anything else...=....Intel
Sorry uncle Bill :mad:
Posted by: FoxyLoxy
Dang seriously guys we need to stop these threads. They are startin up everyday, mods you guys should compile a good thread and post it at the top and lock it so new people and people inquiring could read it. And let us be done until something radically new comes out.
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Snake-Eyes [/i]
[B]Hi I just joined and I have a few questions. Are AMD processors any better than a Pentium? Is the switch from Pentium to AMD smooth? I was looking at getting a new computer and I was introduced to an AMD processor so I was a little intrugued. Please nothing too in-depth, I'm just starting out in the PC world. At the moment, i'm looking at a 3200+ AMD processor (got a quote and the guy didn't write down the full name of hardly any thing).
the full computer setup is this (the quote was written down as this):
NVidia 6800 GT 256MB video card
2048MB PC3200 DDR RAM
S939 3200+
S939 K8NS Ultra MB
240GB RAIDED SATA
16x Dual Layer DVD+RW
Windows XP
ATX case
500W power supply
17" LCD monitor
Is this good to run the newest games like Doom 3, Half-life 2, etc? Also, do you think i should get a better processor? [/B][/QUOTE]
nice comp man!!!!;)
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kadahaf [/i]
[B]Gaming=AMD
anything else...=....Intel
Sorry uncle Bill :mad: [/B][/QUOTE]
Back yourself up man, before I make a good comeback! :D jk, but do back yourself up
Posted by: Blake
indeed, that is one nice computer... wish i had enough bling to get something like that. guess i gotta stick with what i have! =]
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
amd i best for gaming and thats hands down. look at any gaming forum(besides this one) and you will see that they all run amd(well most of them).
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by P.P. Mguire [/i]
[B]amd i best for gaming and thats hands down. look at any gaming forum(besides this one) and you will see that they all run amd(well most of them). [/B][/QUOTE]
i hardly call that hard facts AMD is better. most gamers run AMD because they can't afford Intel rig's and want the best performing rig they can have that fits there budgets.
You will see ALOT of XP line gaming machines (considered old/outdated now), and now you will see more A64 machines coming up. A decent P4 overclocked rig will out do certain A64's in the hands of a non-overclocker/beginner, i still see that (especially with the 754sockets). It's only when overclocked or tweaked that an A64 will really shine against the higher rates P4's. Modestly overclocked and tweaked the A64 will perform much better...but that takes time/money/alot of knowledge/and a pretty big risk (i dunno about you but gettin a $3K rig one day and frying it the next would **** me off...)
the A64 style of overclocking is alot different than the older XP line and it can be "tricky". they also seem to be very picky about what memory they will overclock with best.
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
My friends AMD FX-55 will smoke any P4 rig out there. Espeacially w/ the money hes put into it. And i think hes just gonna keep updating it as technology gets better(ie FX-57 and so on).
Posted by: waynejkruse10
like that system, good choice. Nabye a 3500+ s939
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
whos mine? im working on getting a s939. ive already ordered the board.
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by P.P. Mguire [/i]
[B]My friends AMD FX-55 will smoke any P4 rig out there. Espeacially w/ the money hes put into it. And i think hes just gonna keep updating it as technology gets better(ie FX-57 and so on). [/B][/QUOTE]
lol notice how i said socket 754 A64's, and ones that were not overclocked. A top of the line FX-55 and overclocked will definetly be at the top. even not overclocked i think it is up there. but like you said so is the price (well you kinda said it...) lol
Posted by: YanBooth
Which is better for all around performance though??
YB
Posted by: grego
I've read a ton of these AMD vs. Intel threads. Somehow I've reached my conclusion though.
It's generally accepted that: AMD is better in games, and Intel is better in transcoding, recoding, decoding, apps, etc.
Well ya know, whether my computer takes 20 or 30 minutes to render a video file, I'm not going to sit in front of it the whole time. However, I will sit in front of it the whole time I'm gaming. You will actually SEE the performance strong points in AMD. Whereas with Intel, what are you going to be doing while that file prepares? Out at a movie? A party? Banging the GF?
If I were to get a new desktop PC today, I'd get an AMD.
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
RIGHT ON!!!!!!:p
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by grego [/i]
[B]I've read a ton of these AMD vs. Intel threads. Somehow I've reached my conclusion though.
It's generally accepted that: AMD is better in games, and Intel is better in transcoding, recoding, decoding, apps, etc.
Well ya know, whether my computer takes 20 or 30 minutes to render a video file, I'm not going to sit in front of it the whole time. However, I will sit in front of it the whole time I'm gaming. You will actually SEE the performance strong points in AMD. Whereas with Intel, what are you going to be doing while that file prepares? Out at a movie? A party? Banging the GF?
If I were to get a new desktop PC today, I'd get an AMD. [/B][/QUOTE]
not everyone uses there computer for gaming though...i know i don't. if you were actually working (as in real work) than i'd go with the Intel...i watch my super_pi benching, and alot of other things that aren't game realted load and all that crap. it's only a matter of seconds most of the time, i can be that patient.
Posted by: grego
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 4W4K3 [/i]
[B]not everyone uses there computer for gaming though...i know i don't. if you were actually working (as in real work) than i'd go with the Intel...i watch my super_pi benching, and alot of other things that aren't game realted load and all that crap. it's only a matter of seconds most of the time, i can be that patient. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'd agree. If you use your PC mainly for work, I'd go Intel. That's if its HONESTLY for work, where efficiency = money, praise, etc. Not like, "yea once in a while I use it for work stuff." I just think for a lot of power-users (like most of us on this forum), yet not necessarily work users, AMD will produce the more noticable results.
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
Its fact no. amd=gaming intel=MP
Posted by: persianxballer
If a P4 system has a PCI Express video card, will it be better for gaming than an AMD with an AGP card?
Posted by: grego
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by persianxballer [/i]
[B]If a P4 system has a PCI Express video card, will it be better for gaming than an AMD with an AGP card? [/B][/QUOTE]
Um. That's a really odd question, there are so many variables.
But as of 12/12/2004, your basic answer is no. AGP=PCI Express as far as performance right now, so it can't really make a p4 machine faster at gaming than an amd.
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
yea cause nothing utilizes the 16x pci express yet so its basically the same except ur wasting more money.
Posted by: grego
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by P.P. Mguire [/i]
[B]yea cause nothing utilizes the 16x pci express yet so its basically the same except ur wasting more money. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually it's more like you're investing your money.
But anyway, let's not let this get too far off topic....
Posted by: 4W4K3
SLI is the way to go for maximum performance IMO. Any card you get (that supports SLI) will be outdone by same card in an SLI setup:) of course there not out yet i believe....so start saving:)
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
true ture.
Posted by: pc_boy
BUY AN AMD OR [color=red]snipped[/color]
now now be nice
--jak
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
i already bought it, it is shipping this Thursday :D I CAN'T WAIT!!
:love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love:
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Snake-Eyes [/i]
[B]i already bought it, it is shipping this Thursday :D I CAN'T WAIT!!
:love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: [/B][/QUOTE]
awesome! i wish i could order my presents early so i would get them on x-mas day:( (or earlier lol) i gotta order mine after x-mas...hopefully fed-ex wont be too backed up.
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
I ordered my 3500+s939 and MSI mobo.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
Nice : )
Posted by: starforsaken
you guys and all your shipping.... i worked at a shipping company and when that stuff is unloaded it just gets toosed around. It 's amazing that as much stuff survives as does...what companies? and what type of shipping?
Posted by: waynejkruse10
thats freaky, no wonder there are so many DOA's
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
i'm buying from Alienware and i'm not sure what company is shipping. I think UPS but not totally sure.
Posted by: Nubius
I never assumed shipping companies did anything less than just toss the packages around. That's what foam peanuts, proper packing, and RMA's are for ;)
I received a graphics card where the metal bracket that you screw into your case, had had so much weight on it, it was not only bent but the metal edge went through the anti-static bag, the Drivers CD, through the bubblewrap.....card still worked :D
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
Wow makes me think twice about fed-ex!
Posted by: Leonidas
as for SLI it is out, and no PCI-e doesnt give a benefit even tho i think it theoretically should since it can send data in both directions simulataneously... oh well i guess theoretical doesnt always work out.
Posted by: Smauler
Anyone looking for a high end system now should really wait IMO. The Asus A8N-SLI motherboard is one example of the type of thing coming out pretty soon. Dual 9800GTs are possible (if you want to spend that kind of cash), upgradeable for quite a while yet. PCI-Express I wouldn't do without with a new PC, there's no real point in getting a new AGP M/B, despite the fact it'll be as quick right now (though SLI will be quicker). I suppose if you need a AMD 64 system right now, you've got no option though.
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
Well you still have the option of buying a sweet MSI mobo s939!
Posted by: sniper234
a AMD 64 and XP is better for games the best processors of AMDs is a64's the XPs are very stable and a good gaming processors intel processors suck in my opinion
Posted by: Pridurak
AMD Atlon FX-55@2.6ghz
2gig Corsair TwinX XMS DC Platinum PC3200.
Plextor Dual Layer 16X DVD+- R/RW
2x400gig SATA RAID
Geforce 6800Ultra EE core@650/mem@1350
1 30" Voodoo LCD TV's w/ speakers
SoundBlaster Audigy2ZS Platinum Pro
Creative Gigaworks7.1 700watts
3dmark03-19875
Aquamark03-72,365
Wow! someones got money. Nvidia Fan boy...
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
all he spends his money on is his g/f and his computer. he disregards anything else. I think the only other time he spends money on anything else is christmas lol.
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
nah, he lives with his computer and his girlfriend is an accessory :D
Posted by: Smokin-A.I.
Hey thats what they used to say about my wife and i...
my guitar then my wife..mmmmm wonder if its the same?
Ahhh but no now its my computer and then...........lol
Posted by: jaksback
or as my ex used to call my computer...."the widow maker"
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
just an update, my computer is being shipped and should be here tomorrow or the next day!
I CAN'T WAIT!! :D
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
i have my MSI NEO2 PE now!
Posted by: Rizinc4
In almost every online poll you'll see that FedEx is number one, UPS is two, and USPS is three. I personally prefer FedEx, but I don't have any problems with UPS. USPS is just plain old SLOW! I haven't used DHL yet, has anyone else?
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
its pretty nice. bout the same as any other.
Posted by: Apokalipse
why do people say that, just because a processor may perform somewhat better than another processor, that the processor that doesn't perform as well "sucks"
the CPU that doesn't perform as well may still be all you need to do whatever it is you do
Intel's CPU's are great for gaming and for multimedia, and so are AMD's CPU's, so let's just leave it at that
btw those computers you're getting are pretty nice
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
Well. it was SUPPOSED to have been here Thursday night. It wasn't. it snowed REALLY bad the previous night, so i can understand but they had ALL DAY yesterday to get it to me. Didn't arrive. So now i have to wait until Monday. A little dissapointed, but oh well. i really can't wait for my system to get here.
Merry Christmas!
Posted by: socom234
thats a tight ace machine if u decide to buy it u should have no problems running any of the latest games.
Posted by: TRDCorolla1
After days of thinking of whether to go with the new Pentium 4 HT, I've decided to go with the Athlon 64. There is a Gigabyte board with the new nForce4 chipset that supports PCIe, but unfortunately no support for DDR2 yet. SUcks. Still good though because Athlon 64 have built in memory controller.
Posted by: Raekwon
gigabyte isnt the only company to make AMD boards with PCI-E and the NF4 chipset supports SLI, even so, gigabyte are still not the only company to make SLI boards, every company will eventually. in my opinion Abit make the best motherboards, then MSI, then Asus.
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
quick off-topic question, how are benchmarks rated, the higher the number, the better the system?
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Snake-Eyes [/i]
[B]quick off-topic question, how are benchmarks rated, the higher the number, the better the system? [/B][/QUOTE]
usually. it depends on what type of bench. HDD access time you want less time, and you want less time to render a picture and all of that. but they usually just make it into "points" and the higher the better. bandwidth you wnt more of...it just depends on what type of bench.
Posted by: brobiche
I am not into gaming, and I will not be photo/video editing much, if at all. I do a lot of multitasking. I looked in to the P4 with HT, but it is soimply not portable enough for me. Would an amd athlon 64 or a pentium m suit me better?
Posted by: waynejkruse10
a athlon 64-m is the fastest cpu found in laptops at the moment, but you only find them in desktop replacement notebooks.
Posted by: bigdawgjts2663
Dude, that computer will run Doom 3 on high graphics. I have an Abit mobo w/ a sock. 939 @ 2.2 GHz, a 256 MB 5700 LE nVidia graphics card, 1 gig RAM, 240 gig HD (7200 RPM) simple CD Burner and mine will run doom 3 on the 2nd to best quality graphics w/o lag, and run anyother game on highest graphics w/o lag, including Halo 2, UT2K4, Rise of Nations, Ghost Recon, Duh, and well, really any other game, that graphics card is awsome too, tell us the price quote he gave you?
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
halo2 isnt out on pc yet. get ur stuff right lol.
Posted by: wes74
some one said that the intel chip is shipped with dell and hp and compaq, is this on all comps or were u just making a general statement, cuz we just got an hp with an AMD XP 3000+ , but the dell we got did have the intel in it.
just got the dell today but i'm not allowed to run games on any computer so can't tell you which one is better
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
Im pretty sure you can choose what chip you have in any pre-built computer. And that sux alot that you can tplay pc games.
Posted by: bigdawgjts2663
I meant just to say Halo, and I have "my stuff " right.....
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by bigdawgjts2663 [/i]
[B]I meant just to say Halo, and I have "my stuff " right..... [/B][/QUOTE]
what mobo do you have? just curious...
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by bigdawgjts2663 [/i]
[B]Dude, that computer will run Doom 3 on high graphics. I have an Abit mobo w/ a sock. 939 @ 2.2 GHz, a 256 MB 5700 LE nVidia graphics card, 1 gig RAM, 240 gig HD (7200 RPM) simple CD Burner and mine will run doom 3 on the 2nd to best quality graphics w/o lag, and run anyother game on highest graphics w/o lag, including Halo 2, UT2K4, Rise of Nations, Ghost Recon, Duh, and well, really any other game, that graphics card is awsome too, tell us the price quote he gave you? [/B][/QUOTE]
Can you run FarCry on highest video settings?
Posted by: sharpobjectss
I do a lot of work in photoshop and other very demanding applications, however I also need something to handle the very latest games. Would AMD be the logical choice or Intel. I know amd is the new gaming choice however a lot of other people say Pentium handles apps better.
Posted by: jvc8400
Just a thought.....I was talking on the phone to a Intel rep who told me that there coming out with a Dual core processor and that information would be public around the end of Jan 2005
Who knows where processors could be in 6 months??
Right.
Posted by: socom234
ya i heard about the dual processor core to in the january addition of maximum pc mag. so if you would like to no more about it just get that mag im sure they will be following it up every month with more info
Posted by: bigdawgjts2663
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Snake-Eyes [/i]
[B]Can you run FarCry on highest video settings? [/B][/QUOTE]
Well, if it requires more than 500 megs of memory than no, as doom 3 does, but if it only requires as much graphics card power as like UT2K4 or Halo, than you will be alright. Most likely, yes, I would say, but I have never played farcry on the comouter I mentioned.
Posted by: bigdawgjts2663
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 4W4K3 [/i]
[B]what mobo do you have? just curious... [/B][/QUOTE]
I have an ABIT KV something or other, it is the only ABIT mobo out with socket 939 for AMD.
Posted by: bigdawgjts2663
Overall, AMD would be your logical choice, it is highend for gaming and performs 18% better than a pentium processor in it's equivialnt (stats from PC magazine) (AMD 64 3400+ v. P4 3.4 GHz) so I mean highend for gaming yes, but evens out about right for apps aside P4, plus when the new windows 64 bit comes out at full force, and new 64 bit apps are being created, it will show the true potential of the AMD 64 chips, they are only working at 1/2 speed now.....just something to think on.
Posted by: Cappy
All i can say is im quite happy with the 1st AMD system ive built .
I came from PII 233/ PIII 750 / P4 2.53 / P4 2.8 / Then there came the next generation of P4 EE and AMD FX . After a great amount of research and study at the time AMD FX was a solid choice . Intel has its work cut out for them in order to win me back :) .
Posted by: Rodrigo
I have always personally believed, overclocking of the Processors to be hazardous at times, but if you are going to OC, I suggest you to it to an AMD Athlon, they can stand temperatures up to .. 60C I believe, whereas a pentium at 50C might.. well break and crash on you, and your short a few hundred dollars. AMD's are the gaming processors, whereas Intel Celeron Pentiums, hold your better business days.
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rodrigo [/i]
[B]I have always personally believed, overclocking of the Processors to be hazardous at times, but if you are going to OC, I suggest you to it to an AMD Athlon, they can stand temperatures up to .. 60C I believe, whereas a pentium at 50C might.. well break and crash on you, and your short a few hundred dollars. AMD's are the gaming processors, whereas Intel Celeron Pentiums, hold your better business days. [/B][/QUOTE]
Desktop Athlons will take 65C...i ran a 2400+ for a while at that temp and its still wroking.
My mobile can take temps up to 100C...very kewl.
50C won't hurt your processor at all, be it Pentium or AMD...unless we are talking ancinet chips. But you said Athlons and Celerons...both will take well over 50C.
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
i like to keep mine under 50 though lol.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
my first computer was a 486 33mhz, then i got a 486 66mhz, then i got a Amd k6-2 550mhz, then i got my Axp 2200+ and love it.....
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
My first computer was a comodore64 and my second one was a Pentium1 133mhz oc'd to 150mhz(WOW!!) my third computer was a 950mhz duron and then my 4th was a 2600+ and now what i got.
Posted by: ReverseFluxx
When I was born, we had a Commodore 64, then we got an IBM 286, then a PI 120mhz. Then I got my own first computer, a 900mhz Athlon, which I'm still using, along side with a PIII 450mhz. I'm hoping to get an upgrade soon, hopefully an Athlon 64 3500.
Posted by: Rizinc4
At least with an Intel chip when you OC, and it overheats, you can just shut it down, and back the OC off a little... AMD chips just roast like a marshmellow on a cozy campfire.
Posted by: bigdawgjts2663
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rizinc4 [/i]
[B]At least with an Intel chip when you OC, and it overheats, you can just shut it down, and back the OC off a little... AMD chips just roast like a marshmellow on a cozy campfire. [/B][/QUOTE]
Not if you have a good mobo to control your processor. My mobo automatically shuts down if my system/power supply/processor get to hot. My processor can get to a temp of 185 degrees F, and it doesn't fry, my mobo shuts my PC off. I consider that pretty hot, and I can OC my processor from 2.2 GHz to 2.4 GHz (dont know if that is a lot) and mine has a crappy heatsink, and it doesn't overheat :)
Posted by: 4W4K3
Yes most higher end AMD mobos have the same heat safety's that Intel has. You set the temp you want it to warn you at, shutoff at. Mine is 75C i believe, but my chip will go to 100C AMD states. I have it warn at 50C in speedfan, 65C warn in BIOS, and 75C shutoff in BIOS. I usually never go over 42C @ 2.4GHz even after hours of gaming...so 50C would be somewhat of a problem.
Posted by: Blake
high temps cause cpus to have shorter life spans...
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Blake [/i]
[B]high temps cause cpus to have shorter life spans... [/B][/QUOTE]
65C+ probably will cut lifespan. but running below that 24/7 i dont think is any problem. My intel runs ~40C idle and 55C load all the time, and my main rig 28C-42C...the differences in temps are pretty large...but i still think this 5yr. old Intel would last ALOT longer than my 1 yr. old main rig. Just cuz it's not overclocked.
Posted by: Amd64Boy
Although AMD runs much hotter there proccesers are better in quality and reliability . Overall of your ooking for power go with AMD's 64 bit
Posted by: bigdawgjts2663
well, thats also saying that you are going to have the same processor and it die out when you wanna get another one. The processor I currently have (AMD 64 3400+, socket 939) will be outdated in about 2-3 years. Processors lifespans are longer than that, and depending on how long you are on your computer, a processor will last a lot longer than that. A processor usualy lasts 1,000,000 hours, or 114 years (approx.), and by then the technology you have will be FAR outdated. You will by then have upgraded your computer, and plus shave a few years off of that...think about it?
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by bigdawgjts2663 [/i]
[B]A processor usualy lasts 1,000,000 hours, or 114 years (approx.), [/B][/QUOTE]
you said "usually" and then "approx" lol...kind of odd. but i have a ?
Are those tests run at default everything? And does the time frame differ for Mobile chips? It can't be the same for EVERY chip i'm sure. Some run theres a 2.2v, others downclock and run at 1.4v...it's hard to believe both would live around the same length of time. I know my grandpa will be keeping his 600MHz Vectra until he dies, he knows nothing about computers past checking your e-mail,0ssurfing the web, and chatting on MSN, he could want it to last him another 30yrs. if he lives that long. But it's not overclocked so no worries i think.
Posted by: rooster
quote:Originally posted by bigdawgjts2663
A processor usualy lasts 1,000,000 hours, or 114 years (approx.),
and how do we know that is true because computers haven't even existed 114 years.
Posted by: Rizinc4
Probably because they can put a certain amount of stress on a processor to simulate years of usage. Then make an educated guess as to how long the average processor will last.
Posted by: ReverseFluxx
They know the half-life of elements that are millions of years. They know this because they can look at the amount of radiation given off of an element for a short period of time to find out how long is needed to reach the half life.
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ReverseFluxx [/i]
[B]They know the half-life of elements that are millions of years. They know this because they can look at the amount of radiation given off of an element for a short period of time to find out how long is needed to reach the half life. [/B][/QUOTE]
that must be a REAAALLLYYYY small level of radiation.
Posted by: bigdawgjts2663
Yea, it's just science, and educated guess at how long the processor can last, they put normal stress, as an average of daily usage, then take note of the detereration of the componets of the chip, then make a guess, exactly what Rizinc4 said.
Posted by: 180Mhz
pentiums and amd have about the same performance rating but pentium is easier to overclock and can be forced to do much more than amd can, amd on the other hand, although not haveing the overclocking capabilitys that pentiums do are generaly more stable when overclocked, than pentiums are, thus why they are a frequent choise for gaming.
Posted by: ReverseFluxx
If you want to overclock, switch to a Motorolla processor ;).
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 180Mhz [/i]
[B]but pentium is easier to overclock and can be forced to do much more than amd can[/B][/QUOTE]
well i dunno. personally i think an AMD Mobile chip is so much easier to overclock because i've used it for a long time. you don't have to mess with ratios, you're fully unlocked...i jsut think it's easier. some Intel chips are great ocers, some aren't, same with AMD. i've seen 1000MHz+ overclocks on both.
Posted by: bigdawgjts2663
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 4W4K3 [/i]
[B]that must be a REAAALLLYYYY small level of radiation. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yea, half-life can only br traced to about ten thousands years, but really, that has nothing to do with a processor, more with isotopes, and elements, and stuff. It's like ou find the half-life of an element, say the half life is 10 years, then in ten years, there will be 50% of the mother isotope left, and 50% of the daughter isotope in the element. Every half-life it cuts the mother isotope in half. That is why Earth's core can never cool off or stop, it is based upon, or working on half life, and if you half something, you can keep on halfing it, it never ends. So really, processors aren't based on half life, because it isn't an element. LOL, and plus half-life usually, over a certain amount of years, produces a new element.
Posted by: ReverseFluxx
I was just using the half life description as an example of comparison. Obviously processors aren't tested for half life, but the general idea is similar, you take an observation over a short amount of time and multiply the time respectively.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
i wouldnt say amd's are worse to overclock, look at the 45w Athlon Xp - Mobile 2400+
Posted by: Codeine
Say what..? AMD are alot better to OC. They are made for OC purpose. I dont see any Intel processor thats as easy to OC as the Xp's. Same with semprons.
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
Umm semprons arnt that great of processors.
Posted by: m1thotyn
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Codeine [/i]
[B]Say what..? AMD are alot better to OC. They are made for OC purpose. I dont see any Intel processor thats as easy to OC as the Xp's. Same with semprons. [/B][/QUOTE]
Thats way off. overclocking k7 chips bring forth alot of heat and you're lucky to get 300-400 mhz stable. My friend OC'ed his 2.4GHz p4 northwood right out of the box to 3.4GHz, ran CPU burn-in for an hour max temp 54c with no errors, he cranked it to 3.7Ghz for show then dropped it to 2.8 to run at and has had it since early summer.
P4's are definitely the best overclockers but higher clock speeds don't necessarily equal better performance.
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
Have you seen the oc's off of the XP-M chips? they are insane!
Posted by: m1thotyn
Somewhat but I have yet to meet or hear of anyone in person that has gotten one over 2.8GHz. Tomshardware pushed a P4 to 5.2GHz using liquid nitrogen for cooling, doesent mean it can really run that way or that you'll be able to do it. I'll judge the mobile athlons overclockability on wether I see it running stable for myself, the entire idea really is that they run at a lower voltage now that takes care of a heating problem, but I don't think it would be stable. If I see it, i'll beleive it.
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by m1thotyn [/i]
[B]Thats way off. overclocking k7 chips bring forth alot of heat and you're lucky to get 300-400 mhz stable. My friend OC'ed his 2.4GHz p4 northwood right out of the box to 3.4GHz, ran CPU burn-in for an hour max temp 54c with no errors, he cranked it to 3.7Ghz for show then dropped it to 2.8 to run at and has had it since early summer.[/B][/QUOTE]
that's average for a 2.4/2.6C chip...3.2-3.4GHz is doable on alot of Intel systems, even with not so hot hardware. But compare those to a 3.0GHz XP-M PC. like you said...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by m1thotyn [/i]
[B]P4's are definitely the best overclockers but higher clock speeds don't necessarily equal better performance. [/B][/QUOTE]
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
Ask nubius or 4w4k3 they will show you.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
[QUOTE]Thats way off. overclocking k7 chips bring forth alot of heat and you're lucky to get 300-400 mhz stable. My friend OC'ed his 2.4GHz p4 northwood right out of the box to 3.4GHz, ran CPU burn-in for an hour max temp 54c with no errors, he cranked it to 3.7Ghz for show then dropped it to 2.8 to run at and has had it since early summer.[/QUOTE]
My friend had that chip and he could push it over 3.4ghz with no problems. Thats because thats a great overclocking chip. Other models with different clock speeds and core technology's overclock differently. Amd's athlon xp is known to be great for overclockers as well. There is a mod where you can turn a Desktop XP chip into a Mobile chip with Athlon MP capabilities as well. That means the a whole bunch of extensions have been unlocked and overclocking is a delight. Depending on your motherboard, with a completely modded Barton 2500+, you can get full voltage control, multiplier access from 1.0x to 24x and bus changing of coarse. With water cooling you could push it past 3200+ speed.
Wayne
Posted by: pc_boy
hey guyz, I never heard any1 ov3rclocking a Pentium. Any luck? SOunds phony!! ;) :D
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
Hey guys where exactly would i find this mod? THose MP processors are a Byatch to find and if i could mod my dads instead than he would be happy and prolly buy me something HAHAA:p
Posted by: waynejkruse10
[url]http://www.livepublishing.co.uk/pcextreme/page_316.shtml[/url]
remember, only thouroughbred, and some bartons can be used, its all explained there. If you want more infomation type in "Athlon Mp Mod" or something like it at google. Also, the conductive fluid i used which is great is here :
[url]http://www1.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=NS3030&CATID=&keywords=silver&SPECIAL=&form=KEYWORD&ProdCodeOnly=&Keyword1=&Keyword2=&pageNumber=&priceMin=&priceMax=&SUBCATID=[/url]
Posted by: hygor
thing is... everyone says AMD for Gaming, Intel for Apps.... I switched from Intel to AMD about 5 years ago and havent looked back since, I do a lot of programming (web based Html, css (use notepad (no real processing power needed) and Visual Studio .Net) and I also do a **** of a lot of Graphics work using Photoshop CS and PSP 9.0 (all of this using an AMD Athlon XP1900+) without any problems... I have now just purchased an Athlon 64, compatible mobo and gfx card... I do not have to have the best system avail... so have gone for a 3200+ 64 and a 6600GT gfx card... and considering the only thing my current system has a problem with is games, I know I will be fine with my new set up... the fact that people say Intel are better at apps is irrelevant... as they run on even old systems (like mine)... so IMO go for a cheaper AMD system and you shall no probs with games or apps!!!
Posted by: Apokalipse
you cannot say that "Intel CPU's overclock better" or that "AMD CPU's overclock better"
Intel and AMD have made many different CPU's, some overclock well and some don't. it depends on the CPU itself, not the name of the manufacturer
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
its like i said earlyer. Its just really personal preference. GO w/ what name appeals to you and buy it, its as simple as that!
BTW i need to do it to a 2500+ barton. Will it work on that? i already printed out that site earlyer today. And where can i get that stuff you got here in the us?
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by hygor [/i]
[B]thing is... everyone says AMD for Gaming, Intel for Apps.... I switched from Intel to AMD about 5 years ago and havent looked back since, I do a lot of programming (web based Html, css (use notepad (no real processing power needed) and Visual Studio .Net) and I also do a **** of a lot of Graphics work using Photoshop CS and PSP 9.0 (all of this using an AMD Athlon XP1900+) without any problems... I have now just purchased an Athlon 64, compatible mobo and gfx card... I do not have to have the best system avail... so have gone for a 3200+ 64 and a 6600GT gfx card... and considering the only thing my current system has a problem with is games, I know I will be fine with my new set up... the fact that people say Intel are better at apps is irrelevant... as they run on even old systems (like mine)... so IMO go for a cheaper AMD system and you shall no probs with games or apps!!! [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree 100%!!!! I do a h*!! a lot of 3D work in MAYA and a h*!! a lot of photo editing in photoshop cs, i can stitch like 10 5-MP images, hey that is like 50 megapixels. I had no problems with either 2d or 3d, and dude, I have a 9600SE and you can't say that does the trick cuz it doesn't. When you say intel is better for APPS, that is 100% opinion and unfortunatelly you are wrong. Plus, what is the difference when the processor processes games or apps. It is still numbers and that is all, so for the CPU is the same thing. SO GET AN AMD DANG IT!!!!!!:mad: :p :p ;) :D
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pc_boy [/i]
[B]I agree 100%!!!! I do a h*!! a lot of 3D work in MAYA and a h*!! a lot of photo editing in photoshop cs, i can stitch like 10 5-MP images, hey that is like 50 megapixels. I had no problems with either 2d or 3d, and dude, I have a 9600SE and you can't say that does the trick cuz it doesn't. When you say intel is better for APPS, that is 100% opinion and unfortunatelly you are wrong. Plus, what is the difference when the processor processes games or apps. It is still numbers and that is all, so for the CPU is the same thing. SO GET AN AMD DANG IT!!!!!!:mad: :p :p ;) :D [/B][/QUOTE]
It's not quite that simple. Run a simple Sandra Multi-Media Benchmark and you will see the "same" rated Intel chip will beat your AMD chip point wise (even overclocked your AMD has alot of catching up to do.)
What you are saying is in "real world" applications your AMD runs fast enough for you and gets the job done, and that's all you want, I agree 100%. No Intel system is going to give me "better" performance for what i need, because my AMD does all i want and more. But if you raise your epxectations alot, or become a benchmark enthuisiast, Intel is really the only way to go when using multi-media apps.
Same thing but backwards for gaming, You will see that the "same" rated AMD chip does better in gaming apps than it's Intel chip competition. Overclocking will easily match the 2, but if you are on Intel and only worried about "real world" performance and not points in a benchmark, then your Intel will run just fine.
People are just too picky...you cant say one is really better than the other (with "matched" processors) without being completely biased.
Posted by: Ace No-Money
My pc froze when I finished typing this the first time so here it goes again! I used to have a P4 2.8GHz 800fsb with a D865PERL mobo and it kicks my athlon 2500+'s butt! I sold my p4 and bought the athlon cause I thought the 2.8GHz was overkill and used the extra money to buy a new case and better peripherals. My new system is much quiter and much easier to work with also! It just doesn't have the power my 2.8 did particularly when working with files and multitasking. Games are the most important to me and I was very glad to find there wasn't much of a difference in performance during gameplay. Im pretty happy with my athlon xp barton and hope to overclock it to atleast 3200+ speeds! [B]I still miss my P4 though[/B] I'm tellin ya buy an athlon instead and double up on memory!
I just bought this off of eBay!
[B]Radeon 9800pro 128mb/256bit (r360 core?) = $175.00
and
ABIT NF7-S v2.0 with all accessories = $64.00[/B]
Posted by: mlr
lol i wonder if the people who make the amd and pentium chips argue like this i can just imagine them phoning each other up saying our chips are better than yours and vice versa lmao
Posted by: Smokin-A.I.
well to say the least you all are right ! When it comes to which is better..again i say use amd for gaming and intel for programing.
i havent seen any better than an intell for ding 3d work and multitasking ! also i havent seen an amd get beat for gaming!
one thing you must try to remember is what are you going to do with it and how many things do you want it to do at one time ! Oh and dont forget to run your test on chips that are equal agains one another.
Best guess get what you want your chip to do and nothing will beat it , except for a new one!
a 900 wont beat a 1,2m nor will a 1.2m beat a 3.2 m, if ya got the bucks , then buy the " MOST EXPENSIVE" and the fastest and you cant be beat (cept your wallet!) no matter what brand you have ! lol
Posted by: Apokalipse
you don't necessarily buy the most expensive, some stores overprice CPU's, and some cheaper CPU's outperform more expensive CPU's
when the socket 939 3200+'s first came out, they were actually cheaper than the socket 754 ones
Posted by: MasterJason
but the socket 939 3200's kick some serious but mine does 2600mhz+ stable on a Tt Polo 735 with AS5
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MasterJason [/i]
[B]but the socket 939 3200's kick some serious but mine does 2600mhz+ stable on a Tt Polo 735 with AS5 [/B][/QUOTE]
exactly. alot of the 3000/3200+ 939 processors will overclock better than smome of the 3500+'s. but most of the time the 3 processors top out ~ the same...
Posted by: neosteve
The 3000+ 3200+ and the 3500+ are the exact same things just they are clocked higher than one another.
I totally agree that some 3000+ and 3200+ sometimes even overclock better than the top of the range 3500+ but they will mostly top the same speed
The fastest Winchester is a 3200+ instead of the 3500+ so that proves that some of the lower range CPU's can be better than a top range one.
But this is not the case all the time.
Neosteve
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
So what do yall think i should get? a 3500+ or oc a 3200+? BTW this is going on my new DFI NF4 board lol. (NF4 meaning Nforce 4)
Posted by: neosteve
Same thing i would get the 3200+ so that you can save a bit of cash for something else.
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 4W4K3 [/i]
[B]It's not quite that simple. Run a simple Sandra Multi-Media Benchmark and you will see the "same" rated Intel chip will beat your AMD chip point wise (even overclocked your AMD has alot of catching up to do.)
What you are saying is in "real world" applications your AMD runs fast enough for you and gets the job done, and that's all you want, I agree 100%. No Intel system is going to give me "better" performance for what i need, because my AMD does all i want and more. But if you raise your epxectations alot, or become a benchmark enthuisiast, Intel is really the only way to go when using multi-media apps.
Same thing but backwards for gaming, You will see that the "same" rated AMD chip does better in gaming apps than it's Intel chip competition. Overclocking will easily match the 2, but if you are on Intel and only worried about "real world" performance and not points in a benchmark, then your Intel will run just fine.
People are just too picky...you cant say one is really better than the other (with "matched" processors) without being completely biased. [/B][/QUOTE]
HA, HA, funny... Raise the expectations??? ok, tell me what else would be more computer demanding application other than MAYA or 3D animation crap? You sound like " ya, you think your computer is good cuz you don't do $h!# with it."" well guess what, photo editing, especially 50Mega Pixel images and 3D Animation, modeling and rendering, there is nothing else you can do with a computer that requres more. So just don't try to say anything, cuz I ain't like many otherz who just use a computer to check emails. Plus I have benchmarked my computer against lots of other pentiums, like a 1.8 GHZ P4, a 2.0GHZ P4 and a 2.8GHZ P4 with HT tech. and 800FSB, and none of them can stand against the great power of my AMD. ....so I win! :p :p
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by P.P. Mguire [/i]
[B]So what do yall think i should get? a 3500+ or oc a 3200+? BTW this is going on my new DFI NF4 board lol. (NF4 meaning Nforce 4) [/B][/QUOTE]
DUDE, W-T-F, your computer is already fast enough, don't try to overclock it ...sheesh!!!:D ;)
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ace No-Money [/i]
[B]My pc froze when I finished typing this the first time so here it goes again! I used to have a P4 2.8GHz 800fsb with a D865PERL mobo and it kicks my athlon 2500+'s butt! I sold my p4 and bought the athlon cause I thought the 2.8GHz was overkill and used the extra money to buy a new case and better peripherals. My new system is much quiter and much easier to work with also! It just doesn't have the power my 2.8 did particularly when working with files and multitasking. Games are the most important to me and I was very glad to find there wasn't much of a difference in performance during gameplay. Im pretty happy with my athlon xp barton and hope to overclock it to atleast 3200+ speeds! [B]I still miss my P4 though[/B] I'm tellin ya buy an athlon instead and double up on memory!
I just bought this off of eBay!
[B]Radeon 9800pro 128mb/256bit (r360 core?) = $175.00
and
ABIT NF7-S v2.0 with all accessories = $64.00[/B] [/B][/QUOTE]
DUDE!!! don't try to compare an athlon xp 2500 against a P4 2.8GHz 800fsb, cuz the 2500+ ain't supposed to be better. Try comparing it to Athlon 64 FX-55 and then you can tell as soon as you turn it on, that the athlon would --..::OWN::..-- the P4, and dude, the ATHLON 64 IS ONLY 2.6GHZ, for you people who are P4 fanz* :p
* like that one kid who bladdered about my PC being far from a 2.5GHZ P4 even overclocked to 3200+
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pc_boy [/i]
[B]....so I win! :p :p [/B][/QUOTE]
...your ignorance dooms you to failure. i did not say "ya, you think your computer is good cuz you don't do $h!# with it"...you did. stop making things up in your mind and get with the program. There are far more CPU intensive apps than imaging photo/video's, you just don't know how to use them and don't need them (i bet NO ONE here would run these kinds of programs) Programs that require multiple buildings of PC power and years of # crunching. these kinds of programs put photo/video imaging to shame.
You compared your PC to a 2.8GHz P4??? what kind of comparison is that? that's nothing! with a standard overclock my slapped together rig will beat a 3.4GHz Intel in benchmarking...2.8GHz is nothing. Try comparing your system to a 5.4GHz Intel (overclocked of course) or something up there...and it loses, by many miles.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pc_boy [/i]
[B] the ATHLON 64 IS ONLY 2.6GHZ, for you people who are P4 fanz* :p
* like that one kid who bladdered about my PC being far from a 2.5GHZ P4 even overclocked to 3200+ [/B][/QUOTE]
you obviously don't understand the efficiency ratings of AMD vs. Intel. GHz aren't everything. To say "my 2.6GHz AMD beats your 3.4GHz Intel...HAHA!" is stupid. they are on entirely different levels, one is 64-bit and one is not, the AMD64 cannot be compared to an Intel based on GHz alone.
again you are making things up...i never said your computer would lose compared to a "#Ghz P4 system." You read what i said and just decided to twist my actual text. it would help if you QUOTED people instead of typing up your own false version of what was really typed.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
In the not to distant future, Intel chips arnt going to be getting performance increases just by ramming up the Ghz, which is what they have been doing. Amd have been getting performance increases not by ramming up the ghz but making thier processors more efficient, and putting in more cache, and increasing the bus. Intel will soon have to adopt the strategy that Amd are taking with thier chips.
Now the tides have turned
mwahahahahaha
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by waynejkruse10 [/i]
[B]In the not to distant future, Intel chips arnt going to be getting performance increases just by ramming up the Ghz, which is what they have been doing. Amd have been getting performance increases not by ramming up the ghz but making thier processors more efficient, and putting in more cache, and increasing the bus. Intel will soon have to adopt the strategy that Amd are taking with thier chips.
Now the tides have turned
mwahahahahaha [/B][/QUOTE]
exactly. also with an AMD chips you can run PC3200 and still be fine in most situations. For insane overclocks on a P4 (most particularly trying to run higher FSB) you need like PC4400+ or better and its freaking expensive.
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 4W4K3 [/i]
[B]...your ignorance dooms you to failure. i did not say "ya, you think your computer is good cuz you don't do $h!# with it"...you did. stop making things up in your mind and get with the program. There are far more CPU intensive apps than imaging photo/video's, you just don't know how to use them and don't need them (i bet NO ONE here would run these kinds of programs) Programs that require multiple buildings of PC power and years of # crunching. these kinds of programs put photo/video imaging to shame.
You compared your PC to a 2.8GHz P4??? what kind of comparison is that? that's nothing! with a standard overclock my slapped together rig will beat a 3.4GHz Intel in benchmarking...2.8GHz is nothing. Try comparing your system to a 5.4GHz Intel (overclocked of course) or something up there...and it loses, by many miles.
you obviously don't understand the efficiency ratings of AMD vs. Intel. GHz aren't everything. To say "my 2.6GHz AMD beats your 3.4GHz Intel...HAHA!" is stupid. they are on entirely different levels, one is 64-bit and one is not, the AMD64 cannot be compared to an Intel based on GHz alone.
again you are making things up...i never said your computer would lose compared to a "#Ghz P4 system." You read what i said and just decided to twist my actual text. it would help if you QUOTED people instead of typing up your own false version of what was really typed. [/B][/QUOTE]
GHZ ain't everything, exatcly, but you said my PC is far from an intel of same speed (either way, 1.8 or 2.5), totally based on GHZ there buddy!!!
Posted by: pc_boy
[quote]
i did not say "ya, you think your computer is good cuz you don't do $h!# with it"...you did
"real world" applications your AMD runs fast enough for you and gets the job done, and that's all you want, I agree 100%. No Intel system is going to give me "better" performance for what i need, because my AMD does all i want and more. But if you raise your epxectations alot, or become a benchmark enthuisiast, Intel is really the only way to go when using multi-media apps. [/quote]
[quote]
There are far more CPU intensive apps than imaging photo/video's, you just don't know how to use them and don't need them (i bet NO ONE here would run these kinds of programs) Programs that require multiple buildings of PC power and years of # crunching. these kinds of programs put photo/video imaging to shame.
[/quote]
exatcly, you admit no1 here does it and it's done on hudge machines. And they ain't done on P4's either. So what else could I do with my computer to slow it down, other than 3D animation and photo editing since the stuff you are talking about is not even for our computers and those are gov. databases and stuff. So my point is no1 would use a PC (PERSONAL computer) to do anything more demanding than Maya.
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pc_boy [/i]
[B]exatcly, you admit no1 here does it and it's done on hudge machines. And they ain't done on P4's either. So what else could I do with my computer to slow it down, other than 3D animation and photo editing since the stuff you are talking about is not even for our computers and those are gov. databases and stuff. So my point is no1 would use a PC (PERSONAL computer) to do anything more demanding than Maya. [/B][/QUOTE]
normal people run those machines, and there not government controlled (most of them) they are normal office buildings. my dad has to keep track of every single server room for Fidelity Investments in the Westlake Area, that's his job. he's a normal human being, and he works from home 75% of the week. He runs there programs from home when he absolutely has to and it takes hours to receive some of the info they send him...it's just as CPU intensive as video editing or photo imaging if not more. theres a point in which the stress can't get any higher...and thats when TIME kicks in. your Maya program uses 100% usage...so does opening a Word document if it's big enough. the difference is Maya will take LONGER at 100% than Word would to copress an image or w/e you do (expected). Some of the stuff my dad receives fromhis work takes hours (sometimes up to 8hrs.) and he's running a dual P4 machine with 2GB of RAM. When was the last time it took 8hrs. to load up an image? I'm hoping never...
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 4W4K3 [/i]
[B]normal people run those machines, and there not government controlled (most of them) they are normal office buildings. my dad has to keep track of every single server room for Fidelity Investments in the Westlake Area, that's his job. he's a normal human being, and he works from home 75% of the week. He runs there programs from home when he absolutely has to and it takes hours to receive some of the info they send him...it's just as CPU intensive as video editing or photo imaging if not more. theres a point in which the stress can't get any higher...and thats when TIME kicks in. your Maya program uses 100% usage...so does opening a Word document if it's big enough. the difference is Maya will take LONGER at 100% than Word would to copress an image or w/e you do (expected). Some of the stuff my dad receives fromhis work takes hours (sometimes up to 8hrs.) and he's running a dual P4 machine with 2GB of RAM. When was the last time it took 8hrs. to load up an image? I'm hoping never... [/B][/QUOTE]
Wow, ya but don't expect me to do that stuff LOL!! and
FYI
It took 6 months to render shreck, and they have like dual processors and like the best ram and, well basically the fastest computer you can get. Come on, 6 months running full time at 100% usage. So that is pretty machine demanding LOL :p
Posted by: ReverseFluxx
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pc_boy [/i]
[B]Wow, ya but don't expect me to do that stuff LOL!! and
FYI
It took 6 months to render shreck, and they have like dual processors and like the best ram and, well basically the fastest computer you can get. Come on, 6 months running full time at 100% usage. So that is pretty machine demanding LOL :p [/B][/QUOTE]
Um... they don't have supercomputers for that.
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pc_boy [/i]
[B]It took 6 months to render shreck, and they have like dual processors and like the best ram and, well basically the fastest computer you can get. Come on, 6 months running full time at 100% usage. So that is pretty machine demanding LOL :p [/B][/QUOTE]
Of course i don't expect you to do that, you couldn't if you wanted to. Why? As you stated it "supposedly" takes 6 months for even a super computer to do something that large...your machine wouldn't be able to even handle that kind of an application (not many would.)
So far all you have stated is your 2500+ setup will "--..::OWN::..-- " a p4 setup in this Maya application you run. This is a half truth true, and somewhat misleading. Go to the higher end p4 setups and you fall behind, as does the ENTIRE XP line of AMD processors. they were a good chip, but are obsolete now. buying a more advanced P4 setup (while costing you more money of course) will get the job done faster that your 2500+. it has its limits, and they are exceeded by the higher end P4 processors (especially when overclocked.) You say you can beat a 2.8GHz P4...what about 3.2GHz, 3.4GHz, 3.8GHz, 4GHz, 4.5GHz, 5.0GHz, 5.4GHz??? 5.4GHz is obtanable with an Intel rig to run 100% stable with liquid nitrogen cooling. 6.0GHz is obtainable but not 100% stable after hours of running. Even a XP 3200+ overclocked to its limits (~2.8GHz? maybe a bit more?) can't keep up with those kinds of speeds. More memory won't necessarily help out if your CPU is the bottleneck. You need an A64 rig to start getting ahead of the P4 line when overclocked. Beating a stock p4 is doable with a bit of overclocking of course.
Posted by: zombie_master
im a little slow in posting this so please bear with me. back on page II or something u huys were talking about temperatures well my celeron II 1GHz used to run steadily at around 57c and climbing about 2 a month. but then i cleaned the fan and heatsink.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
There should be a permanent pinned AMD vs Intel, Mac VS PC, ATI VS NVIDIA threads and there cleaned out every few months. Also some other mods should be hired to stop flame warsin these threads. That will stop having about 5 current AMD Vs INTEL threads, and of coarse noobs posting a question about what they should buy. Mabye questions over AMD VS INTEL should be deleted except for the one pinned thread, just an idea.
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by waynejkruse10 [/i]
[B]There should be a permanent pinned AMD vs Intel, Mac VS PC, ATI VS NVIDIA threads and there cleaned out every few months. Also some other mods should be hired to stop flame warsin these threads. That will stop having about 5 current AMD Vs INTEL threads, and of coarse noobs posting a question about what they should buy. Mabye questions over AMD VS INTEL should be deleted except for the one pinned thread, just an idea. [/B][/QUOTE]
thats the way it is in a couple of other forums i go to. i'm bad when it comes to thread hijacking...sry :confused:
Posted by: waynejkruse10
oh well, it might get through to the admins......
Posted by: trey
i got 3 words. cyrix rules.....yeah!
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 4W4K3 [/i]
Go to the higher end p4 setups and you fall behind [/QUOTE]
...Go with the highter AMD setups and you will fall behind! ;)
..and what about an Athlon 64 FX-55 overclocked to it'z max and liquid nitrogen cooling?! :p
you were comparing an overclocked P4 6GHZ with a poor 3200+ overclocked to 2.8 ..but that's ok, i won't bother u !! ;)
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by waynejkruse10 [/i]
[B]There should be a permanent pinned AMD vs Intel, Mac VS PC, ATI VS NVIDIA threads and there cleaned out every few months. Also some other mods should be hired to stop flame warsin these threads. That will stop having about 5 current AMD Vs INTEL threads, and of coarse noobs posting a question about what they should buy. Mabye questions over AMD VS INTEL should be deleted except for the one pinned thread, just an idea. [/B][/QUOTE]
ya, well why don't people just give it up??? BTW, this is a sticky thread :confused:
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pc_boy [/i]
[B]...Go with the highter AMD setups and you will fall behind! ;)
..and what about an Athlon 64 FX-55 overclocked to it'z max and liquid nitrogen cooling?! :p
you were comparing an overclocked P4 6GHZ with a poor 3200+ overclocked to 2.8 ..but that's ok, i won't bother u !! ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
no you won't...the higher AMD setups are on par with the better P4's if not better. actually i don't think an older p$ can even compete with the FX-55 processor at stock.
if it was overclocked to its max with liquid nitrogen it would REALLY improve. what you don't understand is that the FX-55 and the Barton 2500+ are totally different chips...you are comparing them like the FX-55 is cheap and just a step up above your XP chip.
yes i was...because those 2 chips are SUPPOSED to be "on par" with eachother. but you will find that the P4 overclocks miles higher and performs much better. can i help it the p4 is better than the AMD? no. you act as if it's my fault that the P4 6GHz pwns the 3200+ XP processor. face it and realize that Intel's can beat AMD's just as AMD's can beat Intels'...there is NO superior chip. when it comes to overclocking it goes back and forth between performance. the stock 3200+ will beat a 3.2GHz P4, but overclocked to both there limits the P4 will beat the AMD.
Posted by: daflo1
didnt really read all post to many :D but id say go for an amd athlon 64 fx-55
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by daflo1 [/i]
[B]didnt really read all post to many :D but id say go for an amd athlon 64 fx-55 [/B][/QUOTE]
i would've, if i had the money. it's SO **** EXPENSIVE!! arg. so i got the 3500+ instead.
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Snake-Eyes [/i]
[B]i would've, if i had the money. it's SO **** EXPENSIVE!! arg. so i got the 3500+ instead. [/B][/QUOTE]
that's what i'm doing. if i had EXCESS money i'd go FX...but if i simply could AFFORD it i'd still go 3500+, cuz if i went FX i'd be broke afterwards lmao.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
3500+ is great value
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
I have the 3500+ now goody goody. worx well w/ the MSI NEO2 PE
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 4W4K3 [/i]
[B]
So far all you have stated is your 2500+ setup will "--..::OWN::..-- " a p4 setup in this Maya application you run. This is a half truth true, and somewhat misleading. Go to the higher end p4 setups and you fall behind, as does the ENTIRE XP line of AMD processors. they...[/B][/QUOTE]
DUDE!! OKAY!... OKAY!!!
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by daflo1 [/i]
[B]didnt really read all post to many :D but id say go for an amd athlon 64 fx-55 [/B][/QUOTE]
Good boy!!!! ;)
Posted by: Apokalipse
nobody has really tried overclocking a Winchester to its max....
maybe I'll do that with my next system
my grand plan is to get a 3200+, 6800 GT, either water or Vapochill cooler, some OCZ or Kingmax RAM and see how far I can overclock
Posted by: Brisky
Uh, which is the best core out of the Atholon 64s that aren't the $900 FXs?
Thanks!
So much energy in this thread.
lol
Posted by: waynejkruse10
the one which is socket 939 and has 1m of cache, cant remember the name though, is it something like willamette? or is that a pentium core?
Posted by: Sh0r_ty
thats pentium duel core i think. if i were getting another system i would get the same as i already have as it absolutly owns. if i could get a gig of ram i would but get the 3200+ winchester core definitly as it owns in so many ways btw the A8N rocks and AI tech is so sweet when im playin codname panzers it beefs up my system and i get more cpu power and as the 3200 is such a good oc'er this combo ownz. get it now
Posted by: Sh0r_ty
btw after feeling the power of this sytem after my p3 900mhz im an amd man
Posted by: ReverseFluxx
lol, of course you're gonna like AMD after comparing a 3200+ and a 900mhz PIII.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
[QUOTE] thats pentium duel core i think. if i were getting another system i would get the same as i already have as it absolutly owns. if i could get a gig of ram i would but get the 3200+ winchester core definitly as it owns in so many ways btw the A8N rocks and AI tech is so sweet when im playin codname panzers it beefs up my system and i get more cpu power and as the 3200 is such a good oc'er this combo ownz. get it now[/QUOTE]
Sorry, i got willamette confused with winchester.
Posted by: Apokalipse
the Willamette is the Pentium 4's first core. then there is the Northwood and Prescott, the Prescott being the latest
the Winchester is the Athlon 64's latest core, and is 90nm instead of 130nm. the other 2 cores are the Clawhammer and Newcastle, the Clawhammer being the first
Posted by: waynejkruse10
Thaks for clearing that up Apokalipse
Posted by: VIII
Wooo go Pentium! :)
My comp is mainly for games and for schoolwork when I can fit it in :) but I use heaps of programs like ps, VB n shiz.
a friend has an amd, i have a pentium. we have more or less the same setup.. hes a full amd whore wheras im not too bothered. We swapped computers for one round of doom 3 lan and naturally he over exaggerated and "couldnt wait" to get back to his precious AMD lol, but I really noticed no difference between, of course I was happy to get back to mine to (he has a crappy CRT Vs. my LCD =D)
I personally have never owned an AMD (i've only ever owned 2 PC's myself, im 16 incase u couldnt guess lol) so **** yeah im biased without right and would reccomend a p4 to anyone. I think the 64 bit is overrated and was over hyped by ALL pc magazines.. but from the only experience i've really had I'd say in gaming there isn't a whole lotta different.. but if ur gona pay top dollar for ur comp with all the top **** if its jut for games then uve got issues.. computers are the future (duh) and im hopin my life isnt gona be a game
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
you really shouldn't say "crappy CRT," because most CRTs are known to have better response times than LCD, which in turn makes them better for gaming.
Also spending money on something you enjoy doing, like video games for example, does not mean you have issues. some people pay top-dollar for almost any thing they can. if they want it to work efficiently, they pay top-dollar. if they just want it to work, they buy whatevers available.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
VIII, your sig is really long
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Snake-Eyes [/i]
[B]you really shouldn't say "crappy CRT," because most CRTs are known to have better response times than LCD, which in turn makes them better for gaming.[/B][/QUOTE]
Agreed, you have to spend BIG bucks to get a half decent LCD screen. the cheaper to intermediate ones "ghost" in gaming almost 100% of the time. but hey if you can afford it, then go for it. i would prefer a nice CRT to a cheap LCD.
Posted by: VIII
99% of people, no matter the quality, whove owned an LCD wont go back to a CRT.. mines only a $500 one but id still take it over a top of the line CRT
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by VIII [/i]
[B]99% of people, no matter the quality, whove owned an LCD wont go back to a CRT.. mines only a $500 one but id still take it over a top of the line CRT [/B][/QUOTE]
well of course you wouldn't...it's a $500 LCD (what i meant by "big bucks") I imagine it doesn't have any problems that a cheap $250 LCD would.
also what you might not know..is 99% of people have no idea what pixel pitch means for an LCD, or even brightness, contrast ratio, or the response time. they jsut see a 19" LCD and see it's more expensive than the CRT and its thinner...and just assume it MUST be better. Then they get it home and it's all shadowy and the corners are dim and in games its all ghosty.
I bought a flat panel CRT a good time ago and still use it. My mom and dad both have 19" LCD's, and i can honestly say my screen is alot crisper, and lots brighter than either of there $300 monitors. I think when you get into the ~$400 range and up the LCD's really shine though. Below that i wouldn't really consider one unless it was on sale or maybe a very good rebate or sumthin'.
just my opinion of course...even cheap LCD's have there advantages (save space, easier to tote to a LAN, less power consumption...stuff like that)
Posted by: Codeine
I dont understand how people can bash CRT... First LCD max resolution is 1200/1200. Most LCD's have 1200/700, while most CRT have 1600/1200+. Personally i cant stand when people bash CRT, becasue they are soo much better then LCD.
If your watchong LCD from a angle, then the monitors coloring starts to get all shady. Plus CRT has alot more depth. All the shadows and glears in video games just look so much better. Again even better with that 2000/1600 resolution. While they have better quality, they still cost less. I mean why even go LCD, is size really that important? I mean what would you guys rather do. Spend 800$ on a 19inch LCD with 1200/1200 resolution, or spend 800$ on a 22inch CRT with 2000/2500 resolution?? Its pretty obvious witch is the better choice.
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Codeine [/i]
[B]I dont understand how people can bash CRT... First LCD max resolution is 1200/1200. Most LCD's have 1200/700, while most CRT have 1600/1200+. Personally i cant stand when people bash CRT, becasue they are soo much better then LCD.
If your watchong LCD from a angle, then the monitors coloring starts to get all shady. Plus CRT has alot more depth. All the shadows and glears in video games just look so much better. Again even better with that 2000/1600 resolution. While they have better quality, they still cost less. I mean why even go LCD, is size really that important? I mean what would you guys rather do. Spend 800$ on a 19inch LCD with 1200/1200 resolution, or spend 800$ on a 22inch CRT with 2000/2500 resolution?? Its pretty obvious witch is the better choice. [/B][/QUOTE]
but i would NOT want to lug around a 22" CRT monitor...i might get a hernia lmao. some people need LCD's for that reason alone...and i mean the LCD isn't "terrible" by any means. it just lacks certain requirements/standards that you personally want. most people i know use 1024*768 max res, 65hz refresh rate lmao...they dont care about anything higher. i like the smaller screen size 100hz on my CRT.
also 1200*1200 is NOT max res for LCD monitors...i don't know what you mean. This one here can do 1600*1200....
[url]http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?description=24-116-299&DEPA=1[/url]
Posted by: ReverseFluxx
Yeah, even though I like the quality and cheapness of CRT's, I'm pretty sure my next monitor will be an LCD. Hauling my 19" CRT around to LAN parties takes a lot of energy, and I'm getting to the point where I feel like staying home from a LAN party rather than endure the pain of lifting and carrying 50 lbs all over the place. Hopefully within the next couple years, by the time I'm in need of another monitor, LCD's will compare very close to CRT's in refresh rate, resolution, etc.
Posted by: Apokalipse
I prefer CRT's personally, I do not think that LCD's "suck" although for gaming they are not [i]as[/i] good as CRT's, but a descent one will do the job.
CRT's generally have a higher maximum resolution than LCD's, although I'm not saying that LCD's cannot have high resolutions
and I agree that I don't really want to be lugging around a heavy CRT all the time. I have a 21" CRT which is a really good monitor, I typically run my desktop at 2048x1536, although is friggin heavy as. I don't really want to be taking it to LAN's all the time, so I was thinking of getting a descent LCD to take to LANs and use the CRT at home where I use my PC most
also, CRT's are dangerous to repair
and VIII: your sig is far too long.. 22 lines. see the signature rules [url=http://www.tech-forums.net/announcement.php?s=&forumid=8]here[/url]
Posted by: VIII
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Codeine [/i]
I dont understand how people can bash CRT... First LCD max resolution is 1200/1200. Most LCD's have 1200/700, while most CRT have 1600/1200+. Personally i cant stand when people bash CRT, <b>becasue they are soo much better then LCD.</b>
If your watchong LCD from a angle, then the monitors coloring starts to get all shady. Plus CRT has alot more depth. All the shadows and glears in video games just look so much better. Again even better with that 2000/1600 resolution. While they have better quality, they still cost less. I mean why even go LCD, is size really that important? I mean what would you guys rather do. Spend 800$ on a 19inch LCD with 1200/1200 resolution, or spend 800$ on a 22inch CRT with 2000/2500 resolution?? Its pretty obvious witch is the better choice. [/QUOTE]
comp is for one person, if other people want to watch then let them go behind or not at all.. LCDS are great against screen cheaters too :)
Of course LCDS arent up to the standards of CRTS, how long have CRTS been used for, umm like forever lol.. LCDS came out sometime in the last decade so in time, lcds will be just as good as crts in the refresh rates and such... the difference in those factors between CRTS and LCDS really dont alter game play too much imho..
Oh ohhh we got another AMD vs PENT going lOlZ
PS- Sorry bout my sig, ill fix it.. Just gota re download photoshop and ill sort it out
Posted by: Elite Bullet
AMD kinda looses on price because i its hard to find anything that isn't a 64 bit and under 3200+ its hard to find a 3200+ in Australia now which means people who want a cheap option have to go with Pentium
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 3lite Bullet [/i]
[B]AMD kinda looses on price because i its hard to find anything that isn't a 64 bit and under 3200+ its hard to find a 3200+ in Australia now which means people who want a cheap option have to go with Pentium [/B][/QUOTE]
...that's because they don't make any of the XP chips anymore lol. they are still widely available, but when they are all bought out then they are gone forever. you can't really blame AMD for not holding on to older and slower technologies, they'd be losing alot of money still pumping out archaic chips to the small population of people who are not interested in there newer stuff or can't afford it. a 754 system can be had for almost the same price as a nice XP3200+ system, maybe less.
Posted by: dartgande
This thread started with AMD vs. Intel, and then went to CRT Vs. LCD? To many preference wars...let's focus on what really matters! ATI or nVidia? Lol
jk
Posted by: Apokalipse
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 3lite Bullet [/i]
[B]AMD kinda looses on price because i its hard to find anything that isn't a 64 bit and under 3200+ its hard to find a 3200+ in Australia now which means people who want a cheap option have to go with Pentium [/B][/QUOTE]
that's not true, you can get athlon 64 2800+ socket 754's, and 3000+ 754 and 939's, and also Sempron 3100+'s in 754
the semprons are not 64-bit either
Posted by: Nubius
Yup, I think I'll hold onto my XP for years to come for nostalgia :D
I completely destroyed a 1GHz duron couple years back because I didn't know about computers and simply thought 'ehh its worthless'
Oh well live and learn.
Posted by: Apokalipse
Athlon 64's are not just about 64-bit processing
Posted by: xanth
Yes, the AMD and Intel war rages on. I do know that you do not want to deal with a company in Baton Rouge, LA called Computer Heaven. They are completely anti AMD and pro Intel. They claim that they used to build AMD systems and had nothing but problems. The owner supposedly had to eat some cash by switching users from AMD to Intel to make up for the problems. Their techs could not figure out what was wrong. I have personally ran AMD's all my life except for one Intel and that was a Pentium 2 266 Slot 1 processor. Even the AMD K62 processors out performed the Intel Pentium 2 and 3 Slot 1. I then jumped to a Slot A Athlon 900mhz. Very good processor. I recently switched over to a 2600+ Athlon XP a little over a year ago. I do admit they run a little hot, but just use a Thermaltake or beefed up fan and heatsink and use some silver thermal grease. You will get the performance and the cooling you need. DO NOT use the stock fan that comes with the processor. Right now I am headed to year number 2 on my warranty with AMD. I might switch before my 3 year manufacturers warranty is up and go with an AMD Athlon 64. They run alot cooler and they perform everythign out there right now.
Posted by: Apokalipse
Athlon 64's normally don't run more than about 42*C
Posted by: VIII
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by apokalipse [/i]
[B]Athlon 64's normally don't run more than about 42*C [/B][/QUOTE]
lol where do u live ? fantasy land
:p
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by VIII [/i]
[B]lol where do u live ? fantasy land
:p [/B][/QUOTE]
with good cooling they shouldn't, i could say my Barton chip doesn't run over 42C (at stock) bcuz it'll peak at like 38C even after hours of gaming. stock cooling and a hot room will take it above that though...
Posted by: idiotec
[QUOTE]I dont understand how people can bash CRT... First LCD max resolution is 1200/1200. Most LCD's have 1200/700, while most CRT have 1600/1200+. Personally i cant stand when people bash CRT, becasue they are soo much better then LCD. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Spend 800$ on a 19inch LCD with 1200/1200 resolution, or spend 800$ on a 22inch CRT with 2000/2500 resolution??[/QUOTE]
Dude, what year is this? You might want to update your knowledge on LCD's.
Max res of 1200/1200?
[URL=http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/ProductDetail.aspx?TabPage=techspecs&sku=320-1578&spagenum=&category_id=5194&brandid=&k=&c=us&l=en&cs=19&mnf=&prst=&prEnd=&mnfsku=&orderby=&searchtype=&pageb4search=&page=productlisting.aspx&instock=&refurbished=]Check this out[/URL]
This has 1600/1200 and although it shows a price tag of $800, it can easily be had for $600 or less.
The new LCD's keep up just fine.
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by idiotec [/i]
[B]This has 1600/1200 and although it shows a price tag of $800, it can easily be had for $600 or less.
The new LCD's keep up just fine. [/B][/QUOTE]
for a person on a budget it totally sux though. if you did buy that LCD for $600 that's still more than my entire computer put together. That's really why i still use a flat panel CRT, LCD is just too much moeny even if it is awesome. the only real affordable ones seem to be crap:( i can buy a decent CRT for $150-$200 and have it look just as good as a $400 LCD in terms of clarity, sharpness, size...it's probably loads brighter. just wish they could be cheaper...i bet they aren't that expensive to actually make for the manufacturer, but they gotta make a huge profit as usual.
Posted by: ReverseFluxx
Hey guys you may find this paper interesting that my brother wrote his Freshman year in college:
[url]http://www.zifyoip.com/stuff/motherglass.pdf[/url]
Posted by: Apokalipse
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by VIII [/i]
[B]lol where do u live ? fantasy land
:p [/B][/QUOTE]
I can tell you it's not The Matrix.... lol
from what I've seen, even the FX-s max at about 44*C
Posted by: grego
This thread is sick. 232 posts and 9,000 views.
Think of all the new threads it has saved us from having to see :).
Posted by: Demalii
yea right, it hasn't saved us from anything.. people still come to TF and totally ignore the IMPORTANT sign next to this thread lol
Posted by: algu7344
All I know is CRT's are heavy as ****.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
this thread is massive
Posted by: Raekwon
massive it is indeed.
if i have enough money after my build, ill be getting the 8ms 17" LCD from Benq, because it has the fastest response timing on the market today, its light, easy to take to LAN's, plus its about as expensive as a good 19" CRT, which is what i would get otherwise.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
yeah, if i was going to get a LCD, i would get a 12 or 8ms one. It would be hooked up to a new really good computer so i would play a lot of games on it.
Posted by: VIII
u cant see a difference between a 12ms and a 16ms with the naked eye...
Posted by: waynejkruse10
what about 16 and 8ms?
Posted by: Sh0r_ty
probebly not
Posted by: Sh0r_ty
i want an lcd but i prefere to get a better comp than a slimmer screen i think there are many with the same feelings
Posted by: Raekwon
In a way, i agree with you, but i sorta would like an LCD. it depends on cost, and what system you have at the time, if i was going to buy an LCD i would make sure its the last thing, i would get my system how i want it, and then consider an LCD. but my situation may change if this 15" monitor dies before i get my system built, then i will get an LCD, because my next monitor would undoubtedly be an LCD anyway.
lol, im not sure what the point of this post is... ah well, i hope it gives you a valuable insight into my very special matrix :) (not a reference to the movies)
Posted by: AT2005
I would prefer and AMD over an Intel P4 with HT because I run windows 2000 and since HT technology was made after Windows 2000 came out the Os cant figure out what the processor is and so you have to turn off the HT at the BIOS which really sucks because you pay all that money for an intel and you "really" cant use it to its maxe capablities. So in the end I would go with an AMD for its great gaming qualities and I dont care if they run a bit hotter than intels Just stick another 2 80mm's and your fine. Unless you overclocked liked me.
Posted by: pc_boy
yeah, check this thread out. Ultimate cheep cooling! ;)
[url]http://tech-forums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42213[/url]
Posted by: waynejkruse10
yeah, thats an interesting idea.
Posted by: nate
well i like both processor's but what i think it depends for what you are going to do with them like let say for gaming or office use er what ever but thats my opinoin but oh well lol
Posted by: xyoonboixkpx
i like pentium
Posted by: mbwest
Hey i see here we are talking about proccessors. AMD v. Pentium. And first off, thanks for all the great info.
But what im wondering is, we have AMD and Pentium and i sort of know the difference but what about all the different types:
Intel Celeron, Intel Pentium, Centrino, Prescotts, Amd Athlon, AMD Sempron.
Im completely lost, what is what? what is the fastest? IS there a chart somewhere that shows for example a 1.7ghz AMD Athlon = 2.2ghz Pentium = x.xghz sempron. etc.
Im specifically looking for a laptop at the moment, something fairly cheap and future proof. Any help would be great and if im in the wrong thread please point me in the right direction. Tons of thanks in advance!!!
Posted by: waynejkruse10
Thats a difficult question. Heres a general idea:
Semprons = Low - Mid Speed Celerons
Athlon XP = High Speed Celerons - Mid P4's (2.8, 3.0, 3.2 (Socket 478))
Athlon 64 Socket 754 = Mid P4's (2.8, 3.0, 3.2, 3.4 (LGA 775)) The Athlon is slightly better than Pentium in games though.
Athlon 64 Socket 939 = High Speed P4's (3.0, 3.2, 3.4) The Athlon is slightly better in this category.
Athlon 64 FX53, FX55 = 3.4, 3.46GHZ P4 Extreme Editions, the Athlon 64 FX 55 beats the 3.46Ghz P4 EE so that means, the Athlon 64 FX 55 is the best.
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
Basically all those fancy names (Celeron, Pentium, Centrino, Prescott, Athlon XP/64/FX, Sempron etc etc etc) are their own sort of ranking.
AMD Desktop Processors (ranked lowest grade to highest)= AMD Athlon XP, AMD Sempron, AMD Althon 64, AMD Athlon 64 FX
AMD Laptop Processors (ranked lowest to highest)= Mobile AMD Athlon XP-M, Mobile AMD Sempron, AMD Athlon 64 for Notebooks, Mobile AMD Athlon 64
I don't know much about the XP, XP-M, Sempron, or Mobile Sempron.
Intel Desktop Processors (ranked lowest grade to highest)=Celeron, CeleronD, Pentium 4, Pentium 4 with Hyper-Threading, Pentium 4 Extreme Edition with Hyper-Threading
Intel Laptop Processors (ranked lowest grade to highest)= Mobile Celeron, Celeron M, Pentium 4-M, Moblie Pentium 4, Mobile Pentium 4 with Hyper-Threading, Pentium M.
I'm not an Intel guy, sorry.
To get 100% in depth with this, go to:
Intel - [url]http://www.intel.com/products/processor/[/url]
AMD - [url]http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118,00.html[/url]
Posted by: mbwest
You guys are excellent! Easier than a dictionary! lol seriously, thanks a bunch!
Posted by: mbwest
could you also give me a bit more of an idea, lets say i had an "AMD Athlon64 3000 1.8ghz" what would this be equal to? A 3ghz Pentium? The problem is, im looking for a laptop and i was looking at a 2.6celeron and my friend had a look, sent me back a different one and said a celeron pentium m 1.5 is faster!!
It is all kinda confusing and im trying to figure out a way in my head, lets say for arguements sake i have a 3ghz AMD athlon XP (whether you can get them or not) what would that be equal to?
so for example...
3ghzAMD athlon XP = 2.7ghzAMD Sempron = 2.2ghzAMD Althon 64 = 1.8ghzAMD Athlon 64 FX.
Its the speed in relation to the models i really cant get my head around. Then if it would be possible to say a what pentium speed = AMD speed?!?! For example...
1.8ghz AMD athlon 64 FX = 2.2ghz Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition with Hyper-Threading.
Would this be possible or am i creating too much work for you guys now?
Thanks if you can and thanks for the info so far if you cant ;)
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
No. When you get the GHz on an AMD, that's what it equals to on a Pentium but it seems to run like a higher Pentium.
i.e 1.8 GHz AMD runs similar to 2.3 GHz Pentium. (random numbers)
Someone please correct me if i'm wrong
Your friend is right, the Celeron M is a better chip. The Celeron is (lets say, again using random numbers) a Socket 555 with the Celeron M being Socket 737. The 737 will run faster than 555 because it has more memory (I think that’s what it is).
“3ghzAMD athlon XP = 2.7ghzAMD Sempron = 2.2ghzAMD Althon 64 = 1.8ghzAMD Athlon 64 FX.â€
Numbers are all backwards. AMD Athlon 64 FX are the best processors out there right now. AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 beats Pentium 4 HT 3.6 EE which is saying A LOT.
Give me about a half hour, I’ll try my best to compare the speeds of some AMDs and Pentiums. With Pentium, the number they tell you in GHz or MHz is the speed you get, with AMD, it’s different.
Posted by: mbwest
Yeh i understand what your saying (this is suprising) so i thought the AMD athlon 64, because its a different and faster chip etc. it would only need a speed of 1.8ghz to be beating a 3ghz AMD athlon XP (although its a faster ghz speed the chip is naturally slower). so a low speed chip with high speed ghz could beat a very high speed ghz, but low speed chip! - i hope you understand what im saying so im just trying to compare the ghz speeds in relation to the type of chip* thanks for the help!!
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
Truly, you'd need a 2.5 GHz AMD to beat a 3 GHz Pentium.
DESKTOP
AMD Athlon 64 FX
[url]http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9488%5E10756,00.html[/url]
AMD Athlon 64
[url]http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487%5E10248,00.html[/url]
Sempron
[url]http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_11599_11604,00.html[/url]
AMD Athlon XP
[url]http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_3734_11672,00.html[/url]
LAPTOP
Mobile AMD Athlon 64
[url]http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_10220_10221%5E11030,00.html[/url]
AMD Athlon 64 (notebook)
[url]http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_10220_9486%5E10249,00.html[/url]
Mobile AMD Sempron
[url]http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_11600_11613,00.html[/url]
Mobile AMD Athlon XP-M
Nothing Found.
Posted by: ReverseFluxx
Go to [url]www.tomshardware.com[/url] to see some benchmark graphs.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
the 2.6 GHZ FX55 beats the 3.46GHZ P4 EE
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by xyoonboixkpx [/i]
[B]i like pentium [/B][/QUOTE]
I like AMD!! :p
Hey, answer this:
Who wants $50 free?
--if you answer yes, then you need to buy an AMD next time you get a new comp.! ;)
Posted by: waynejkruse10
lol, you can get a amd cpu for $50
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by waynejkruse10 [/i]
[B]lol, you can get a amd cpu for $50 [/B][/QUOTE]
not a very good one...but yah you can.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
a cpu is a cpu
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by waynejkruse10 [/i]
[B]a cpu is a cpu [/B][/QUOTE]
kinda like a car is a car...but i'd take a Ferrari over a Geo Tracker, wouldn't you? Unless of course you are poor (like me) and can only afford a Geo Tracker...but i'd opt for a busted up Honda myself.
Posted by: VIII
lmao.. not the best analogy..
Posted by: Catbert
Not sure how old this thread is but I thought I`d slap in my two cents.
Read a few posts about the amount of RAM on Snake-Eyes system.
Currently, anything over 1Gb actualy slows the processing speed of 64bit CPUs.
As a few people have stated, he would be better getting 2x 512Mb and using the Dual Channel.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
and more cost effective
Posted by: caseyc
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by waynejkruse10 [/i]
[B]the 2.6 GHZ FX55 beats the 3.46GHZ P4 EE [/B][/QUOTE]
It also beats the 3.73GHZ P4 670 chip.
Answer: AMD.
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
Find another graph, Tom's Hardware Guide isn't always the most reliable source, so i'm told.
Posted by: 4W4K3
yah i would say that graph is probably bogus. being an AMD fan NO ONE will believe this but the AMD FX-55 is definetly beaten in some tests, and in some tests its not. Intel can beat it...just that graph itself looks pretty unrealiable. I would say it would take more than a 3.7Ghz EE to beat an FX-55. I can find you a graph that says the FX-55 is #1, and you can find one that says its #8....its realy pointless to compare.
And yes i also distrust Tom's Hardware, not because of that single graph that was posted (as many of you probably assume) but because out of ALL his reviews and guides...you will notice a pattern (which i wont get into). he seems to ALWAYS give out good reviews to certain companies/products, and gives mediocre reviews to other hardware that is #1 in my book and seems to be across the overclocking nation. its very sketchy frm what i see...but some of it is credible...some.
Posted by: VIII
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 4W4K3 [/i]
[B]
And yes i also distrust Tom's Hardware,[/B][/QUOTE]
because AMD got pwned :rolleyes:
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by VIII [/i]
[B]because AMD got pwned :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]
exactly...this is what i meant when i said "being an AMD fan no one will believe this..."
I state one thing and everyone looks at my sig to see whether or not i am saying this truthfully or...(oh god hes got an AMD!) HE MUST BE BIASED! lol. i am doomed by m hadware.
I stated the AMD FX-55 can be beaten by Intel in some categories...i'll say that all day long. but of course no one focuses on that...they only want to make it sound like i'm biased and my info is not credible.
(Not mad or anything VIII, this just seems to be the perfect examlple of what i am trying to express. I own an AMD and support it...so naturally no one is going to see my point when i diss a non-AMD supportive chart.)
Posted by: ReverseFluxx
Just look at Tom's Hardware. It's very reliable. The AMD's own the Intel's in gaming, the Intel's own AMD's in applications.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
In a mag i bought recently it tested the FX 55, 3.46ghz P4, 3.40ghz P4, here is the results.
NOTE: FX 55 - $1059 USD
P4 3.46ghz EE LGA 775- $1065 USD
P4 3.40ghz EE LGA 775- $989 USD
(according to Newegg)
Benchmark 1 - Multimedia Content Creation 2004
FX 55 - 39.2
3.46ghz - 33.6
3.40 - 33.5
Benchmark 2 - Business Winstone 2004
FX 55 - 29.5
3.46ghz - 25.4
3.40ghz - 24.9
Benchmark 3 - Memory Bandwidth
FX 55 - 5522MB/S
3.46ghz - 4692MB/S
3.40ghz - 4526MB/S
Benchmark 4 - Pifast (10 Million Places)
FX 55 - 49.22 sec
3.46ghz - 56.47 sec
3.40ghz - 63.12 sec
Benchmark 5 - 3DMARK 01 SE
FX 55 - 24002
3.46ghz - 22170
3.40ghz - 21122
Benchmark 6 - Doom 3
FX 55 - 92 fps
3.46ghz - 89.2 fps
3.40ghz - 86.6 fps
All systems used same components except Mobo and CPU. The AMD won 6/6 test.
And you wonder why Intel has 85% of the CPU market.
Wayne
Posted by: ReverseFluxx
But that test didn't include the 3.76ghz.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
That test is at least a month old, and its in Australia where the 3.46ghz has just been released. Also, the 3.46 ghz is the Extreme Edition, so it would perform very well for the clock speed. Also, would the 3.76 GHZ (which i didnt see at newegg) perform more than the EE? Also, does the 3.76 GHZ cost more than the EE, because the EE and FX 55 are both similarly priced (the intel is still a bit more expensive).
Posted by: ReverseFluxx
Oh, it's the 3.73, not 3.76, my bad. And I guess the Intel 570 is supposed to be even better. I couldn't find either on Newegg either though... so I wonder what the prices are.
Posted by: Catbert
There is ALWASYS going to be some difference of opinions on which is better. It's widely reconised (even by the companies) that Intel perform better in applications such as video encoding etc and AMD at gaming.
In a recent test performed by a custom hardware mag the AMD 64's did come out tops but this test took everything into consideration (I.E. Performance, Price, Support etc). They test 21 chips in total of which the top 6 were AMD.
That said, Intel were not far behind and have produced their own version of a 64 bit CPU.
The Intel P4 600 series.
[url]http://news.techwhack.com/730/intel-600-series-pentium-4/[/url]
Posted by: waynejkruse10
im interested in seeing some 64 bit benchmarks with a 64 bit complient windows os. Its annoying how Microsoft released Win XP - 64 after Intel released thier chips but not when AMD released thiers.
Posted by: Catbert
[url]http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/pentium4-600/index.x?pg=1[/url]
Found a better review <----
Posted by: VIII
thats a good review, i went through all 17 pages lol... i think it really shows the thing about AMD n gaming... although, amd have had longer to perfect their 64 bit in the fx-55, truly a mad chip but watch out, intel seem to be doing some good
Posted by: Catbert
I`ll give it to Intel, they are excellent at what they do and have done alot for the PC industry, I just don't like the fact they expect you to pay a premium because of it.
Posted by: VIII
yeah, that i get.. its like amd have had 64 bit chips out for ages and now intel are like wow everyone 64 bits! its like they think no1 has seen em b4.. and they charge through the roof.. but i spose its because none of those chips would really be considered midrange, like with amd uve got the 2800,3000,3200.. all the new pentium chips are up with the top amd chips there arent any affordable ones, yet
Posted by: d505flyer
AMD quietly took the lead position in the market place over a year ago. They did it without advertising (compared to Intel). They did it by offering us CPUs that go faster for less money. Their only draw back for the average user is heat but that is easily over come with any number of great cooling fans & heatsinks on the market. I often tell my customers they can go 20 -30% faster for 30 - 50% less money by going AMD over Intel.
Dual 248 Opterons
Tyan Tiger K8W motherboard
Antec Black 3U Rackmount Chassis with 550 Watt PS
2 GB DDR PC2700 ECC
Dual 200 GB SATA drives - raid capable but not raided.
Plextor 16X Double Layer DVD±RW
Sony DVD ROM
nVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra Video Card, 256MB GDDR3, 256-Bit, HDTV-Out/Dual DVI
LifeView FlyVideo 2000 Video Capture Card
Windows XP Pro
Dual 17" BenQ LCDs
Posted by: Blind_Arrow
History has changed, heat issue is with Intel now, not AMD.
90nm Intels went up to 115W from 89W typical on 130nm core, whilst, AMD went down from 87W to 67W on 90nm transition.
Posted by: Catbert
I would say AMD are ahead in the PC enthusiast sector mainly because of what you said about pricing/performance but also because AMD are renowned to better for gaming which is what alot of the the enthusiast build their systems for.
On the other hand I beleive Intel still have a slight margin over AMD in the pre-built market due to the fact that people who buy pre-built PC's aren't always PC literate, are not given an option and don't know anything but Intel due to their relentless advetising.
The thing tha bugs me about Intel is the fact that on every advert they have that annoying Intel sound clip and "Intel Inside" clip playing. Makes me what to smash the TV.
Posted by: Apokalipse
you know, I would not miss a performance drop in multimedia apps as much as in gaming
Posted by: adambomb
I have a question about AMD processors. Can they run all the same programs that a pentium can?
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
Yes they can, adambomb. It just seems that Pentium handles graphic imaging and photographic images better
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by adambomb [/i]
[B]I have a question about AMD processors. Can they run all the same programs that a pentium can? [/B][/QUOTE]
yah...unless it is specifically designed for Intel CPU identification or something.
I have a program called CPU Identifier, and it ONLY works on AMD CPU's.
But by "program" you probably mean all games, browsers, applications, stuff like that. The answer is yes...they both should be 100% compatible. If there IS a problem...it is usually with the software you are trying to run...and not the CPU be it AMD or Intel.
Posted by: jnev_89
why is everyone always saying that intel is so much more expensive? i paid only $150 for my cpu...
Posted by: Catbert
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jnev_89 [/i]
[B]why is everyone always saying that intel is so much more expensive? i paid only $150 for my cpu... [/B][/QUOTE]
In general they tend to be more expensive. This may not always be the case, but there is a strong trend to back it up.
Posted by: 4W4K3
what Intel CPU did you get for $150? Cuz for like $90 (Mobile XP chip) you can get an AMD that performs just as well stock and overclocked. That's the difference.
Posted by: jnev_89
i have a 2.8ghz prescott. the axp chip you're talking about maybe would have been as good at gaming (doubt it), but probably not even close in apps like photoshop or eac/lame, etc.
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jnev_89 [/i]
[B]i have a 2.8ghz prescott. the axp chip you're talking about maybe would have been as good at gaming (doubt it), but probably not even close in apps like photoshop or eac/lame, etc. [/B][/QUOTE]
lol...you are in for a surprise then buddy. my little XP chip overclocked (to 2.6GHz) will beat a 3.4GHz P4...the 2.8GHz isn't hard to beat unless you start overclocking it...it overclocks pretty high.
Posted by: jnev_89
i was talking about stock vs. stock speed, no oc. obviously if you've oced yours so much, i'd kinda hope it would beat a 2.8. i've also oced mine to 3360. what's your pcmark04 score? mine's in my sig.
Posted by: 4W4K3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jnev_89 [/i]
[B]i was talking about stock vs. stock speed, no oc. obviously if you've oced yours so much, i'd kinda hope it would beat a 2.8. i've also oced mine to 3360. what's your pcmark04 score? mine's in my sig. [/B][/QUOTE]
stock vs. stock then yes, i see what you are saying.
pcmark04 is an all around benchmark, not a CPU test. I could have an FX-55 system topped out...but running on an MX-440 and lose to a Celeron system with a 6800U...the gfx card is what REALLY makes the difference.
What you might want to compare (being more CPU dependent) is something like super_pi. I believe my fastest time for the 1M test was 35secs, but i don't have screenies anymore.
Your system all around is definetly better than mine...i won't argue that. You have a video card 10X better than mine and 2X the RAM. If i had a 6600GT and another 512MB i might be able to match your pcmark 04' score (or hopefully beat it lol). But as it stands with 512MB or RAM and a stock 9200 64MB card my top score in 04' is 4203. So all-in-all i'm behind ~800 points due to half the RAM and a very old gfx card.
Posted by: Apokalipse
I think the Athlon 64's have more instruction sets than Pentium 4's, even excluding X86-64
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
this is one long *** topic ppl and were not arguing that much! how come we cant do that over video cards? actually why do we have to defend a companies name? i think that each company defends its name by the product they put out.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
all athlon 64's have: X86-64 MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNOW!, 3DNOW!+
only the best Pentium 4's have: X86-64 MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3
most Pentium 4's have: MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3
Posted by: Apokalipse
but some products give a company a bad name rather than take it away
Posted by: waynejkruse10
like what?
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
proly but you see more celerons that you do semprons. they both suck ether way.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
Yeah, i do see more Celerons than Semprons, but Semprons are basicly Athlon XP's rebadged, and Athlon XP's arnt that bad. And if some Semprons had mobile capability, they should have the wonderful overclocking ability of Mobile Athlon XP's.
Wayne
Posted by: jnev_89
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 4W4K3 [/i]
[B]stock vs. stock then yes, i see what you are saying.
pcmark04 is an all around benchmark, not a CPU test. I could have an FX-55 system topped out...but running on an MX-440 and lose to a Celeron system with a 6800U...the gfx card is what REALLY makes the difference.
What you might want to compare (being more CPU dependent) is something like super_pi. I believe my fastest time for the 1M test was 35secs, but i don't have screenies anymore.
Your system all around is definetly better than mine...i won't argue that. You have a video card 10X better than mine and 2X the RAM. If i had a 6600GT and another 512MB i might be able to match your pcmark 04' score (or hopefully beat it lol). But as it stands with 512MB or RAM and a stock 9200 64MB card my top score in 04' is 4203. So all-in-all i'm behind ~800 points due to half the RAM and a very old gfx card. [/B][/QUOTE]
****... i get 38s on super-pi. but i can see your point, i figured that pcmark would be a more cpu-focused benchmark. why can't they make cpumark05 or something :p
Posted by: Rush2
Do what I did and build both. You won't be sorry you did. I use one for gaming and the other for a mega office computer.
Posted by: P.P. Mguire
Im trying to do that but i dont have any P4's all i have is a couple p2's and a p1. The rest is all Athlon based processors.
Posted by: bigdawgjts2663
yeah, doom 3 uses at most 512 MB RAM when grtaphics are set to full. If you have the 256 nVidia 6800 and the 1 gig ram, you should be set, w/o lag! I have a 5700 LE 256MB nVidia and only 512 RAM, and Doom 3 runs w small lag on high quality graphics. (and my graphic card sucks, lol)
Posted by: bigstanklo
Well as everyone else has probably said it sort of depends on price. I am rather new to the building arena myself (only 2 full builds under the belt, one with each type of processor). I personally like my second computer with the P4 in it better than the AMD simply because i didn't buy the AMD 64 which i am wishing i would have. I like both AMD and the P4 so whatever is in your budget go for it.
That PC the guy quoted looks great to me i have a similar build that i just completed.
Posted by: jnev_89
it'd be great being able to have two comps, one with amd, one with intel. actually, i'd like 4 comps: intel/nvidia (what i have now), intel/ati, amd/nvidia, amd/ati. no more flame wars over which is better!!
Posted by: waynejkruse10
that would cost a bit, id rather just have a Athlon 64 3500+, 1gb ram, 6800gt super good system, then my current Athlon XP, 512mb Ram, 9800pro (need to upgrade) , that i can leave to download overnight, and play lan games on.
Posted by: Apokalipse
I'm gonna get a really good system, with an Athlon 64 3200/3500, 6800 GT, DDR500 RAM and an Abit AV8 3rd eye or DFI Lanparty (depending if I decide to get PCI-E) and then keep my current PC as a work PC. I won't need to get another monitor, because you can plug 2 computers into mine, and switch between the 2
Posted by: bigtimeballer50
my system is already g00d i dont know wat else 2 upgrade lol..
Posted by: VIII
then just leav eit
Posted by: bigtimeballer50
but i want 2 upgrad but there is nothin left lol
Posted by: jnev_89
if you want to upgrade then either get a new fx-55 and mobo, or just get a 3.6ee
Posted by: Sh0r_ty
FX-55 will pawn the 3.6EE
Posted by: dale5605
Yep the FX-55 is more powerful than the 3.6 extreme. However the extreme's are good for overclocking and with some good cooling you don't have to get it up near 5 ghz for it to compete with the fx-55. About 4.3ghz or so is competitive with it, since the extremes are faster.
Posted by: Apokalipse
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by waynejkruse10 [/i]
[B]Yeah, i do see more Celerons than Semprons, but Semprons are basicly Athlon XP's rebadged, and Athlon XP's arnt that bad. And if some Semprons had mobile capability, they should have the wonderful overclocking ability of Mobile Athlon XP's.
Wayne [/B][/QUOTE]
the socket 754 Sempron's are exactly the same as the Athlon 64 clawhammers, except they have less cache and don't have the X86-64 register
also, I think the P4 EE's and FX-55 are just as overclockable as each other. with good cooling you can get a P4 to >4.5GHZ and an FX-55 to >3GHZ
Posted by: VIII
thats nearly a gb clock for the pentium and 400mhz( im pretty sure fx 55 are 2.6? )
Posted by: FadingTheory
AMD MHz go farther than Pentium MHz. So thats about the same.
Posted by: viper123456789
amd are all right dude but they suck i ahve a pentium 4 3.6hgs 128mb g card 3 gig ram so u all suck
Posted by: VIII
so how much is 3.6hgs in ghz ???
Posted by: Melwynchettiar
Pentium and AMD processors are different in architecture, which says that AMD is better than Pentium.
According to me both are similar in performance. Only sour part is that AMD processors dissipate more heat and require proper air conditioning.
Your PC configuration is perfect for the games u mentioned.
Melwyn Chettiar
Posted by: waynejkruse10
The newer chips from AMD and Intel, the heat dissipation is quite different. The newer Intel Chips (3.4ghz Presscott) has 115 watts of power dissipation.
The newer AMD Chips (Clawhammer FX) has 89 watts of power dissipation. And the newer 90nm AMD's have a power dissipation of 55-60 watts.
Posted by: FadingTheory
55-60? Are those the Winchesters?
Posted by: dhw200
hey just have a question. Would an AMD Athlon 64 3200+ (socket 939) combined with 2 gigs of RAM and X850XT Platinum be enought for the newest games on higher settings? or is it worth the investment in a a 3500+?
Posted by: FadingTheory
Thats good enough... definintly good enough.
If your spending that much money though, I guess you might as well go up to 3500+.
Posted by: dhw200
Just how much of a difference woul a 3500+ make?
Posted by: ReverseFluxx
Quite a bit, I think about 15 fps or more
Posted by: dhw200
Im gonna stay where I am. besides, the 3200 can be OCed to 3500 speeds.
Posted by: desiboi
when i play games, my laptops cpu temp goez 2 70C. i had 2 get a prog kalled speedFan. i can control da fan speed. Intel Pentuim 4 M 1.80 GHz
Posted by: Apokalipse
I believe the 3500+ is the most overclockable, even more than the 3200+
they tested the 3200+ and 3500+ with G.Skill RAM, and the 3500 allowed them to go further
[quote]amd are all right dude but they suck i ahve a pentium 4 3.6hgs 128mb g card 3 gig ram so u all suck[/quote]
these are the words of an Intel fanboy
I don't dislike the 3.6GHZ P4, but it is definately overrated. you will see far better price vs performance in a 3500+ or 3200+
and like said many times, Athlon's can do more per clock cycle, so a 2.6GHZ Athlon can often beat a 3.6GHZ P4
has anyone seen Intel's 600 series CPU's?
they've made 2 new EE's, one is at 3.73GHZ. I laughed when I saw the benchmarks though, they got outperformed by the previous 3.4 EE's and sometimes by the 3.2 non-EE
Posted by: desiboi
i dont like intel, amd iz much btr. first intel has a huge price increase in a small improvent and second, they live shorter when overclocked. AMD barely have a price increase and they live longer. but they do create more heat. AMD IZ DA WAY 2 GO!!!!!!!
Posted by: jnev_89
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by desiboi [/i]
[B]i dont like intel, amd iz much btr. first intel has a huge price increase in a small improvent and second, they live shorter when overclocked. AMD barely have a price increase and they live longer. but they do create more heat. AMD IZ DA WAY 2 GO!!!!!!! [/B][/QUOTE]
and these are the words of an amd fanboy.
can't people just see that intel and amd are good fro different things?? amd is great for gaming, but intel is better for apps (image/sound editing, development, etc)
Posted by: Raekwon
[QUOTE]has anyone seen Intel's 600 series CPU's?
they've made 2 new EE's, one is at 3.73GHZ. I laughed when I saw the benchmarks though, they got outperformed by the previous 3.4 EE's and sometimes by the 3.2 non-EE[/QUOTE]
i sorta feel sorry for the people who get sucked in and buy the 3.73EE because that would be one **** expensive CPU. and the reason that intel will sell that 3.73EE as well as any other? because they are marketing whores, and people dont pay attention to benchmarks, or they dont care to see them.
Posted by: FadingTheory
Most people don't understand the meaning of benchmarks. Of course, those people are the ones who don't need the benchmarks, or performance... they just need it to work.
Which is what pentium does. ^_^
Posted by: Catbert
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by FadingTheory [/i]
[B]Most people don't understand the meaning of benchmarks. Of course, those people are the ones who don't need the benchmarks, or performance... they just need it to work.
Which is what pentium does. ^_^ [/B][/QUOTE]
Which is also what an AMD does.
Which is also what a Cyrix does.
Which is also what a SUN chip does.
Need I go on ?
Intel are not the be all and end all of the computer processing industry, just like Microsoft are not the be all and end all of Operating Systems.
Alot of it is to do with marketing and the fact people feel safer investing their hard earned cash in the reputable brands.
I`m sure if companies such as AMD, Cyrix, SUN and Linux started marketing themseleves more and had their products put into PC bundles like Intel and MS do, then the regular user PC marekt would become less concentrated.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
exactly
Posted by: VIII
my friend built a new system about a week ago:
3200+ 939
asus kv8 or something?
512mb pc3200
9800pro
he brought it over to my place, powers it up.. turns on nice n fast, as ud expect and we started playin games and was all good...
then he decides to run a norton scan.. coz he just did a liveupdate and is really worried about gettin viruses etc... and so he runs it and i was thinkin hey its a 3200+ so come play CS at the same time, he clicks on CS and without exaggeration, 30 seconds later CS opens up and when he tried to join my game it took about 30seconds again... when it usually takes me n him about 2 or 3 seconds..
I don't know if this is normal, but i was under the impression that a 3200+ would be able to handle a virus scan and CS at the same time with relative ease, maybe it was his ram... dont get me wrong im not tryin to imply amd's suck lol, i think i've done enough of that. But yeah, I know they don't have HT like mine but I really thought it would handle 2 programs at the same time?
Posted by: senseless
You're right. They have hyper transport.. its better. The reason is because he only had 512mb of ram, dual channel doesnt work unless he has 2 chips (i guess he could've had 2x256). I don't really see anyone able to play much of anything when you have a program that is made to pretty much max your cpu/hd throughput/ram by scanning files for virii. I can play swg @ 1600x1200x32bpp, listen to music, watch multiple movies, have a couple firefox sessions up, and my news reader going at the same time with no lag.
However i can't play when sisoft sandra 2005 is running hd benchmarks.
Posted by: dhw200
I personally dont have a predisposition to one brand or another. I am a gamer, so AMD was the logical choice for my new comp (c my sig). Also, it prolly isnt wise to run an online game while running a virus scan...ur just opening up ur i-net connection and paving the way for more attacks.
Posted by: VIII
Not an online game, it was CS 1.5.. over Gigabit LAN ..... and I can run a virus scan + play CS at the same time, because I tried... loL.. maybe it was his ram, but 512 should still kinda be up there..
oh yeah and i can run Nfsu:2 and Halo at the same time and have them instantly switch with Alt+Tab
Posted by: Apokalipse
my computer lags when I alt+tab from a game called Madness (which is a flash game)
Posted by: hochimin
more information on hardware subjects and to clarify your doubts, I suggest you visit, [url]www.ciol.com[/url] [url]www.pcquest.com[/url]
bye for now
hochi
Posted by: pc_boy
wow! ...it's amazing how much crap was posted on this thread, it became an off topic discussion section hre LOL!! :D
i think the ppl who still have questions about AMD vs. Intel would have fun reading over 300 posts that are here. (BTW, I don't think they need any more..) ;)
Posted by: Rayne
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jnev_89 [/i]
[B]and these are the words of an amd fanboy.
can't people just see that intel and amd are good fro different things?? amd is great for gaming, but intel is better for apps (image/sound editing, development, etc) [/B][/QUOTE]
Sorry mate but my 3d mark 05 scores pwn yours. I got 5500 ish on this spec pc
Posted by: ReverseFluxx
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rayne [/i]
[B]Sorry mate but my 3d mark 05 scores pwn yours. I got 5500 ish on this spec pc [/B][/QUOTE]
OK, what is your point? You're just agreeing with him. Your AMD beats his Intel in gaming... woohoo.
Posted by: jnev_89
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rayne [/i]
[B]Sorry mate but my 3d mark 05 scores pwn yours. I got 5500 ish on this spec pc [/B][/QUOTE]
ok dude, you're just an idiot. 1) as reversefluxx pointed out, you are just proving my point, and 2) you have a 6800, i have a 6600gt. pretty big difference, especially because yours is oced and mine isn't
Posted by: VIII
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rayne [/i]
[B]Sorry mate but my 3d mark 05 scores pwn yours. I got 5500 ish on this spec pc [/B][/QUOTE]
lmao :tired:
Posted by: [DFO]Starfury
Well my AMD setup gets over 14,000 on 3D Mark 2005 so I pwn all j00 m0f0's
MUHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by: pc_boy
dude, you gotta prove it!! ;)
:p
Posted by: VIII
Yes, we believe you... The only way to get upwards of 12,000 is with 6800Ultras in SLi, which i highly doubt you have.
Posted by: pc_boy
hey, quick post but you're right ;)
Posted by:
My PC that Rayne helped me build would pwn all j00 /\$$'$! And I know for a fact Raynes PC kicks monkey ***, so dont go slaggin it down
And wtf have you started flame baiting Rayne anyway? Whats the point, he was only trying too be friendly and that, but oh no, u have too take it wrong. Geez, its like a school playground.
Posted by: [DFO]Starfury
AMD Athlon64 FX55
Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
2x Nvidia 6800 Ultra 256Mb SLI linked
2Gb DDR400 Corsair XMS TwinX RAM in dual mode
15k rpm Ultra320 SCSI HD's
Posted by: Deadbolt
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by apokalipse [/i]
[B]stop arguing guys! this is a computer forum, not a "your computer sucks" forum [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, and ur computers suck. So do as the man says and stop arguing...
Posted by: senseless
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by [DFO]Starfury [/i]
[B]If I can afford 4x HP/Compaq Proliant DL380 G3 2U rack servers (Dual Xeon 3.6Ghz, 6Gb DDR Ram, 6x hot pluggable 146GB Ultra320 SCSI 15k rpm drives in two RAID5 arrays)plus a MSA1000 SAN with 14x 146Gb drives of the same spec... for hosting all my clients stuff off I think I can afford a crappy little gaming system of the spec I said before.
Now backup outta this thread before I remove your lame *** from the internet. [/B][/QUOTE]
Why not opertons? More mips, good for linux.
And, your computer would score higher than a supercomputer.. Unless youre going to try to compare cpu software rendering vs direct3d gpu rendering.
Posted by: senseless
I was talking about opertons instead of xeons.. for your servers
Posted by: DMo224
Please note that this is not a chat room!
For those that wish to discuss processors, please hold on while I get rid of all the hijacking.
Dave :D
Posted by: Apokalipse
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DMo224 [/i]
[B]Please note that this is not a chat room!
For those that wish to discuss processors, please hold on while I get rid of all the hijacking.
Dave :D [/B][/QUOTE]
THANK YOU!
Posted by: VIII
lol why did that Rayne loser make like 10 accounts ?
Posted by: Rayne
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by VIII [/i]
[B]lol why did that Rayne loser make like 10 accounts ? [/B][/QUOTE]
I did nothing of the sort. I dont spam forums.
Posted by: Nubius
[quote]lol why did that Rayne loser make like 10 accounts ?[/quote] That's out of line VIII. Don't make comments like that again.
Posted by: VIII
Ok Sorry, but can't you do an IP check or something. :freak:
Posted by: senseless
<rant>
i had to build a dual xeon today
why does intel feel the need to switch up the way that heatsinks are mounted (compared to p4, amd 64, opteron, etc)
Why are the retail xeon fans the only decent fans you can buy that will actually FIT on the motherboard. I love intels motherboard specs. Use a non-retail xeon fan and it'll hit the caps and short circuit something.. xeon go boom!!
<tangent>
Asus sucks too!
Stupid motherboard was dead and i had to swap it out..
IDE drives wouldn't recognise. Nothing. It kept posting and pooping.
don't buy the ncch-dl
</tangent>
AMD rocks.
We need to devise a plan to put intel out of buisness =/
</rant>
Posted by: Apokalipse
I think socket 939 coolers can be put on socket 940
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by alfa_375 [/i]
[B]Intel is the best of all but I hear some people really
like AMD processors specially the lates one.[/B][/QUOTE]
that's really an opinion.
I would have to say that Intel is not best of all, but are good nonetheless
Posted by: senseless
Xeon != 940
Posted by: Apokalipse
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by senseless [/i]
[B]Xeon != 940 [/B][/QUOTE]
no, AMD Opteron = 940
Intel Xeon = socket 603/604
a quick google will tell you
[url]http://www.google.com.au/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=Xeon+socket+...&btnG=Search&meta=[/url]
note, Google uses the "." as a single character wild card
Posted by: senseless
nvm, i thought you were talking to me.
!= = not equal to
Posted by: Apokalipse
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by senseless [/i]
[B]nvm, i thought you were talking to me.
!= = not equal to [/B][/QUOTE]
oh ok
you could use "≠"
which is alt + 8800
Posted by: ReverseFluxx
Yeah but != is used in programming.
Posted by: Apokalipse
I haven't done any programming, I'm used to using ≠ because I do a lot of Maths
Posted by: ReverseFluxx
Cool.
Posted by: retherfordaehs
the current A64s spank the P4 for gaming and most every other area. But the P4 does still outperform the A64 in a few cases, but those ARE the minority.
The Opteron, due to its price, is the best server proc. It hands the Xeon its @$$, and is neck to neck with the Itanic. But, the Itanic costs SO MUCH MORE, that the Opteron wins due to being cheaper while offering the same performance.
Nuff said.
Posted by: Apokalipse
from what I've heard, the Itanium 1 is such a crappy processor, and that's why it didn't sell
Posted by: opticalsky
AMD rocks the ground hardcore....
I don't like companies (intel) that change the name of established cpu technical terms to something their own.
FYI= Intel's L1 Cache = renamed it to Rapid Execution Cache
Posted by: FadingTheory
Thats a really bad excuse to hate Intel... And in any case, even if they changed the name, its for ease.
In any case... REC is EXACTLY what the cache is. Its not like they made up some weird stuff.
Posted by: retherfordaehs
I, personally, don't hate Intel the least bit.
Infact, I DO believe that they WILL catch up with AMD- just not before 2yrs time. AMD is in the lead for K9 AND K10 ( I know, AMD is dropping the "Kx" naming scheme, but I forget what is replacing it). Intel's dual core and "64 bit" technology doesn't CURRENTLY offer the performance GAINS of AMD's.
But thier FUTURE technologies just may. I assume that the P5 (if they will release it, for all we know they may just drop the Pentium line and move onto something else- though I don't see why they'd do that) could put up quite the competition. If not the P5 then I say the P6 for sure.
But all current P4s are hosed, doomed- when considering performance, cooling, and price/performance ratio.
I say the above cause all benches shows AMD taking the lead in areas where Intel used to "own", thanks to the addition to SSE3- and the dual core chips will steal the multi-threaded lead from Intel aswell.
So Intel's current architecture is sunk- the next one may VERY WELL soar- but only time can tell THIS.
Posted by: caseyc
Guh, stupid argument.
I currently have an AMD 64 setup (see sig) however I used Intel chips for over 8 years (including my original 486SX/33) and I have NEVER had a problem. It's always performed exactly the way I expected it to and the temperature of peripherals were always great.
Now with that being said, comparing my current setup to anything that Intel could put together, they don't come close in terms of performance. Intel has yet to come into the 64-bit market (aside from the feeble attempt with emulated 64-bit technology - EM64T), and until they do, AMD will continue to outperform.
However, when Intel decides to come out with a true 64-bit consumer-based CPU, the hype of it will easily bring sales above and beyond anything AMD has done, solely because it's Intel and Intel has a crazy good reputation amongst PC professionals as well as new PC users.
My example: Dell has, and probably always will, refuse to use AMD CPU's. Possibly due to the "unknown" that is AMD's technology, and how comfortable the public is with the CPU brand Intel.
All in all, it's hard to battle about something so trivial. They're competitors, what does it matter if you hate one or the other? At least it's not a monopoly where the only CPU we can choose is either AMD or Intel, not either or.
Posted by: dhw200
Also, Intel markets much more aggressively than AMD. If AMD were to have Intel's marketing budget, Dell might be refusing to use Intel's stuff.
Posted by: Apokalipse
AMD hardly advertises at all, but they are doing very well against Intel.
just shows that AMD don't necessarily need to advertise all the time, because their products are good and a lot of people know that (but not enough)
Posted by: senseless
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by caseyc [/i]
[B]
Now with that being said, comparing my current setup to anything that Intel could put together, they don't come close in terms of performance. Intel has yet to come into the 64-bit market (aside from the feeble attempt with emulated 64-bit technology - EM64T), and until they do, AMD will continue to outperform.
However, when Intel decides to come out with a true 64-bit consumer-based CPU, the hype of it will easily bring sales above and beyond anything AMD has done, solely because it's Intel and Intel has a crazy good reputation amongst PC professionals as well as new PC users.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Intel came out with truland 2 days ago.. It's their next feeble attempt at a 64bit design.. Almost 800$ for the cheapest chip.
Posted by: jnev_89
are you talking about emt64?? the lowest chip is a 3ghz and is about $200-210.
btw, i'm kinda beginning to regret that i got intel over amd... with xp64 coming out and linux already supporting 64bit, i kinda wish i had gotten at least an emt64 cpu (they came out a week after i ordered my cpu). i'm notediting photos/movies as much as i had previously hoped so it's kind of a waste...
ah well, what's done is done.
Posted by: Apokalipse
EMT64 is much slower on Intel's against Athlon 64's
Posted by: jnev_89
from what i understand, emt64 runs 32bit natively and emulates 64bit instructions while a64 does exactly the opposite...
Posted by: VIII
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jnev_89 [/i]
[B]are you talking about emt64?? the lowest chip is a 3ghz and is about $200-210.
btw, i'm kinda beginning to regret that i got intel over amd... with xp64 coming out and linux already supporting 64bit, i kinda wish i had gotten at least an emt64 cpu (they came out a week after i ordered my cpu). i'm notediting photos/movies as much as i had previously hoped so it's kind of a waste...
ah well, what's done is done. [/B][/QUOTE]
dude, by the time 64bit windows is standard, your current computer will be long gone. Anyway, its not like anyone upgrades OS w/o upgrading their computer.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
i would
Posted by: VIII
ok.. when longhorn comes out lets see you use ur current computer for it
Posted by: Apokalipse
I believe 32-bit and 64-bit are native to Athlon 64's
Posted by: waynejkruse10
[QUOTE]
ok.. when longhorn comes out lets see you use ur current computer for it[/QUOTE]
I will, i was even planning to download the beta off Bittorrent
I heard that the minimum requitements will be around double XP
Posted by: Panther5060
this is a dumb arguement, agree to disagree
6 months from now intel could be leading the way, tomorrow they could be leading the way, **** 5 minutes from now they could be leading the way.
or... amd could still be in the lead, all depends
Posted by: VIII
.. like that hasn't been said already!!
but that guy i said about his 3200+ laggin with norton n stuff.. kinda gets made up for in games... i saw it play in a game, same settings as me.. its awesome
so ill admit that amd definently are superior fro games.. but mulittasking, i think theres more to be done from amd
Posted by: Catbert
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Panther5060 [/i]
[B]this is a dumb arguement, agree to disagree
6 months from now intel could be leading the way, tomorrow they could be leading the way, **** 5 minutes from now they could be leading the way.
or... amd could still be in the lead, all depends [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree with what has been said about this being a dumb post.
What can be said about AMD vs Intel has already been said, many times over.
Perhaps it is time for the forum admin to lay this topic to rest ?
Posted by: Sport1031
AMD
64-bit
cheaper
faster gaming
better
Posted by: NeoExtreme
AMD by far out ranks Intell,in the benchmark tests.Also in AMD core programing comes with 3D-Now! and 3D-Now!+,at which Intell does not.AMD also handles games like a champ.
Posted by: Panther5060
you guys might want to take a look at the pentium-m benchmarks when that asus 478 to 479 adapter is used...
amd must feel so ashamed to have their flagship processor klowned by a notebook paperweight...
Posted by: FadingTheory
Where are these benchs? I've heard that Pentium M's are good... but THAT good? I need to see this.
Posted by: flare
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Snake-Eyes [/i]
[B]again i ask do you think 1GB RAM is sufficeint enough for UniGraphics-type programs?? [/B][/QUOTE]
r u buliding ur own comp or buying a package? how much will it cost u?
Posted by: flare
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Sport1031 [/i]
[B]AMD
64-bit
cheaper
faster gaming
better [/B][/QUOTE]
im planning to buy AMD, but will that affect applications like Microsoft Word or any other work-related apps?
Posted by: FadingTheory
No, it will not affect those applications. Simple things like that really wont see a noticable difference, no matter if you buy P4 or AMD 64/XP.
Posted by: Panther5060
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by FadingTheory [/i]
[B]Where are these benchs? I've heard that Pentium M's are good... but THAT good? I need to see this. [/B][/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=770ct479&cookie%5Ftest=1& %2520MSCSProfile=95385A1F52DEA1A229D5B375420544642
C0BD5%253Cbr%2520%2F%253E%2520C3079C9D8F9E8ABB39CB
228394356A3333FF93CFDFDAF250E1%253Cbr%2520%2F%253E
%2520AFD64FA0719CB2D497047B3267BBDE133F2F15529DE07
326E1%253Cbr%2520%2F%253E%25201DDDEF178A2530A23BD8
187AF8B70ACBD45E9DAF46839AF0FC%253Cbr%2520%2F%253E
%2520FD071EEAAED72C5641A8A1C401AFC50CDC8233D8C5927
44A24%253Cbr%2520%2F%253EF2DEFBB4C23C428015BB81074
2DCAF71EA& MSCSProfile=95385A1F52DEA1A229D5B375420544640E38D4
A14D62606574FC4324FFD755B1DBDEA9F2962057516F1EE63E
E0C63B20E236A82BBB20F0001D31E8E6AB1172647CFE0FDF8A
61AD65F7EDAD5ED0557E2839FADBC8A2091F5B8710D52710F4
207B5841C14EC9EC289D5C5F3E4528EFBB45B8C63196B7B026
7B769D98658900ED3F46EAE0CF273B8FF0[/url]
uh oh... socket 486 mobos get a new lease on life as 2.0ghz processors can be clocked to 2.7ghz... with standard air cooling...
oh my oh my...
Posted by: Panther5060
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by NeoExtreme [/i]
[B]AMD by far out ranks Intell,in the benchmark tests.Also in AMD core programing comes with 3D-Now! and 3D-Now!+,at which Intell does not.AMD also handles games like a champ. [/B][/QUOTE]
intel doesnt have 3d-now!/3d-now+
well...
amd processors dont have sse/sse2/sse3
because:
sse/sse2/sse3 were multimedia FPU instructions designed for intel cpus only
and 3d-now!/3d-now!+ were designed as a reaction to intels technology...
ill be stingy
intel cpus have netburst, amds dont
(pointless ey?)
Posted by: VIII
Yeah the new p-M's are sweet.. my friend got a laptop from his dads work with a 1.6ghz and itruns like a beast
Posted by: Panther5060
i wish places like anandtech.com and tomshardware.com would do mobile processor reviews...
new pentium ms have 533 fsb and are supposed to be even better than the ones that were tested right now.
Posted by: FadingTheory
AMDs have SSE and SSE2...
[url]http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487%5E9503,00.html[/url]
Second paragraph under "Industry-leading performance for today’s software"
Posted by: Panther5060
no, it has compatibility for it, which means sse is the standard
3d-now! is amds version of sse, and as amd is saying "we have compatibility for sse" that would make sse the standard wouldnt it.
intel doesnt have 3d-now! because it doesnt need it... it has sse lmfao
Posted by: dale5605
Well thanks to the pentium-m adapter it looks like after 27 pages Intel has finally won the battle vs. AMD. Oh well, good try AMD fans, better luck next time.
Posted by: FadingTheory
Dale... you cant say that until its confirmed. Please, give me more than one site that shows this overclocking miracle, and I'll gladly concede the intel's superiorness. Otherwise, :P.
And isn't netburst the entire P4 archetecture, as a whole? Thats how I've always heard it explained, maybe it was a mis-understanding...
** Nevermind about netburst... it IS just a new archetecture. Increases pipeline depth and something about cache, that allows for faster CPUs.
Wow... isnt that the same thing as upgrading froma K6 something to a K8 64 bit AMD? O_o?
Posted by: VIII
har har, it takes 1 article for you all to go off your faces with how AMD are so much better.. your little flagship got beaten by a laptop, it cant be true!! hahaha well it is
Posted by: Panther5060
im not gonna take sides in what i am sure is gonna now turn into a sh*t flinging contest...
brown is right, there is no second proof. And until then, intel fans dont gloat, because in all likely hood you are gonna get your gloating shoved right back into your face...
but if it is true, ima build a system for $1000 and itll be better than an athlon 64 fx-55 based system, embarrasing no?
Posted by: VIII
please speak english, we dont speak jibberish.
Posted by: jakeslake
well....
am am just finishing up my new computer
i chose intel...
but all together it was $530
whad ya think? ll
V
Posted by: VIII
sounds good for the price, although you mite have been better off using the $$ for that celeronD to buy and 478 prescott or something
Posted by: Panther5060
who were you talking to about the "gibberish" VIII?
Posted by: Apokalipse
I'm not going to be one sided and say "pentium M's suck" because they are good CPU's, but there's one thing wrong with the comparision
the mobile Pentium M was actually [b]overclocked[/b], and [b]almost[/b] reached (but not quite) the [b]stock[/b] performance of the FX-55
it didn't actually outperform it
and they haven't tried comparing it to an overclocked FX-55
Posted by: Panther5060
lmao.. u DID look at the benchmarks on that link i posted right?
the 2.7ghz oced processor (2.13ghz 770 pentium-M is the un-overclocked version) did shut out the athlon fx-55 in all game fps benchmarks.
the 2.13ghz won about half i believe, all extremely close, but in stuff like multimedia/encoding and shizzz like that, the fx-55 beat the un-o/ced pentium m 770. drew about even with the 2.7ghz pentium M,
so, looks like in stock performance, the pentium m 770 and the athlon fx-55 drew about equal in the fps benchmarks, but the 770 got beat in multimedia.
i hope they come out with benchmarks pitting the fx-55 @ 3.0ghz against the 2.7ghz pentium m 770, that would be interesting.
oh btw, i stumbled across another benchmarking website that showed benches about the same as the benchmarks shown here, but *SIGH* i forgot to save the bookmark, instead it saved "www.comcast.net... stupid firefox.
Posted by: ShadowFalls
who are you trying to fool! we all know the Via C3 beats both hands down :wooha:
Posted by: dale5605
The Pentium M is faster, cheaper, more coolerer, and less powerer usererer than the FX-55. 'Nuff said.
Posted by: dhw200
dont wanna offend u dale, but u have proved time and time again that u r an intel fanboy. I personally prefer AMD cuz i think the architecture theory is cooler.
Posted by: dale5605
I have suggested an Intel to only 1 person on this forum. 'Nuff said.
Posted by: dhw200
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by dale5605 [/i]
[B]I have suggested an Intel to only 1 person on this forum. 'Nuff said. [/B][/QUOTE]
lol sorry if i offended u
Posted by: VIII
Don't worry about it, hes emotionally unstable.
Posted by: Redpill
This is the way it works:
Pentium's run cooler, but slow down when they get hot (hot for Intel is 40 degrees)
AMD's run hotter, but run 100% throttle all the time (hence why they burn out on people running crappy cooling) - They have a temperature threashold of "quoted -- 95 degrees" but would probably burn out at about 75+ depending on how long it's running that way for.
Celeron's are crap, they're Intel's budget CPU's and shouldnt be used by anybody except schools or librarys trying to save a buck.
Posted by: Panther5060
redpill, hot for intels is not 40C...
my preshott (i dunno where i saw that but it was sumwhere on these forums and i love it:p ) runs at about 50C, even with a heatsink that is 6 inches tall, 4 inches wide and 4 inches long.
I dont know much about amd athlon architecture, so no comment on that one.
and yup, celerys are for budget systems, EXTREME budget systems, even then id rather have a 2500+ barton, i can occccccccccccccc baby :p
Posted by: VIII
Redpill, youve basically got it in reverse
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jakeslake [/i]
[B]well....
am am just finishing up my new computer
i chose intel...
but all together it was $530
whad ya think? ll
V [/B][/QUOTE]
...and... how much does it suck???? ..compared to an athlon system for $530???:p
ok, there HAS been proof that AMD just PWNS intel right in the @$$, it's just that people who have intel won't admit that their computer sucks, it's ok, it's human nature, i mean you don't want to make yourself look stupid, even if in your mind you know that your intel is $#it and you want an AMD. It is kind of like PS2 vs. Xbox, my friend keeps arguing that PS2 is better but he has no proof, till one day I showed him the real specs fo the systems, i didn't even comment, now he knows the real answer, something I could have told him before... and I did, but he didn't accept it..
Posted by: jakeslake
woah man chill out
Posted by: waynejkruse10
[QUOTE]ok, there HAS been proof that AMD just PWNS intel right in the @$$, it's just that people who have intel won't admit that their computer sucks, it's ok, it's human nature, i mean you don't want to make yourself look stupid, even if in your mind you know that your intel is $#it and you want an AMD. It is kind of like PS2 vs. Xbox, my friend keeps arguing that PS2 is better but he has no proof, till one day I showed him the real specs fo the systems, i didn't even comment, now he knows the real answer, something I could have told him before... and I did, but he didn't accept it..[/QUOTE]
Hey calm down, we dont wanna start a flame war.
When i bought my console, i had a choice, PS2 or XBOX. I Knew XBOX has way better specs, but i simply liked the games on PS2 better, thats what it comes down to.
Im sure he has a reason for buying Intel on such a cheap system. Hes probly not a gamer so the real performance increases of AMD wont be so evident because games is where AMD shines.
Wayne
Posted by: samuel
i am not at all saying that i dont like amd.. i want to. but in the past i had amd durron (~$30) i was being a chepo. and it broke in 4 months, and then i got another amd cpu for the pc (~$40) and within a week it broke. i dont understand, they were all cheap, not in a box but i dont want a system to be unstable if i get a new one.
here is why im saying this, im going to build a comp for my cusin (gaming pc) and i would like to put good graphics in it but i just made a pc for my aunt with intel's lga 775 prescott 3.0ghz and it is kepping up in the 150's temp... its running stabble.. i guess but i dont like it that high temp.. so any way i would put him up with the older 478 socket intel but it does not support pci-e and it sounds like thats great for graphics cards. this system is going to cost ~$2000 so give me any solutions, exept water cooling , i dont wanna deal with that. e-mail me if you want at [email]fire_the_samuel@yahoo.com[/email]
Posted by: Panther5060
2000 dollars, go with an amd based system...
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by samuel [/i]
[B]i am not at all saying that i dont like amd.. i want to. but in the past i had amd durron (~$30) i was being a chepo. and it broke in 4 months, and then i got another amd cpu for the pc (~$40) and within a week it broke. i dont understand, they were all cheap, not in a box but i dont want a system to be unstable if i get a new one.
[/B][/QUOTE]
if you only pay 30 bucks for a cpu, don't expect to do anything... if you were gonna buy an Intel for $30 it would break down in one day, at least the AMD lasted for a week... :p
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by waynejkruse10 [/i]
[B]Hey calm down, we dont wanna start a flame war.
When i bought my console, i had a choice, PS2 or XBOX. I Knew XBOX has way better specs, but i simply liked the games on PS2 better, thats what it comes down to.
Im sure he has a reason for buying Intel on such a cheap system. Hes probly not a gamer so the real performance increases of AMD wont be so evident because games is where AMD shines.
Wayne [/B][/QUOTE]
hey, i used consoles as an example... but in case you didn't know, PC games run on both AMD and Intel, so you can't say you like some games so that is why you go with Intel...
Posted by: dhw200
if ur gonna game, AMD has burned intel in practiclly every gaming test.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
[QUOTE]hey, i used consoles as an example... but in case you didn't know, PC games run on both AMD and Intel, so you can't say you like some games so that is why you go with Intel...[/QUOTE]
Yes but not all PS2 games are on XBOX, and vice versa.
Posted by: Panther5060
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pc_boy [/i]
[B]if you only pay 30 bucks for a cpu, don't expect to do anything... if you were gonna buy an Intel for $30 it would break down in one day, at least the AMD lasted for a week... :p [/B][/QUOTE]
talk about biased. I have an intel p1 233 from 94 i think and its still working, i paid $3 for it. I also have a k6-2+ from around that time so ya, who made the cpu has no effect on its lifetime, its all silicone/metal/plastic.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by dhw200[/i]
[B]if ur gonna game, AMD has burned intel in practiclly every gaming test.[/b][/QUOTE]
people still dont look at those pentium mobile benchmarks :confused:
Posted by: waynejkruse10
i loved my k6-2 550, it ran 98, had 192mb ram ,10gb hdd, 8mb integrated graphics, cd burner. Upgraded to xp, and worked fine. 6 months later the motherboard blew......
Posted by: dale5605
I'm sorry but xbox > PS2. On PS2 you have to pay extra go get a hard drive, rofl.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
i completely agree, xbox has better specs, better expandibility, i knew this completely when i bought my ps2. I bought PS2 because of the games only on PS2 and not on XBOX (well then atleast)
So you can see why some choose AMD and some choose Intel, people have different requirements even though most agree on this forum that AMD is better.
Posted by: efd753
this is stupid get over it intel and amd are both good cpus they both perform well. Amd has the edge on the gamign side with what 1-10 fps more? that all? aint like you goona see the diference between an intel and an amd in gaming (considerignt hat you have a god graphic). Pc boy you are baied even in cosoles? now i chosed the ps2 cuase of the games i could care less of the graphics Hd ecetera of xbox cuase in the end what matter most is the games what good would of be if you had the most powerful console and crappy games. Tthe games of the xbox dont attract me alot of then are on the pc.
To the guy who wants sugestions about what cpu to get, get either intel or amd it dotn matter it comes down to you video card and ram. make sure u buya good video card 6600 Gt and above dont buy xl or criple video cards they suck. In the ati side is 800 xt or above.
Pc boy shut up!
Posted by: dale5605
ummm the xl is not a 'cripple card' by any stretch of the imagination. It performs near a 6800 gt and only slightly less than an x800 xt for only $270. And x800 xl is not a crippled card, the x800 pro is, but the x800 xl has all 16 pipes and fair clocks and room for overclocking.
Sorry just had to point that little oopsy out.
Posted by: dhw200
Dale's right, the X800 XL is not a cripple card. with 16 pipes and high clock speeds, its ATI's answer to the 6800 GT. and its a damned good one.
Posted by: The_Shocker
AMD is by far better the intel.
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by efd753 [/i]
[B]this is stupid get over it intel and amd are both good cpus they both perform well. Amd has the edge on the gamign side with what 1-10 fps more? that all? aint like you goona see the diference between an intel and an amd in gaming (considerignt hat you have a god graphic). Pc boy you are baied even in cosoles? now i chosed the ps2 cuase of the games i could care less of the graphics Hd ecetera of xbox cuase in the end what matter most is the games what good would of be if you had the most powerful console and crappy games. Tthe games of the xbox dont attract me alot of then are on the pc.
Pc boy shut up! [/B][/QUOTE]
1. hey dude, i used consoles just as an example or people defending their product, what part of that don't you understand... chill out dude, i don't care what console you buy or what games you like...
2.my point is that you can get a better chip for your money if you go with AMD since they have performance just as good or better than Intel for a lower price.... :p
3. Don't talk unless you owned an AMD and an INTEL and saw the difference. You probably never had an AMD before, so all your statements are opinions with no backup.
4. If you have a good vid. card in both AMD and Intel, that doesn't mean the FPS would equalize, it would actually make an even better difference since AMD works better with the card and making more than 1-10 FPS better.
Posted by: dale5605
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by The_Shocker [/i]
[B]AMD is by far, worse than Intel. [/B][/QUOTE]
I fixed it for you.
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by dale5605 [/i]
[B]I fixed it for you. [/B][/QUOTE]
and what evidence do you have so that you can persuade us all that you are right??? :p :p :p :p
Posted by: Apokalipse
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Redpill [/i]
[B]This is the way it works:
Pentium's run cooler, but slow down when they get hot (hot for Intel is 40 degrees)
AMD's run hotter, but run 100% throttle all the time (hence why they burn out on people running crappy cooling) - They have a temperature threashold of "quoted -- 95 degrees" but would probably burn out at about 75+ depending on how long it's running that way for.
[/B][/QUOTE]
well, that was true in the time of the Northwoods vs Athlon XP,s, but now the tide has turned
Athlon 64's are running cooler, while prescotts are going through the roof
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Redpill [/i]
[B]Celeron's are crap, they're Intel's budget CPU's and shouldnt be used by anybody except schools or librarys trying to save a buck. [/B][/QUOTE]
I would have to say that Celerons are not "crap"
they may not perform as well as a Pentium 4 of the same frequency, but that's only because of less cache. the difference is actually not very much either
tech-forums is actually run on a 2.6GHZ Celeron, yet is very fast
not trying to attack you personally....
Posted by: Panther5060
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pc_boy [/i]
[B]and what evidence do you have so that you can persuade us all that you are right??? :p :p :p :p [/B][/QUOTE]
why dont you actually LOOK at the benchmarks for the pentium mobile... It is a viable CPU now that ASUS has the 478 to 479 adapter. God **** doesn't anyone around here read anymore?
[url]http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=770ct479&page=1&cookie%5Ftest=1[/url]
He wont look at it anyway so why am I posting the link, I guess I can hope :(
Posted by: FadingTheory
I'll believe it when i see more than one link. until then, I am sceptical.
Posted by: VIII
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pc_boy [/i]
[B]
3. Don't talk unless you owned an AMD and an INTEL and saw the difference. You probably never had an AMD before, so all your statements are opinions with no backup.
[/B][/QUOTE]
have you ever owned an intel?
Posted by: waynejkruse10
Even though the question was not directed at me, i have used AMD and Intel however the best Intel i have ever owned is a P3-450. I have used P4's at school (p4 3.0ghz with HT, 512mb Ram) and they are ok, but cant seem to handle programs as well as my computer at home which is a AMD. It could be because of the schools network setup, my faster HDD, or other reasons. Mabye many people give intel such a bad rap because they have:
a. Never owned one
b. Never used one in a standalone environment
The only Intels they have probly used is the severly cut back ones they have in Schools and Offices.
Posted by: pc_boy
Hey, how about the Athlon 64 FX-55 939 vs. P4 3.4HT
this proves AMD is more advanced
...ok, now you can yell at me all you want and argue that what i just said is not true, but i don't really care... :p
Posted by: The_Shocker
amd is better for gaming.
Posted by: ReverseFluxx
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pc_boy [/i]
[B]Hey, how about the Athlon 64 FX-55 939 vs. P4 3.4HT
this proves AMD is more advanced
...ok, now you can yell at me all you want and argue that what i just said is not true, but i don't really care... :p [/B][/QUOTE]
I think a better comparison would probably be the AMD 64 3400+ and the P4 3.4GHz.
Posted by: Apokalipse
I know some people aren't, but come on guys, no need to flame each other
this thread has reminded me of a book called "who moved my cheese"
now the title may be funny, but it has a good point
people do not like change. they like to hold on to their beliefs and their atmosphere, because they fear that if they change, they will be wrong.
usually, if one person likes Intel, they will always like Intel. or if one person likes AMD, they will always like AMD
let's just remember: change is not always bad, it is often good
evolution is a classic example: if a certain animal did not evolve, it would not be able to survive the changes in the world
Posted by: dale5605
Intel = AMD
who cares which is better, buy whatever the **** you want and be happy
Posted by: VIII
I'd like to withdraw all my posts in this thread in agreement of above post *dale565, yes.. ironic i know*
I bought an intel, its the best I've ever had. You've bought an AMD, its the best you've ever had. end of story.
Posted by: Apokalipse
the best I've ever had is what I've got now
kinda sad...
Posted by: emeraldice
Hey me too! It usually is in the computer world, unless you're like the sob stories where pplz have FX-55s and something happens to it and they can't repair it so they have to get a worse computer
Posted by: 0o0
which is the best processor for 3d moddeling and using office,(sum games)
Pentium-4 3.4GHz, Hyper-Threading Prescott 1M L2 Cache retail box with heatsink and fan
Pentium 4 LGA775 3.4GHz, 800MHz FSB, 1MB L2 Cache, Boxed
or Amd 64 3500+ s939
there all around the same price so it dosen't really matter.
i already know the amd is better in gaming and not so good at other stuff but i want a non biased opinion
please...
Posted by: ReverseFluxx
I would suggest the P4 3.4GHz Prescott, I've heard those are good processors... however you won't get the 64 bit support for the future. If you're planning on wanting to use 64 bit applications in the next couple years, I would get the AMD 64, but yes, the P4 will perform better on apps.
Posted by: 0o0
i thought the lga 775 was newer and runs cooler than the 478 pin?
i know the p4 (prescott and 775) are betta at apps but how
much beeter compared to the amd 64??
can you give me some benchmarks?
is there a massive difference between the two , a noticeable
differnce??
i guess any thing is an improvement from a p3 800....
thanx
Posted by: Apokalipse
socket 775 is newer, but a lot of the processors are not very good so far, especially the 600 series
Posted by: dale5605
You might want to make a thread if you want a lot of opinions.
Myself I would get a 64 bit intel. Really fast plus 64 bit.
[url]http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-197&depa=1[/url]
I think this one is in that budget area, but you could step down to the 3.0 ghz too, won't make a huge diff
Posted by: dale5605
Oh and btw here is a benchmark comparison between the intel and AMD. BAsically the Intel beats AMD in most non-gaming tasks and actually with this new processor as you can see in the gaming benchmarks it is almost right on par with the AMD. So I think the processor I linked you is the best choice for gaming and multitasking or whatever else.
[url]http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/processorsmemory/0,39024015,39189912-7,00.htm[/url]
Posted by: waynejkruse10
it will be interesting to see 64 bit AMD and Intels with 64 bit Windows.
Posted by: Apokalipse
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by dale5605 [/i]
[B]Oh and btw here is a benchmark comparison between the intel and AMD. BAsically the Intel beats AMD in most non-gaming tasks and actually with this new processor as you can see in the gaming benchmarks it is almost right on par with the AMD. So I think the processor I linked you is the best choice for gaming and multitasking or whatever else.
[url]http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/processorsmemory/0,39024015,39189912-7,00.htm[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
not trying to bash Intel, but:
the Athlon 64 3200+ is less than $200, compared to the 64-bit 3.2 at just under $300
the Intel is either on par, or doesn't perform as well
it emulates 64-bit, making it much slower when it does process 64-bit code
Intel needs to:
cut down on price
realise that clock speed isn't everything - they have done with Pentium M's, but haven't done with their more important line of processors (pentium 4's)
include native 64-bit support
release a processor that is more competitive in gaming, then gamers will find Intel more attractive
Posted by: waynejkruse10
Then Intel will be just like AMD but with different naming!
Posted by: efd753
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pc_boy [/i]
[B]1. hey dude, i used consoles just as an example or people defending their product, what part of that don't you understand... chill out dude, i don't care what console you buy or what games you like...
2.my point is that you can get a better chip for your money if you go with AMD since they have performance just as good or better than Intel for a lower price.... :p
3. Don't talk unless you owned an AMD and an INTEL and saw the difference. You probably never had an AMD before, so all your statements are opinions with no backup.
4. If you have a good vid. card in both AMD and Intel, that doesn't mean the FPS would equalize, it would actually make an even better difference since AMD works better with the card and making more than 1-10 FPS better. [/B][/QUOTE]
Hey Pc Boy i do own a AMD is the Amd 64 3000 939 i just bought it a month ago i went amd cuase 64 sounds better but i would of went intel too but had to have 64 in the name of my cpu. 64 isnt important right and it wont be for a logn time. I just wnated to be cool and say i have an 64 bt processor.
Posted by: dale5605
cool :cool:
Posted by: Panther5060
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by efd753 [/i]
[B]Hey Pc Boy i do own a AMD is the Amd 64 3000 939 i just bought it a month ago i went amd cuase 64 sounds better but i would of went intel too but had to have 64 in the name of my cpu. 64 isnt important right and it wont be for a logn time. I just wnated to be cool and say i have an 64 bt processor. [/B][/QUOTE]
efd753 kill some typos or please be quiet. I agree with many of your statements but I had to read them 3-4 times through before I could understand WTH you were saying.
Posted by: kboy
That's a great list!!!!!!!!
Posted by: glasseye
What's UniGraphics or whatever the thing was that required 2gb RAM? DO NOT get a 4000+ it offers a horrendous value per $
Posted by: FadingTheory
All upper end processors offer horrible performance at the dollar. If you want to have the most cost efficiant CPU, buy a bag full of PII's for 15 bucks on ebay.
But, in any case, I think the sweet spot in processors is the 3.2 GHz (3200+). Right now anyway.
Posted by: str8lazy
3200+ doesnt run at 3.2 ghz.... Anywayz, why is this topic still alive I figure that it would have died months ago...
Posted by: Apokalipse
I think he just meant that the 3200+ is about the same as a Pentium 4 3.2GHZ
Posted by: desiboi
Can someone please close this thread? It's been going on for a while
Posted by: Apokalipse
if this thread closes, somebody is just going to start another one
Posted by: waynejkruse10
these x vs y threads are perpetual
Posted by: kboy
On & on & on & on....
Posted by: pc_boy
Intel Pentium 4 3.2 Northwood 800MHz FSB 512KB L2 Cache Socket 478 Processor - $$$>256<$$$
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Winchester Integrated into Chip FSB 512KB L2 Cache Socket 939 Processor -$$$190$$$
Now you can can see, compare and contrast ON YOUR OWN!!!
It's RIDICULOUS that the 3200 939 athlon 64 is cheaper than the 3.2GHZ pentium. And the AMD has faster FSB too.:p
----------------------------------------------------------
[url]http://www2.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116165[/url]
[url]http://www2.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103502[/url]
Posted by: Codeine
pc_boy, AMD64 dont have FSB, they have HTT. FSB is built into the mobo, HTT is built into the processor itself.
Posted by: VIII
Err PC_Boy your a tad clueless. The reason why Northwood cores are so expensive now is because they are no longer produced but are still in higher demand due to problems with the prescott core. Heating, etc. You should find that a prescott 3.2 will be cheaper than the northwood.
Posted by: burned-ati
dude WTF!!! i want wat u got i got a athlon 2500 384 ram ati 128m 9500 pro flashed to 9700 pro asus mother board 80 gig samsung 7200 rpm 300 watt power suply. and a gay monitor but i gotta diablo demon case with 7 led fans in it and i run half life 2 perfect 1280/1024 high details no skip. and doom 3 maxed out also and unreal 2004 also so watever u got should run big rigs lol
Posted by: desiboi
lol.
Posted by: dhw200
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by apokalipse [/i]
[B]I think he just meant that the 3200+ is about the same as a Pentium 4 3.2GHZ [/B][/QUOTE]
About that, the 3200+ is more powerful than the 3.2ghz by a considerable amount. in some gaming tests, the 3200+ beat a P4 3.8ghz.
Posted by: FadingTheory
And that 3.8 GHz Pentium will thump the 3200+ in applications with hyperthreading.
Posted by: desiboi
Yeah, and the Opteron will rape the Xeon in gaming! lol. Who uses an Opteron for gaming?
Posted by: Apokalipse
not really, the latest P4's (600 series) are even worse in efficiency. the 3.73GHZ gets outperformed by the 3.2GHZ in a lot of benchies
AMD is doing something that makes more sense, they are using dual cores in their Opterons (servers) not their desktop CPU's
just think about it, does a desktop user use multitasking like a server?
Posted by: FadingTheory
Sometimes. When you build hardware to do a certian thing well, software will be programmed to optimize that ability. If you give a gaming rig a dual core, then games will be optimized for that.
Posted by: pc_boy
ok, just to prove that intel is retarded (i'm using it as the literal meaning of the word, it means "behind or slow in development")..
pentium had the 3.2 crap for a long time... and they stayed there till today, tried to come out with some 3.7 crap but turned out to be $#!t like some1 here pointed out...
AMD, on the other hand came up with Athlon 64-FX 55 which rapes all the intel crap you can name right here in front of me.... and also the Dual Opteron for servers and stuff you will start arguing about.
so, bottom line
:cool: AMD > intel:dead:
Posted by: FadingTheory
To PC_Boy:
?
You just made a broken post.
First of all, it is entirely too early to say dual opterons will 'rape' anything. Unless I'm missing a load of benchmarks, it hasn't been completely documented.
Second, all of the CPU makers are behind. Intel lacks an onboard memory controller (Hyper-transport) and AMD lacks the mult-threading technology (hyper-threading). So, no ones really up to date. untill both companies get back to having the same options, and simply going for a race of speed, no one will be on top in this aspect.
Second, its unfar to to judge an entire line up by its heavy weight. You can say an AMD FX whomps a P4 3.7EE, but but you can't conlude that everything else will end up the same.
Example: an AMD 3000+ is named just that for a reason: its runs similiar to a P4 3.0 GHz. Each has its strengths.
And if Intel was so 'retarded,' then wouldn't everyone own an AMD?
Posted by: VIII
Pc_Boy you're just a moron. I've got a 3.2E and I bet you $100 that it would whomp the crap out of your processor in any benchmark at any clock speed. So by sayin the 3.2 was a crap line is total BS. I think the EE was a BS line, but the E's are what i would say are their best processors around, until they bring out a new range
Posted by: dhw200
I personally prefer AMDs cuz i think the architectural theory is cooler. Also, the 3000+ was equal to a P4 3.6ghz in some gaming tests. But anyway. Both companies have their strengths and weaknesses, like fadingtheory said. Intels are better for video design, editing, and multitasking. AMDs pwn intel in games. It comes down to personal preference.
Posted by: Apokalipse
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by FadingTheory [/i]
[B]To PC_Boy:
?
You just made a broken post.
First of all, it is entirely too early to say dual opterons will 'rape' anything. Unless I'm missing a load of benchmarks, it hasn't been completely documented.
Second, all of the CPU makers are behind. Intel lacks an onboard memory controller (Hyper-transport) and AMD lacks the mult-threading technology (hyper-threading). So, no ones really up to date. untill both companies get back to having the same options, and simply going for a race of speed, no one will be on top in this aspect.
Second, its unfar to to judge an entire line up by its heavy weight. You can say an AMD FX whomps a P4 3.7EE, but but you can't conlude that everything else will end up the same.
Example: an AMD 3000+ is named just that for a reason: its runs similiar to a P4 3.0 GHz. Each has its strengths.
And if Intel was so 'retarded,' then wouldn't everyone own an AMD? [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree with you for the most part, except AMD do make use of multitasking. the Athlon 64's are not for multitasking, but the Opterons, and the Athlon MP's (the MP's were the server processor alongside Athlon XP's) do. even without dual cores, they do a good job of multitasking especially the 8xx series Opterons which emulate 8 CPU's
Posted by: FadingTheory
But those CPUs rely on redunduncy (more then one processor). No AMD CPU has hyper threading, correct?
Posted by: str8lazy
From what I understand the Intel's HT is actually a fix for a screw up in the netburst design, specifically cache misses due to the long pipeline and the high latency. So basically its not like you are getting extra performance, it is the performance that your supposed to be getting anyway. I just thought that you guyz would like to know that.
So basically AMD has no need for HT because they have a smaller and more effiecent pipeline architecture. I am sure that they have a very small amount of cache missing, slowing the processor down a minuet amount (probably hardly measureable). But that thesis is only correct providing that the information that I have is correct.
And another side note that is my personal opinion.
If HT was embedded into the architecture, AMD would totally own, because I am sure that their processor power would be close to doubling, but they dont do this because the cost to benefit ratio doesnt balance out.
And that is were the dual core processing comes into play.
Posted by: FadingTheory
By the way... I was off that one day I said I thought the 3.2/3200+ was the sweet spot. I did the math today, and the 2800+/2.8 GHz are far better for the dollar. I can't find my paper work, but I think it was something like 24 MHz for each dollar, compared to the 12 MHz per dollar the 3200+ gets. I used March figures for OEM processors bought in 1000 unit bundles In anycase, just thought I'd correct a mistake on my part.
Posted by: dhw200
Ya, but these days, its prolly better to have at least a P4 3.0ghz.
Posted by: desiboi
OH GOD!!!! WHAT IF INTEL BOUGHT AMD!!! :(. End Of the world
Posted by: senseless
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by desiboi [/i]
[B]OH GOD!!!! WHAT IF INTEL BOUGHT AMD!!! :(. End Of the world [/B][/QUOTE]
Then all the amd engineers would be working for intel and they wouldnt suck so bad anymore.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
lol, good one
Posted by: Apokalipse
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by FadingTheory [/i]
[B]But those CPUs rely on redunduncy (more then one processor). No AMD CPU has hyper threading, correct? [/B][/QUOTE]
actually any opteron in the 2xx series and 8xx series can do the same thing hyperthreading does, although they don't give it the name "hyperthreading" or anything fancy like that. only the 1xx series opterons do not have the multi-way support.
Opteron 2xx processors are 2-way (2 virtual CPU's per 1 physical CPU)
Opteron 8xx CPU's are 8-way (8 virtual CPU's per 1 physical CPU)
you can have up to 2 Opterons in one board if any of them are in the 1xx or 2xx series
that means you can have 2 physical X 2 virtual per physical CPU = 4 virtual CPU's if they are both in the 2xx series
you can also have up to 4 Opterons in one board if all are in the 8xx series
4 physical CPU's X 8 virtual per physical CPU's = [b][size=3]32 virtual processors!!![/b][/size]
that's no typo either!!
although if you actually did buy 4 Opteron 8xx CPU's, it would cost a significant amount of money. I believe the only quad 940 board out ATM is from Tyan, which costs about $1500 US (that's just the motherboard!!)
the cheapest Opteron in the 8xx series is the 840, which costs at least $770 each.
now, 770 x 4 + 1500 = $4580
and that's with the lowest end of the 8xx series opterons
if you got the highest end, the 852 it would cost $1474 for each CPU (from monarchcomputer.com, about $300 cheaper than the only other place I saw it)
$1474 x 4 + $1500 = $7396
Posted by: FadingTheory
Wow, I didn't know Opterions worked that way.
Cool.
Posted by: str8lazy
That is pretty cool, I am glad that you brought that to our attention.
Posted by: desiboi
WOW! Intel are really behind! AMD ownz INTEL MUAHAHHA!!!
Posted by: Apokalipse
not necessarily.
while having 32 virtual processors is a lot of CPU power you can use, most programs only use one CPU.
this is a different story when it comes to servers, or programs that really take advantage of multi processors
some servers have to respond to thousands of computers, even tens of thousands (usually only on the internet)
now imagine doing that with only a single threaded CPU
Posted by: icemagic
I say AMD, there cheaper and run better.
Posted by: dhw200
AMD isnt ever gonna sell themselves to Intel. They just wont.
I personally prefer AMD as well cuz they are cheaper and better performers. Besides, i find the concept behind their architecture to be a lot cooler than intel's method of just brute forcing it,
Posted by: Juice476
Amd
Posted by: desiboi
seriously Intel shouLD STOP EMbarRASIng theIR SeLves. if YOU have NOTIceD MY CapS ANd sTUFf, MY SIS kePt PrESsINg thE cAps LoCK KEy
Posted by: diabloII
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
and you let her?
Posted by: desiboi
She wouldn't stop. If I did try, she would cry and crap, really annoying.
Posted by: Alex1515
hey this might not compleatly go with this thread so if it dosent don't answer but what prosseser would you chose
AMD® Athlon™ 64 3400+ processor (2.20GHz) or Intel® Pentium® 4 processor 540J (3.20GHz)
Posted by: dhw200
AMD Athlon 64 3400+, hands down
Posted by: VIII
Depends on what you want it for. Both CPUs are hardly flagship models, so the performance of one or the other in each field isnt going to be as tolerable as with the EE's and the FX. For me, and for my needs at this point int time, I would choose the Intel.
Posted by: Alex1515
I could buy the almost same computer with wichever prosesser for almost the same price so thats y i am asking
Posted by: Apokalipse
P4 3.2GHZ or Athlon 64 3400+
the 3400+ is socket 754
personally I would go for a socket 939 3200+ or 3500+ (I game)
if I used it for mathematics or multimedia, I would choose the P4
Posted by: DJ-CHRIS
GAH YOU CAN GET A SOCKET 939 3400+ IN AN OEM FORM ONLY
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
Wow, i can't believe my thread has grown so big.
I'm so proud of myself :)
Posted by: desiboi
[QUOTE] GAH YOU CAN GET A SOCKET 939 3400+ IN AN OEM FORM ONLY[/QUOTE]
Sorry for this noobish question, what's the difference between Retail and OEM? I know that you buy retails at stores and stuff, and OEM comes with your PC, why is there a price difference?
Again I'm sorry for this noob question.
Posted by: Apokalipse
retail = normal way to buy, with warranty, proper box and stuff
OEM = cheaper, normally bought in bulk. usually doesn't have as big warranty, and often doesn't come with any "extras" like a HSF, or game CD's
Posted by: desiboi
Who gives about the warranty and extras, I'm sticking with OEM.
Posted by: Apokalipse
you do need a HSF on a CPU, even if it's the stock one
Posted by: desiboi
Aftermarcket cooling is better
Posted by: VIII
If u spend money, then yes it is.
Posted by: ShadowFalls
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by desiboi [/i]
[B]Who gives about the warranty and extras, I'm sticking with OEM. [/B][/QUOTE]
OEM gives you a 30day warranty, Retail is 3 years, its not much more anyways, the warranty is worth it just in case, you never know, the price difference will be much cheaper then buying a whole new one...
Posted by: FadingTheory
In many cases, the retail is no more then $10 extra. Just get retail, get the warranty, and then have an extra fan laying around.
Posted by: MikePB3
YAY
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by FadingTheory [/i]
[B]To PC_Boy:
First of all, it is entirely too early to say dual opterons will 'rape' anything. Unless I'm missing a load of benchmarks, it hasn't been completely documented.
.....
And if Intel was so 'retarded,' then wouldn't everyone own an AMD? [/B][/QUOTE]
Dude, you totally lack some reading skills you should have mastered in 2nd grade. It is kind of sad :(
I dunno what's wrong with ppl these days, they skim through the post in like 3 seconds and then immediatelly start bladdering crap about it. I didn't say The Opteron will kill anything, i said the Athlon 64 FX-55 CURRENTLY (meaning in the day of the post) PWNS every intel chip (in the current day of post).
SO.....
1. Go back and read my post carefully 3 times.
2. Take 5 deep breaths
3. Relax, go to sleep or something
4. Go to [url]www.newegg.com[/url] and get youself an AMD
5. Live happly ever after!! :D ;) ;)
:p
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by VIII [/i]
[B]Pc_Boy you're just a moron. [/B][/QUOTE]
Not very nice, but... OK!?!?!
so what are you gonna do about it? :confused:
:eek:
Posted by: Apokalipse
people:
if someone flames you, usually it's best to just not post back at all.
Posted by: Lucky_Penguin
[QUOTE]i said the Athlon 64 FX-55 CURRENTLY (meaning in the day of the post) PWNS every intel chip (in the current day of post).
[/QUOTE]
**** Yea it does
AMD FOREVER
Posted by: tiltmenot
haha check out [url]http://elita.multipoker.com[/url] *lol*
try to write: Let me see your thong or Do you like icecream
She’s from Sweden, right?
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by tiltmenot [/i]
[B]haha check out [url]http://elita.multipoker.com[/url] *lol*
try to write: Let me see your thong or Do you like icecream
She’s from Sweden, right? [/B][/QUOTE]
WTF? Dude, are you on dope?? :rolleyes:
Posted by: kboy
Is this thread still on?????
Posted by: senseless
oh, its on..
Posted by: Apokalipse
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by tiltmenot [/i]
[B]haha check out [url]http://elita.multipoker.com[/url] *lol*
try to write: Let me see your thong or Do you like icecream
She’s from Sweden, right? [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't think that is really appropriate for this forum, let alone the topic
Posted by: Lucky_Penguin
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by tiltmenot [/i]
[B]haha check out [url]http://elita.multipoker.com[/url] *lol*
try to write: Let me see your thong or Do you like icecream
She’s from Sweden, right? [/B][/QUOTE]
I like the chick at beer.com better
Posted by: dhw200
Back on topic...
[url]http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2330&p=2[/url]
Some very interesting results in a pentium vs AMD test. Heh, the 3000+ beats the p4 3.6ghz in most test
Posted by: bonecrusher
good info
Posted by: MikePB3
bonecruser ur just saying stupid stupp to get posts if u have and answer say it i c ur in ever post and ur bothering me a lot
Posted by: waynejkruse10
thats another bomb for me to use in the war against intel fanboys
Posted by: VIII
Yes, u idiots. We have established too many times that AMDs are truly superior in gaming. Get some new defences
Posted by: sky
nvidia my card beats yours...
I have a ATI Radeon X800 Professional..
in cahootz with a 19-inch LCD!!!
and a kickass comp that i built.
Posted by: Lucky_Penguin
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by dhw200 [/i]
[B]Back on topic...
[url]http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2330&p=2[/url]
Some very interesting results in a pentium vs AMD test. Heh, the 3000+ beats the p4 3.6ghz in most test [/B][/QUOTE]
Haha thats hilarious, I too shall use that against the
"Parents Bought" intel computer using Fanboys. :p
Posted by: desiboi
That's just sad, very SAD.
Posted by: senseless
I had to build another dual xeon today.. ugh..
3 bad boards, 2 weeks, and a 15lb sledge hammer later i finally got it back up.
So the only reason i ever have to build dual xeons anymore is for machines running avid software. If avid would support dual opertons i wouldn't have to build dual xeons anymore.So, Why do companies only support only intel? Especially when AMD design and performance is better. Now that 64bit xp is out shouldn't companies be flocking to port their code over? I was watching some sort of microsoft demo using 2 machines (exactly the same) one running xp 64bit the other running 32bit... Most of the applications (64bit) that were executed on the 64bit machine showed a 600-700% increase in overall speed compared to the 32bit machine running the same (32bit) program. (They were using audio/video rendering and databasing as tests, obviously 64bit isnt going to help much in the way of gaming)
So, why would these companies still persist to only support intel?? Life sucks..
I wonder what would happen to the global temperature if all the xeons in the world were turned off at the same time. They're probably the only thing keeping us out of the next ice age.
Posted by: Anthongy817
i perfer Intel quality.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
how is intel quality and AMD isnt?
Posted by: Apokalipse
and what kind of 'quality' are you talking about?
Posted by: waynejkruse10
they are both silicon, whats the difference in quality?
Posted by: desiboi
When the AMD Athalon Dual Core hot the market, Intel just might live.
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Anthongy817 [/i]
[B]i perfer Intel quality. [/B][/QUOTE]
i prefer when people back up their arguments
Posted by: desiboi
Man, I think this thread should be in Guiness Book Of Records for the longest Computer thread. Also, someone should post this on google.
Posted by: Apokalipse
[url]http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22amd+processor+vs+pentium+processor%22&btnG=Search&meta=[/url]
Posted by: waynejkruse10
cool, we are the 3rd and 4th
Posted by: desiboi
YAY!!!!
Posted by: kboy
Well let's keep it going then. I like AMD because...
Posted by: NamelessMC
Hi I'm a new poster. This will be a healthy post so I'll break it down in sections:
1 - [b]Why I am switching from Intel to AMD[/b]
2 - [b]Questions about my future set up[/b]
3 - [b]Comments about this thread [/b]
1 - I am going from Intel to AMD. I have a 2.4 ghz 800 fsb pentium 4, so it's not like I'm switching over only because I have a 900 mhz Pentium 3 from the days of Quake 3 Arena. I'm switching over for numerous reasons, not just biased opinions.
Firstly, I've lost respect for Intel as a company. They just don't do it for the customers. When RAMBUS was out, was when I bought my set up. Intel fed us so much crap about RAMBUS being the generation of ram and how it will be fully implemented and backed by ram companies, blah blah blah. I used a RAMBUS board and watched the benchmarks fly. It was powerful but I made a huge mistake. I started with 2x 256 megabyte chips so I was using 512 megabytes of ram. The problem came when I stopped following up on Tech Boards and I started playing World of Warcraft more often with my free time. That game runs much sweeter on a gig of ram, since it uses about 450 megabytes of ram. I decided, "Ok I have about 150 bucks... I'll go buy another 512 megabytes of ram." When I went to websites and such... What was it I found out? Rambus was dead, prices skyrocketed because manufacturers stopped making it, DDR SDRAM was competitive, then the final blow came when DDR2 was fully implemented.
I was [b]****ed[/b]. I was ****ed that Intel sold out and went to DDR. I understand that DDR is better, but some people buy computers to be a 5 year investment, not an "upgrade every 3 months" system. My friends just needed 70 bucks to upgrade their 512 set ups to 1024, playing happily at max settings in WoW while I sit at my computer that I paid premium for only to play a game that's not as graphic intensive as others, at half settings and sometimes low settings.
So the big day came, extra money is coming in, I'm single so don't have a gf to blow money on, end of semester. I decided, I want to build a new rig and give my old one to my mom. It wasn't even a question, AMD was my choice. The bottom line is, AMD does what companies SHOULD do and that's build based on what the consumer base wants. I'm a business administration and international business major, and when I analyze AMD they have a much better business outlook than Intel does. Let's say I want a cheap build that performs relatively well in regular apps like Word, but can get down and dirty when I'm gaming - A 350$ set up AMD build (without videocard of course) can get you there. The good thing about it is let's say 3 months from now I have extra money and I want to upgrade my CPU. I can do that with AMD and not be raped in prices. The 2.4 from Pentium ALWAYS costs over like 120 bucks. The 2400+ from AMD you can get a lot cheaper, and they're in competitive markets! *More in next post*
Posted by: NamelessMC
1 *cont* - Before I go into detail about the set up I'm working on - A few more details about my thoughts on AMD versus Intel. I drive a 2002 Corolla, 5 speed and I used to be in the racing scene. Intel Versus AMD in terms of performance users is sort of like Toyota versus Honda. Toyota has possibilities for it that would make it a good argument against Honda, but what's the problem? A Honda driver can get all of that done for much cheaper because of the aftermarket and support behind it from users. The bottom line is, threads like these are also a good reason behind why I'm going with AMD over Intel. If I want to overclock my AMD, there's hundreds of guides and HAPPY HELPFUL users ready to help me out if I ask nicely. If I have problems with it, same as above. If I have questions, same as above. I'd feel more at home with an AMD set up than an Intel set up. What's waiting for me in the land of Intel? Pain and agony. Stress messing with front side buses and worrying about most intel motherboards not letting you mess with the multiplier. Angry users that are usually flame happy and never really give a full answer.
I'm not looking for flames, these are just my thoughts and perceptions.
2 - [b]Questions about my set up[/b]
I see a lot of people use the DFI Lan Party motherboard, but I didn't feel content spending 130 dollars for the motherboard that although recommended, had known stability issues. I bought a Gigabyte K8 Triton Socket 939 version with AGP8x instead of PCI-Express (Nforce 3 chipset). I know that Nforce 4 is the new chipset, but I don't have a lot of money to spend and it was a really good deal to me (75 bucks out the door, brand new after talking to the manager a bit). My question - I have 6 days to return it if I decide I want something else so, is this a good motherboard or is there something else available? Please do not answer this question if you're going to say "UsE teh SeArCh funkshun n00b!!!" or if you're going to recommend a 150 dollar motherboard, as I said, budget is an issue.
Second question - And thanks for replying if you do. I'm recycling an ATI 9600XT from my old computer but I'm wondering about lifespan. Although I haven't overclocked it, I have been running it for about a year and a few months now. I got it when Final Fantasy XI was in its sophomore ages. So if it came out late 2002, I guess I got this videocard early 2003? I can't pinpoint the date exactly but I remember where I lived when I got it, and that was a while ago. Will this videocard run fine? I didn't overclock it but I used it heavily (MMORPG gamer), I'm thinking of replacing the cooling system on it.
Now the important part - *next post*
Posted by: NamelessMC
3 - [b]comments on this thread[/b]
Hopefully this will give you guys a good idea about what I think about the progression of this thread.
Stop flaming each other! A lot of useful information was taken in by me and I'm sure others too that haven't registered. I registered to this forum and plan on staying a while just because of this thread alone. Jak is a really good mod and it looks like he's taking charge.
The information I took in -
I learned about PCI-Express which helped me choose my motherboard because I found this thread from google before I went to buy my motherboard. I honestly thought PCI-Express was better than AGP right now, because a lot of hard headed "get the best gear" techies told me it was. Threads like these are the reason I prefer the internet for information instead of people irl. Everyone I ask always gives me bull about getting the best set up. Me - "Is a 2800+ pretty decent right now?" Rl person's answer - "No, just spend the extra 100 bucks and buy a 3500, you will regret it if you dont".
This thread has more realistic answers, most of the time, to a lot of the questions proposed by the other end.
I also read a lot of compelling arguments favoring one set up compared to the other. I learned about ram's speed having to be equal to the processor's front side bus and how it works. I learned about the different chips. This is a great thread guys, I truly appreciate it.
In the end, in my opinion, it depends on the user. Most fans of Intel are people that can afford it, so they have the option of choosing. Fans of AMD's are the kind of guys that get a 600 dollar car and turn it into a 10 second racer that beats out Ferraris. People with no clue, well it depends on budget what's best. If you're on a budget, go with AMD hands down. Don't be an a-something and tell people on a budget to get the best Intel they can for the money, because even as an Intel-person, at that point you're just being a detrimental person to the public.
Posted by: senseless
I deleted my post.. I went back and looked and it does have dual channel and pcie support..
I was thinking of an older version of the board.. Sorry =)
It doesn't however have any firewire ports.. It looks kind of looks like a stripped down version of the k8ns ultra.. Should prove to be very stable. Only problem is that gigabyte hasnt released F6 bios (dual core and venice support) for that board yet.. If you're going to get a venice 939 chip for the system it will work and boot, but wont have official support for it. The k8ns-ultra has also proved to be a decent overclocker.
Posted by: NamelessMC
Also, here's a pic of the motherboard itself, with the [url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Showimage.asp?Mode=&Type=&Image=13-128-286-01.jpg%2C13-128-286-02.jpg%2C13-128-286-03.jpg%2C13-128-286-04.jpg&CurImage=13-128-286-02.jpg&Description=GIGABYTE+GA-K8NSC- 939+Socket+939+NVIDIA+nForce3+250Gb+ATX+AMD+Mother
board+-+Retail]Multi-colored Ram slots[/url]
As far as PCI-E, by the time I buy a PCI-E videocard that has performance stats to take advantage of the slot (Like maybe 290$) It will be late quarter 2005, and even at that point I'll probably still be content with a AGP 8x videocard. I will buy a PCI-Express motherboard eventually, but when I do - It wouldn't have made a difference if I upgraded from AGP 8x or an older PCI-Express motherboard anyway.
Reason why? If I get a PCI-E motherboard now, I'll also have to get a PCI-E videocard, of which I don't have a lot of money to spend on, so I'll end up going from a 9600XT to something equivalent of a 5200XT (The MX420's of this generation). I'll lose benchmark specs and overall visual quality, and by the time I [b]CAN[/b] afford a PCI-Express videocard that's worthy of paying the extra money for, I'll probably need a new motherboard anyway!
But thanks for trying
Posted by: NamelessMC
Crap... Covering your tracks to prevent criticism! Blast you, now I have to delete my posts too... >_<
I'm leaving the one up about AGP versus PCI-E for my current position though
Posted by: NamelessMC
I don't really use Firewire though, USB 2.0 is fine enough for me.
About the bios - What's the difference between a bios supporting it and not supporting it? Just so you know - I'm not overclocking. When I do, it won't be for another few months, after I upgrade the cooling system and get a better AGP videocard.
Is Gigabyte planning on releasing a bios that supports the Venice chips?
Posted by: senseless
I thought i had caught myself before anyone noticed =X
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by NamelessMC [/i]
[B]I don't really use Firewire though, USB 2.0 is fine enough for me.
About the bios - What's the difference between a bios supporting it and not supporting it? Just so you know - I'm not overclocking. When I do, it won't be for another few months, after I upgrade the cooling system and get a better AGP videocard.
Is Gigabyte planning on releasing a bios that supports the Venice chips? [/B][/QUOTE]
The bios wont be able to figure out what kind of chip it is.. The only real difference is that it will default to using a higher vcore voltage..
I'm sure they will release an updated bios.. But i wouldnt be to concerned about it even if they didnt.
Posted by: NamelessMC
Higher voltage? Would I be able to lower it back to 1.3 or 1.5 or whatever it is myself?
I'm pretty sure they'll release a bios anyway, all things considered the box says 939 supported and Venice is a 939 socket chip, so they won't want people calling and wanting refunds, replacements, angry customers.
I noticed it was a stripped down version of the Ultra, but it comes with all the bells and whistles that any motherboard at that price wouldn't come with - Dual Channel support, Nforce 3 chipset, 4gb ram maximum, 4 USB 2.0 slots in the back, great warranty, relatively known brand, and it was only 75 bucks brand new, which leaves budget room for me to go with a 3200 or 3000 instead of a 2800 winchester core.
Posted by: senseless
The winchester wont overclock past 2.68ghz ish.. I couldnt hit 2.7 no matter how hard i tried.. I brought a venice home from work and it ran at 2.9ghz without any major issues.. I ran it first without the bios update and it defaulted to 1.4v (venice default is 1.35). I crank the voltage up to 1.65-1.7 anyway so i wasnt to concerned. I did however apply the patch at a later date and it unlocked some extra features in the bios. Also defaulted it back down to 1.35.. If you can get the venice (im not sure of price differences) i'd recommend it.
Posted by: NamelessMC
Ok thanks for the info. I'm going to get the Venice 3000+ as it looks at the current moment. You just kind of had me twisted with that post about stuff not matching up. Since you upped the voltage I guess I could lower it.
Wouldn't the voltage being at 1.4 instead of 1.35 mean that the motherboard is running the chip faster than its normal stock speed?
Sorry if I seem incredibly stupid, never really looked into what raising the voltage does.
As far as the price difference - It's entirely negligable. 146 for retail box Winchester and 155 or so for Venice retail box.
Posted by: senseless
I try to let people know all the small details... Regardless of how miniscule they are.. Uping the voltage would make it run slightly faster, but not much.. Maybe a couple of mhz
Posted by: waynejkruse10
Yeah, Intel has made a lot of mistakes in the past. A friend of mine is lucky because he has one of the first P4 motherboards with DDR.
Posted by: pc_boy
hey, we should have a separate section here at TF with all the Versus threads:
AMD vs Intel
ATI vs nvidia
Xbox vs Ps2
firefox vs opera vs IE
Mac vs Windows
crap vs. crap, etc
Posted by: waynejkruse10
x vs y
Posted by: Apokalipse
it would need to be heavily moderated
*edit*
NamelessMC:
I would stick with your 9600 until you upgrade next. you will be able to play games for about a year or 2 before it can't pull the fps for some games, and/or a new DirectX comes out which it doesn't support
what you're planning to get is fine for now. get a Venice core 3000+ or 3200+, they're actually quite cheap, and you'll have a powerful CPU which overclocks extremely well if you need it to.
for your next upgrade (in maybe a year) I would suggest just getting a new motherboard and video card, and overclocking the CPU if you need to. even on stock cooling you can overclock it far
as far as RAM goes, Kingmax makes some good but cheap RAM, which also overclocks well.
last time I saw, for under $150 you can get 1GB PC3700, or for a bit over $100 you can get 1GB PC3500
*edit again*
I just checked, and you can get 1GB PC4000 Kingmax for $145 at newegg.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
whoa yeah, the flame wars!!!!!!
Posted by: sumukh
Hi,
Here is one page which compares AMD Athlon 64 with Intel Pentium 4 CPU.
[url]http://www.cheapest-computer-hardware-software.com/AMD-Athlon-64-FX.html[/url]
Best regards
Sumukh
Posted by: Apokalipse
[quote]The CPU can communicate with motherboard chipset at a speed of 1.6 GHZ[/quote]
that was written in the socket 754 era.
Posted by: stb149
Hey, i'm a new user and I'm hoping to get some consent before buying a new comp. I'm looking at piecing a desktop together which i will primarily be using for computer design in Pro-Engineer, decoding/burning dvd's, and half-life 2. The Pro-E software has always run slow in school computers using pentium 4's, and i really want a system that can handle the designs. I'm torn between Intel and AMD, but am definately leaning towards the AMD due to the rated 1600 mhz bus speed to Intel's 800mhz.
so far my specs are::
ABIT socket 939 motherboard
AMD athlon 3500
1 gb of Corsair RAM
ATI radeon x700
160 gb Samsun HD
16x dvd+rw
ATX case
350 watt power suppy
Will games look any good? thx for any help
Posted by: senseless
1) get a 6600 or 6800gt instead of the x700
2) make sure you're getting 2x 512mb sticks (dual channel support) instead of 1x 1gb stick
3) upgrade the powersupply to 450+
Which abit board are you going to buy? Other than that you're good to go.. Are you planning on doing any overclocking?
Posted by: stb149
hmm, the 6600 could still be in the price range. do you think it would help that much?
yes, the RAM will be two 512 sticks
and i'm planning on using Abit's AV8 ATX socket 939 with VIA k8t890 chipset. Nope, i hadn't planned to overclock it yet.
Posted by: senseless
It should work great for your purpose.. I've never had good luck with VIA chipsets, a lot of people here run that board with no problems..
Posted by: stb149
alright great, thx for the help
Posted by: pc_boy
6600GT is cheap for how good it is... great card and yes, it would help a lot...
Posted by: NamelessMC
Why PC4000?
I was going to get DDR400 (PC3200) what would go good with the 800 mhz stock front side bus on a 3000+ venice chip? i mean... i'm confused because i thought ddr400 was a good pair with the venice chip. wouldn't i have to overclock the front side bus to match the ram speed?
Posted by: Apokalipse
DDR400 is pretty standard now. the Venice can run memory a lot higher than DDR400, because it has a lot of headroom and overclockability.
DDR400 is good, but DDR500 is better.
all socket 939 CPU's have a 200 x 10 = 2000MHZ HTT (Athlon 64's equivalent to the FSB)
all you need to do is raise the FSB to 250MHZ and lower the multiplier to 8x (since 250 x 8 = 2000), you'd have the same core speed but you can utilize DDR500 memory that way
you could also leave the multiplier alone and have it at 250 x 10 = 2500MHZ. then you'd have a 25% overclock, which can easily be done on Venice core's
also, latencies don't actually make much difference. the latencies are measured in clock cycles. a few clock cycles out of 400000000 per second (in DDR400) is not very much.
Posted by: NamelessMC
lol....
Okay I see what you mean.
The thing is, will a 250x8 or 250x10 hurt the life-time of the processor or anything? I mean I want the CPU to last at least 2-3 years without stability issues. Another thing is how noticable will the difference be from having DDR400 memory to DDR500?
Posted by: desiboi
Read what Fishpoo says [url]http://www.nexopia.com/forumviewthread.php?tid=617279[/url]
Posted by: JAYDALOSS
TRUE
Amd is king if your processor speedi s over 1000 mgz. But
in the older machines the pentiums make the computer have better speed
Posted by: Apokalipse
the K6's were doing a good job against early Pentium's
Posted by: waynejkruse10
what about the slot A athlons against the slot 1 pentiums. I had a k6-2 550, was great for its day.
Posted by: Apokalipse
early Athlon's were dominating against Pentium 2's, Intel had to release a new CPU to compete. that CPU was the Pentium 3.
the Pentium 3 is pretty much the gateway between CPU's in a few hundred MHZ, to the GHZ era.
After about 1GHZ CPU's were out (that's a guess, might have been more, might have been less), AMD made Athlon XP's, to which Intel had to make newer CPU's again
although from what I heard, it was AMD that actually gave it to them. AMD gave Intel the Willamette
Posted by: waynejkruse10
Yeah, those early Athlon XP's snapped the early P4's
Posted by: Apokalipse
the Northwood was the backbone of the Intel edge over a lot of the Athlon XP's, so AMD made the Barton. Northwood's were pretty close to the Barton in performance
after the Athlon 64's came out, they originally weren't spectacular, however had/has the 64-bit edge. the socket 754 Clawhammer's did get a little bit of an edge over Northwood's in a lot of applications, but socket 939 is where Athlon 64's shine, especially the Venice's
Posted by: waynejkruse10
yeah, imho northwood was intels most efficient cpu (other than pm's) because prescott's are dodgy.
Posted by: FadingTheory
Pentium 3's are intels most [b]efficient[/b] CPU... especially Dothan.
All P4s have terrible performance to heat ratios... Prescott just took it to the unbearable level.
P4 are nice, but all the gizmos of netburst seem to drag its efficiency down...
Theres a pretty interesting article on this on tomshardware.com... check it out.
Posted by: Apokalipse
pentium 3's went up to 1.4GHZ (tualatin)
I wonder how that 1.4GHZ tualatin would go against the 1.4GHZ willamette
Posted by: waynejkruse10
this is the best i can do
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v610/waynejkruse10/bench.jpg[/IMG]
P4 1.2 vs P3 1.2.
The P3 beats in in both tests, in Mips it smashed the P4, but in the other one it beat it just by 2 points.
Posted by: FadingTheory
Netburst=longer pipes.
Blah.
Posted by: Todvader
I prefer pentium CPUs
Posted by: Apokalipse
reason(s)?
*edit* I was bored, so I looked at the "hardware guide" in his sig.
the guy who wrote it seems pretty Intel and ATI biased.
they said this about the Intel 660: This 64 bit component clocks at 3.6Ghz and was created to fit perfectly with the new Windows 64 that will come out shortly.
actually, Intel's 64-bit processors were made just to compete with AMD's Athlon 64's. Intel didn't have time to create the 64-bit architecture needed to natively run 64-bit apps, so they just included some instruction sets which allowed them to emulate 64-bit programs with their current 32-bit architecture. it is more or less software-based, and much slower. hardly the "perfect fit"
and this about the FX-55: The Intel processor is better for overall stability but the FX-55 is faster.
the kind of people that believe "Intel's are more stable" are those with not much knowledge about CPU's at all. they stick with the big brand names, often including Dell and HP (which we know both suck)
neither are more or less stable than the other, it mostly depends on software. rarely hardware (unless you're overclocking, or have a cheap PSU or something)
they also said - ATI Radeon X800 XT: This is the best video card on the market right now.
there are benchmarks that say otherwise.
now, I want to make it clear I do like this card, however it's only faster in Direct3D. the 6800 performs much better in OpenGL.
plus, they have heard of the X850 by now, haven't they?
Posted by: FadingTheory
Apokalipse said all that needed to be said.
OWNED.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
i agree with apokalypse, that hardware guide is very intel/ati biased.
[QUOTE]Cpu upgrading with the Pentium 4 660 would be a great idea if you are a gamer.[/QUOTE]
He compares the 9800pro and the 6600gt as the best of ATI/Nvidia.
Posted by: EricB
a guy opinion with 4 computers, 2 pentium and 2 amd
My computers
1.mine. amd 3500, 1 gig samsung ram (I just built this yesterday)
2.wife's. pent 4 2.8, 1 gig
3.kids. pent 2.66 512mb
4. my old one. amd 2600 1 gig
you already know that my newest one is killing everything. but I had the others one for awhile. the pent's are faster for video editing and clicking to spots.
the amd 2600 is faster for everything else
Posted by: waynejkruse10
If i had a Athlon 64 3000+ (939) and a P4 3.0ghz and both systems had 1gb Ram, Raid of 2 7200 RPM drives, 6800gt, etc, i doubt i would notice the difference unless i started playing games etc or bechmarks.
Posted by: EricB
well I have both types and I will tell that, it just isn't so. when I first got into computers I was told that intel was better and faster, but I learned on my own that it wasn't true. you will learn more by seeing for yourself than taking somebody opinion.
example my 52x cd burner burn a cd in 1min 40 sec on amd. the same burner takes 3-4 minutes on intel. I can do 2 task at once on the amd. the hyperthreading intel might get struck and lock. the intel will lock. the amd will slow it down and then get right. they never lock.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
fair enough then.
Posted by: Ankush09
this thread is 6 months old...
Posted by: Apokalipse
as are many threads......
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by FadingTheory [/i]
[B]Apokalipse said all that needed to be said.
OWNED. [/B][/QUOTE]
I 2nd that! :cool: :p ;) :D
Posted by: Abercrombie
AMD > INTEL enough said =D
Posted by: Wayniac
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ankush09 [/i]
[B]this thread is 6 months old... [/B][/QUOTE]
What is that supposed to mean? Would you just get a new child after it turns 6 months old!? Is that it? haha... why stop now! Why not see if we can hit 6 years!?:)
Posted by: Powerslave
lets see, theres 601 posts in 6 months, 6 x 2 = 1200 in one year, that 7200 in six years, good lord!
correct my math
Posted by: waynejkruse10
ha, if in 5 or so years this thread coninues it will be funny which way we will be arguing then compared to now
Posted by: pc_boy
ok, let's keep it up!!! ;)
Posted by: Powerslave
5 years from now, ATI starts a graphics card monopoly and destroys nvida with gang power, and turns everyone into ATI fanboys dun dun dun
Posted by: pc_boy
5 years from now, ATI starts joining with nvidia and making cards that are twice as cool as they would alone...
Posted by: Powerslave
or a windows buys them all and destroys the government and becomes a new monopoly of terror and mass destruction, meanwhile bill gates lives to be 100000 years old because of his super windows xp version that keeps him alive and healthy....dun dun dun.
Posted by: pc_boy
hmm... good one.. how about this:
what if bill gates paid a lot of money to all companies that make hardware if they agreed to close down... and microsoft would make xboxes and that would be the only technology we have... it'll be like the middle ages, but with xbox... lol imagine a caveman playing doom3 LMAO!!!!!
Posted by: sam8240
use processor amd 64 fx55
and use asus mobo with sli
Posted by: Apokalipse
firstly, not many people have the money for an FX-55, although that is a very good processor
secondly, Asus motherboards have gone down the crapper recently.
the DFI NF4 boards are much better for SLI.
for AGP, the Abit boards are very good
Posted by: sam8240
amd processor will outdo any similar intel processor.
moreover the price of amd processor r very much lower than intel counterpart.amd processors have a fame for gaming and we all know that games produce the most stress to a cpu and in that regard amd 64 rocks and the upcoming amd 64 x2 will take our limit to d sky.
3 cheers for amd
Posted by: n3wt3ch
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Leonidas [/i]
[B]oh well my athlon(clocked at 2.55ghz) that i got for 83$ can outperform 3.6 ghz pentiums for 450.00 both found on newegg... on both multimedia and arithmetic benchmarks on sandra... just doesnt bode well when technology from AMD that has been around for quite a while is beating a top intel chip of today, and with the AMD chips catchin up in all other areas, there is no doubt if things continue like this then intel will be looking up at AMD for a while. [/B][/QUOTE]
That doesn't suprise me at all. When I first got my old machine the AMD processors only went up to 1.3 GHZ and were killing Intel's P4 @ 2.4GHZ. I couldn't belive that a CPU that runs at lower speed could outperform such a (supposedly) advanced CPU. Can anyone give some insight into why there is such a dramatic change?
Posted by: MrBebop26
n3wt3ch and sam8240, both of you are errorgant, I dont believe your statsments at all. I have an old 2.4 Intel P4 and it was a good all around processor, I cant that crap you say. "amd processor will outdo any similar intel processor." Your dumb, thats all I can say, I'm lost for words.
-Ryan
Posted by: EricB
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MrBebop26 [/i]
[B]n3wt3ch and sam8240, both of you are errorgant, I dont believe your statsments at all. I have an old 2.4 Intel P4 and it was a good all around processor, I cant that crap you say. "amd processor will outdo any similar intel processor." Your dumb, thats all I can say, I'm lost for words.
-Ryan [/B][/QUOTE]
you don't know what you are talking about.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by n3wt3ch [/i]
[B]That doesn't suprise me at all. When I first got my old machine the AMD processors only went up to 1.3 GHZ and were killing Intel's P4 @ 2.4GHZ. I couldn't belive that a CPU that runs at lower speed could outperform such a (supposedly) advanced CPU. Can anyone give some insight into why there is such a dramatic change? [/B][/QUOTE]
this was kinda my situation. my first real computer was an AMD 1200 128 mb 40 gig. I got a brand new pent 4 2.24 80gig 512 for a steal ($350) about 4 years ago. it was faster of course. I made the amd my wife's comp.
one day I got my hand on a 256 mb stick, so I put it in the amd. wow...
the computer saw a tenfold increase in everything. it was now faster than the intel. it shocked the shite out of me, because everything I've heard up to that point was a [COLOR=blue][SIZE=6]LIE[/SIZE] [/COLOR] . you knowthe sayings that intel are better than the amd's, plus you would think that a 1200 was half as good as a 2.24
it burn my cd's faster, my games stop getting stuck. I converted files quicker. It didn't handle some video files well (the intel excelled at this), but it was better in everything else . I ebventually put a 512 stick in it and sold it to my cousin as I had built me an amd 2600 by then
I tell another secret. read pcworld. every time they run tests on the latest processors AMD always beat the intel's
Posted by: pc_boy
ok, i guess we're back to arguing... but the thing is you can't argue...
AMD >>>>> Intel. PERIOD
YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: FadingTheory
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pc_boy [/i]
[B]ok, i guess we're back to arguing... but the thing is you can't argue...
AMD >>>>> Intel. PERIOD
YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [/B][/QUOTE]
How can I argue with an unsupported statement?
I prefer AMD, don't get me wrong, but its post like this that takes an intense discussion and turn it into a locked topic.
Perhaps you didn't want to repeat something already said? Make facts redundant didn't appeal to you?
If so, don't post. Contribute and stop souding like a fanboy, or don't post.
Posted by: n3wt3ch
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MrBebop26 [/i]
[B]n3wt3ch and sam8240, both of you are errorgant, I dont believe your statsments at all. I have an old 2.4 Intel P4 and it was a good all around processor, I cant that crap you say. "amd processor will outdo any similar intel processor." Your dumb, thats all I can say, I'm lost for words.
-Ryan [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm basing my opinion on my experience, if you've got a different one then great. When my girlfirend got her computer mine was 2 years old. Hers has the Intel P4 2.4GHZ and mine has an AMD Athlon (Thunderbird) clocking 1.0GHZ. We set them up next to one another and played the same games and ran the same programs and mine could easily keep up with hers if not surpass it. Now in my mind that says something. I don't feel like argueing so I'm not going to go any further with this.
Posted by: sam8240
now buddies what about amd 64 x2 they have superior performance than d intel dual core 1's in all respect moreover they do not require a mobo upgrade and can easily set into a s939 board with some bios update
Posted by: waynejkruse10
now thats upgradeability
Posted by: pc_boy
I'm getting that X2, when it comes out... it beats the Intel at APPZ and GAMEZ!!! HA!!!
Posted by: Apokalipse
4200 or 4800?
Posted by: pc_boy
4800+ ....imagine if you overclock that monster too, then you would kick even MORE @$$.. yayers!!
Posted by: Velocity-Spaz
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by True_Orb [/i]
[B][b][color=red][size=15]AAAAAHHHHHHHH![/size][/color][/b]
Basically, Pentiums give you slightly higher performance for a huge increase in price, and are known to be better with high-demand apps than AMD, whereas AMD is generally considered better for gaming.
AMDs are also known to run a little bit hotter.
I think if you're on a budget, gaming only with your PC, or looking for a high performance/cost ratio you should get an AMD.
If you have a lot of money to spend and you run a lot of taxing progs, go Intel.
People argue over this topic day in and day out and solve absolutely nothing. It might as well be an argument between religions or politics. [/B][/QUOTE]
ahahahahaahahahah AMD = Better and not a pricey
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Velocity-Spaz [/i]
[B]ahahahahaahahahah AMD = Better and not a pricey [/B][/QUOTE]
OLE CRAP!!! dude, you got a **** of a computer? you should post some 3DMARK05 scores... i wanna see! :D :eek: :eek: :amazed:
Posted by: Velocity-Spaz
Ill do that when I am done with the computer. This friday or Monday.
If you think I showed change somthing aim me Xzero 199
Posted by: EricB
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Velocity-Spaz [/i]
[B]Ill do that when I am done with the computer. This friday or Monday.
If you think I showed change somthing aim me Xzero 199 [/B][/QUOTE]
you should run a dual boot OS with linux on the other side so you can enjoy the real benefits of 64 bit. XP won't get it right until at least 2 more years has passed. that is what I'm in the process of doing
Posted by: Velocity-Spaz
I need to know how to launch linux commands
Posted by: EricB
I hear that. I hear that mandrake is user friendly. that's what I'm going to use until I get the knack of it
Posted by: SHOCK3R WOLF
Can someone tell me what you guys think about this config, that i'm about to get.
This is what i have:
Intel Pentium 4 3EGhz/1Mb cache/HT/800FSB
Abit IC7-G motherboard
1Gb Dual Kingston 3200
250 Maxtor HD
nVidia FX5700 128Mb
Ultra 500W Power Supply
Guardian Case
Creative Audigy Platinum 2 ZS
and i'm going to be switching the MB, CPU, and Video Card for:
Abit Fatal1ty AN8 SLI Socket 939 Motherboard
AMD Athlon 64 FX53 CPU Retail Boxed w/Fan
Asus GeForce 6800 256MB DDR PCIe w/DVI/TV-OUT
and i'm planning to buy the second video card in a bit more, but i ran out of money
Posted by: waynejkruse10
dont get a plain old 6800, get the GT model.
Posted by: SHOCK3R WOLF
Is there a big difference between the 6800, and 6800Gt, besides the price?
Posted by: waynejkruse10
the gt is faster.
Posted by: pc_boy
i would wait at least 3 weeks, because the 7800GT is coming out... and I would get an Athlon 64 socket 939, Venice core... especially if you want to play games...
Posted by: Apokalipse
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SHOCK3R WOLF [/i]
[B]Is there a big difference between the 6800, and 6800Gt, besides the price? [/B][/QUOTE]
the plain 6800 has 12 pipes, doesn't have GDDR3 (and has only 128MB) and a lower clock cpeed
the 6800 GT has 16 pipes, 256MB GDDR3, and higher clock speeds
the 6800 Ultra has 16 pipes, 256MB GDDR3 and higher clock speeds than the GT
so out of all, the GT is the best one to get. you can just overclock the GT to as high or higher than the Ultra without paying as much for an Ultra
however if you get the plain one, you lose 4 GPU pipes, 128MB Memory and GDDR3. even if you overclock it it's still a lot worse off
Posted by: SHOCK3R WOLF
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by apokalipse [/i]
[B]the plain 6800 has 12 pipes, doesn't have GDDR3 (and has only 128MB) and a lower clock cpeed
the 6800 GT has 16 pipes, 256MB GDDR3, and higher clock speeds
the 6800 Ultra has 16 pipes, 256MB GDDR3 and higher clock speeds than the GT
so out of all, the GT is the best one to get. you can just overclock the GT to as high or higher than the Ultra without paying as much for an Ultra
however if you get the plain one, you lose 4 GPU pipes, 128MB Memory and GDDR3. even if you overclock it it's still a lot worse off [/B][/QUOTE]
Are you sure, because the web site sais that its a 256Mb, and 16 pipes
[url]http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1232787&CatId=0[/url]
Posted by: waynejkruse10
thats got some asus specififc features though
Posted by: Apokalipse
yup, that's Asus specific. it doesn't have GDDR3 though
Posted by: SHOCK3R WOLF
I mean, `is it that bad not to get a 6800 GT or Ultra, i mean, i been running Medal of Honor (i know its not a heavy game) on my FX5700 128Mb, with not problem!. Lets say i play something heavy like Doom 3, i'm i gonna miss a lot of frames. And in a month or so i'm planing to buy another video card of the same, amd put it next to it with the SLI.
Posted by: Apokalipse
when the 7800's come out, only the GTX will support SLI
Posted by: pc_boy
...so wait for the next gen vid cards... unless you'll die without one right now...
btw, interesting how this thread got here..
AMD RULEZ YOUR FACE!!!! :D
Posted by: SHOCK3R WOLF
I'm not sure if i could ask this, everybody that has an Athlon 64, has anybody tryed the new windows, and i'm not talking about XP x64.
thats besides the point, pay attention to this: [url]http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1477437&CatId=0[/url] now, it says that it has Intel® Extended Memory 64 Technology (EM64T) is it actually a 64-bit from intel? and i don't think its a scam, because this is what i found in the microsoft website: [url]http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/upgrade/default.mspx[/url] its telling you that you could run Windows XP Pro x64 Edition in either AMD Athlon 64, AMD Opteron, Intel Pentium 4 with EM64T, or Intel Xeon with EM64T. Now if they steped up with the 64-bit cpu's, how come they didn't advertise it? anybody, please
Posted by: blacktop89
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 4W4K3 [/i]
[B]i hardly call that hard facts AMD is better. most gamers run AMD because they can't afford Intel rig's and want the best performing rig they can have that fits there budgets.[/B][/QUOTE]
I would have to disagree with this statement. These prices were taken from Newegg on 6/21/05. Prices are based on the cheapest processors.
Athlon64 3000 (newcastle) - $146
Intel P4 3.0ghz (prescott) - $172 $26 more than AMD
Athlon64 3200 (venice) - $190
Intel P4 3.2ghz (prescott) - $209 $19 more than AMD
Athlon64 2800 (newcastle) - $121
Intel P4 2.8ghz (prescott) - $164 $43 more than AMD
Athlon64 3400 (newcastle) - $228
Intel P4 3.4ghz (prescott) - $274 $46 more than AMD
I would hardly say that the differences in these prices would deter someone from going one way or the other, but that's just me. Especially if building a $1500 or more system. Also, if you look at the gaming benchmarks that were done using these processors, the differences in performance are always very small. Based on processor alone, one would not be able to notice a significant performance increase in gaming.
And yes, AMD is almost always ahead of Intel in the gaming benchmarks when using their latest processors.
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by blacktop89 [/i]
[B]
Also, if you look at the gaming benchmarks that were done using these processors, the differences in performance are always very small. Based on processor alone, one would not be able to notice a significant performance increase in gaming. [/B][/QUOTE]
DUDE, are you F#(king KIDDING ME???? :eek: :eek: :eek:
:eek:
:amazed:
[url]http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2330&p=2[/url]
IN YOUR FACE! :p
Posted by: blacktop89
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pc_boy [/i]
[B]DUDE, are you F#(king KIDDING ME???? :eek: :eek: :eek:
:eek:
:amazed:
[url]http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2330&p=2[/url]
IN YOUR FACE! :p [/B][/QUOTE]
Well, I guess what I meant was actual gameplay. When you get up to that high of frame rates, you can't tell a difference in performance. If you were going from 30 fps to 60 fps, you probably could tell. But from 90 fps to 115 fps.....I seriously doubt you could tell any gains for your actual gameplay.
Posted by: Apokalipse
in gaming, AMD's CPU';s are cheaper AND perform better. that's why people get them
however Intel's sell really well, because peopole know the name Pentium.
Pentium 4's do, however, win when encoding, and when running programs reliant on maths (like SuperPi)
Posted by: waynejkruse10
how do the X2's peform?
Posted by: Apokalipse
depends on the application.
the apps designed to run on dual CPU's will excel
the apps not designed to run on dual CPU's will not change much
Posted by: waynejkruse10
what are some apps that support dual cores? does windows utilise it?
Posted by: Apokalipse
windows does, however most programs it runs do not
Posted by: Powerslave
mmmmm dual core. to expensive, darn
Posted by: waynejkruse10
i might get a dual core eventually if i have the money
Posted by: Apokalipse
if I had the money, I'd have a quad Opteron 852 and dual 6800 Ultra setup
Posted by: waynejkruse10
is there any 4x motherboards with dual PCI-E. When i looked into that a while ago not many boards had good graphics options on them.
Posted by: Apokalipse
I know there's a quad 940 motherboard from Tyan, no AGP or PCI-E 16x though. only onboard.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
this one has 2c PCI X 16
[url]http://www.tyan.com/products/html/thunderk8se.html[/url]
Posted by: AMD inside all
To me i really think that the price is what makes a processor better i paid 80$ for an amd athlon xp 2600+ (1.9ghz) it hauls *** my friend sean had an intel p4 2.0 he paid 120$ to tell you the truth their the same and the best part is i have ddr333 and he has ddr400 so i love amd.
Posted by: imhappy
too much ram? there is such a thing?
Posted by: excaliber
I just wanted to say that this is the best **** topic that I have ever read.
I'm so excited to be here!!!
Posted by: excaliber
I swear to god...
Posted by: pc_boy
AMD rules... it's already stated....
hey, if we're gonna get 1000 posts on this thread, we gotta get a little more action here... hehe :D
Posted by: excaliber
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pc_boy [/i]
[B]AMD rules... it's already stated....
hey, if we're gonna get 1000 posts on this thread, we gotta get a little more action here... hehe :D [/B][/QUOTE]
Stop...youre weirding me out
Posted by: excaliber
...
Posted by: excaliber
SOME ONE ANSWER THIS PLEASE....!!!!
HOW CAN I ADD AN ANIMATED AVATAR?
ALSO, WHAT TYPE OF EXTENSIONS ARE SUPPORTED FOR THESE AVATAR DISPLAY PICTURES?
PLEASE ANSWER OR I'LL FAINT!
Posted by: waynejkruse10
not sure, but gif's are bound to be supported
Posted by: Apokalipse
animated avatars have to be a GIF
JPG does not support animation
Posted by: excaliber
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by apokalipse [/i]
[B]animated avatars have to be a GIF
JPG does not support animation [/B][/QUOTE]
:mad: What about PNG/TIFF/ACA file formats...!!!
Anyway, I can get it to show. I have gone through the control panel>use customer avatar>load you own...
Still won't show.
WTF!?
Posted by: Apokalipse
you have to check "use custom avatar" again after you select your avatar
GIF is your best bet for animation. although it is restricted to 256 colours
Posted by: excaliber
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by apokalipse [/i]
[B]you have to check "use custom avatar" again after you select your avatar
GIF is your best bet for animation. although it is restricted to 256 colours [/B][/QUOTE]
I appologize for not being more specific in the prvious post but, I have already gone through the 'choose custom avatar'.
I don't know maybe its because I'm still a "Virgin".
I'll keep trying...
Thanks!
Posted by: excaliber
BTW...
What do you do?
You call yourself a wiz kid, so I was wondering what is your background?
Do you have any achievements? or creations?
Posted by: EricB
Download this so you can use whatever picture that you want. it will shrink to an avatar size
[url]http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx[/url]
[url]http://download.microsoft.com/download/whistler/Install/2/WXP/EN-US/ImageResizerPowertoySetup.exe[/url]
Posted by: excaliber
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by EricB [/i]
[B]Download this so you can use whatever picture that you want. it will shrink to an avatar size
[url]http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx[/url]
[url]http://download.microsoft.com/download/whistler/Install/2/WXP/EN-US/ImageResizerPowertoySetup.exe[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
Thanks man!
Posted by: waynejkruse10
I got another powertoy that improves the alt-tab thingo
Posted by: Apokalipse
I just got an MX-510
it has a button which lets you choose which window to go to. not just alt+tabbing until you get to the window you want
Posted by: pc_boy
dude, just hold down alt, and the press tab once, and the little window thingy pops up and you can press tab again to switch to whaever you want... :p
Posted by: Apokalipse
yes, well you keep having to press tab to get to the window you want if you have a lot of windows open.
if you're in a full screen app, you cal cpress this button and choose which window you want to go to
Posted by: SHOCK3R WOLF
Now, I have another question, I just built my computer with a ABIT Fatal1ty AN8 SLI MoBo, an AMD Athlon 64 FX53, and my GPU is ASUS 6800 256MB(plain 6800). Now if I would like to add the second GPU to use the SLI capability, does it has to be the same GPU, or is it possible to use let's say, a 6800 GT or Ultra? or is like using dual channel memories?
Posted by: FadingTheory
Same. Exactly. Brand and card type.
Posted by: pc_boy
i wouldn't do SLI, i would just switch the vid card in like 5 months... it won't give you that much more improvement if you do SLI...
Posted by: SHOCK3R WOLF
oh, thanks for the answers
Posted by: pc_boy
check benchmarks at tomshardware.com or anandtech.com
Posted by: Apokalipse
I don't trust tom's benches.
he seems to be Intel and ATI biased
Posted by: str8lazy
everything is biased.
Posted by: Apokalipse
not everything, but Tom's is
Posted by: waynejkruse10
i wonder how much ATI/Intel Pays good 'ol tom.
Posted by: Sh0r_ty
lol i go to hardocp is that ok?
Posted by: pc_boy
dang, this is getting slow.. common guys, our goal is 1000 posts on this thread... TF rules!! :cool:
Posted by: waynejkruse10
Well, whats your opinion on the FX 57?
Posted by: pc_boy
it rules, but i'll still go with the X2... if i was only a gamer, i would get the FX57, but i'm doing apps and stuff, so X2 would suit me more..
i wonder how much you can overclock that chip...
Posted by: excaliber
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Snake-Eyes [/i]
[B]Hi I just joined and I have a few questions. Are AMD processors any better than a Pentium? Is the switch from Pentium to AMD smooth? I was looking at getting a new computer and I was introduced to an AMD processor so I was a little intrugued. Please nothing too in-depth, I'm just starting out in the PC world. At the moment, i'm looking at a 3200+ AMD processor (got a quote and the guy didn't write down the full name of hardly any thing).
the full computer setup is this (the quote was written down as this):
NVidia 6800 GT 256MB video card
2048MB PC3200 DDR RAM
S939 3200+
S939 K8NS Ultra MB
240GB RAIDED SATA
16x Dual Layer DVD+RW
Windows XP
ATX case
500W power supply
17" LCD monitor
Is this good to run the newest games like Doom 3, Half-life 2, etc? Also, do you think i should get a better processor? [/B][/QUOTE]
Posted by: Apokalipse
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pc_boy [/i]
[B]it rules, but i'll still go with the X2... if i was only a gamer, i would get the FX57, but i'm doing apps and stuff, so X2 would suit me more..
i wonder how much you can overclock that chip... [/B][/QUOTE]
I'd like to see how far they overclock also.
I expect they won't overclock as well, since they'll be putting out more heat from the 2 cores
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by apokalipse [/i]
[B]I'd like to see how far they overclock also.
I expect they won't overclock as well, since they'll be putting out more heat from the 2 cores [/B][/QUOTE]
actually, they might overclock more, since you can overclock each core.. i agree it would put more heat, but that's why you need a good cooling system. I herd Toledo is a good and efficient core, based on the Venice...:confused:
Posted by: GuitarFreak1857
Would it be worth it to put a AMD Athlon 64 X2 in a computer for graphic designing and gaming? i'm sure you would be able to multitask like crazy. And since its duel cores, what are the two cores? ex: venice, toledo??
Posted by: Vincenzo
AMD accuses Dixons of colluding with Intel on chips.
[url]http://techplanetnews.blogspot.com/2005/07/amd-accuses-dixons-of-colluding-with.html[/url]
Posted by: ThE_MarD
Heyyo,
Hehehe! one of the great computer wars: AMD vs Intel. This thread already has a lot of posts to it. I'm in full agreement with True_orb on page 1 (heh, diddn't read the others cause I diddn't feel like reading a lot unless its my own posts.. I've gotta little ego prob on forums, lol...) so I say amd is for gaming and yes they do run a little hot, but careful, I heard some of the intel stock heatsink/fans have probs with cooling, but I'm sure if ya buy one that's relatively new, like 1/2 a year old at the most, that you should be ok. Anywho, excellent 3rd party cooling solutions arent' too bad nowadays cause you can pick up a great heatpipe setup for around $50 cad. Yes, heatpipe has replaced the basic heatsink. remember that. ;)
Now, if you do check benchmarks, amd's do tend to do worse on multimedia stuff like encoding, but by maybe 20 seconds at the most.. so if you're not one of those "every second I waste is a second I'll never get back in my life," then the price gap between amd an intel for a couple of seconds lost ain't too shabby now eh?
[EDIT]
btw, the FX57 is probably the best, and probably the last single core processor. I know it tends to come very close to the x2. Check out [url]www.tomshardware.com[/url] for a little write up for it. Ok, I'mma bit of an amd fanboy, but you gotta admit, them Texan's know how to cook up a mean cpu. :cool:
Posted by: waynejkruse10
A friend of mine who recently built a Athlon 64 3500+ system said to me that if he had the change to build a completely new system right now, he would build it with a Intel chip. His reason was something like the Intel Midrange chips are cheaper or some crap.
Posted by: DJ-CHRIS
Intel stock cooling kicks the **** outta AMD's, but AMD's run quite a bit cooler anyways
Posted by: Juice Daddy
AMD @2Ghz = Intel @3Ghz?
Posted by: PC Man Brian
Hm, never really saw an AMD in action. I've only used Pentium's. I'll get to it one day, haha.
Posted by: dhw200
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DJ-CHRIS [/i]
[B]Intel stock cooling kicks the **** outta AMD's, but AMD's run quite a bit cooler anyways [/B][/QUOTE]
With the prescotts, Intel stock better be **** good
Posted by: GuitarFreak1857
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Juice Daddy [/i]
[B]AMD @2Ghz = Intel @3Ghz? [/B][/QUOTE]
ex: AMD Athlon 2.0Ghz 3200+ = Intel 3.2 Ghz
Posted by: ThE_MarD
Heyyo,
Well, guys, even AMD's naming scheeme doesn't quite match the preformance, I saw on tomshardwareguide that I think a 3200+ beat out a P4 3.3GHz on some tests. This's why I love tom's hardware guide, it's rediculous, I think they benchmarked every amd and intel cpu since 1995. :D
[url]http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041220/index.html[/url]
Note how Intel actually does better in opengl than amd, but on directx amd is king. Interesting deal eh? it's kindof like ati with directx and nvidia with opengl.. heh, so if ya mix amd with nvidia you get a balanced system just like ati with intel... lol. Whoa, $box 360 is intel with ati.. now there's an interesting deal eh? ;)
Posted by: waynejkruse10
some dont like Toms hardware, but that big cpu thingo is good.
Posted by: inam
In my opinion i think AMD isn't that good...Pentium really does give you all the things that you expect out of it...but hey thats just my opinion...!
Posted by: ThE_MarD
Heyyo,
Tom's hardware's fine for things like cpu's, but their vidcard benchmarks are very bad since they always pick engines optimized for one vidcard company or the other, so most of that is flawed yes. You just gotta go with the even ones like Far Cry.
Posted by: Apokalipse
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by GuitarFreak1857 [/i]
[B]ex: AMD Athlon 2.0Ghz 3200+ = Intel 3.2 Ghz [/B][/QUOTE]
actually, Athlon XP 3200+ @ 2.2GHZ = Athlon 64 3200+ @ 2.0GHZ = Pentium 4 @ 3.2GHZ (Prescott or Northwood, they perform about the same at 3.2)
the Athlon 64's are a little more efficient than Athlon XP's.
but still, this really is an average.
Posted by: Mionics
bro as far as im concerned PENTIUMS loose their performance but there is no good answer for your question. Either way man a computer most likely wont last you long especially since you said you're new to this. So if you wanna go with a 64-bit. youre making the right choice but dont go above the 3500+ cause then they get too expensive and it wont do you any good to have a 3700+ when you wont even know the difference in most cases.
Posted by: Apokalipse
well, I think you are right also. AMD focus on doing more per clock cycle, [i]and[/i] Intel like to just boost clock speeds
the Pentium 3's were more efficient than Pentium 4's. a 1.4 P3 will outperform a 1.4 and even 1.6 P4.
Intel's CPU's has been getting less efficient, and at the same time AMD's have been getting more efficient
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
Having not been online in quite a while, it's surprising to see this thread has gotten so big! Thanks to all of you who contributed! I really learned a lot (and am still learning)!
Posted by: waynejkruse10
it was intels deal with rambus that created the p4 which put the end to efficient intel cpu's
Posted by: Apokalipse
yup, that's why they have a x4 FSB
Posted by: ThE_MarD
Heyyo,
Hmm, it's a sad thing when "partnerships" are supposed to make things better, but in computers, sometimes it means the reverse. Nvidia buying out 3dfx (oh c'mon, our vidcards would be soo much better if 3DFX was still in the game. They made incredible vidcards, they were the top until they got bought out), sapphire going with that cheap ram company... the only time it seems to be good is when they're inventing something completely new. Sony, and IBM, and I can't remember the 3rd company, them and those cell cpu's will totally overthrow the current cpus. They run onna completely different achitexture due to them being like, 1/4th the size of our current x86 cpus. I mean, they plan their default speed on release to be 4GHz. At E3, in the PS3 they had 4 of them running at only 3.7GHz, so that's 1.2GHz they weren't even using, and the UT2k7 ingame cinematics looked incredibly smooth. Same goes for that other game.. I forget the name now..
I think they said they can do up to 10 processes per cycle, x86 cpus can only do 2. So 10x4 is 40 processes per cycle, you could like, freakin' mutli-os-multi-task that setup. I'd cream my pants if my computer were that stong, lol. I dunno folks, they say the PS3 will ship with linux onnit.. if so.. and you can plug your keyboard n' mouse into it.. that's like, a super computer at a new low price. Just get that cedega, and there ya go, play games with rediculous graphics settings and have no framerate loss, literally. :)
I dunno, cedega might not work with the version of linux they're gonna use on the PS3, but I hope they make a compatible version, if so, the prospect of having a super computer would be all the more intruging no? ;)
Btw, they do plan to bring cell processors to us PC users... but to get a standard out n' so, we can be looking at a cell processor in our comps in maybe 2007.. if we're lucky, most likely in 2008. By then, who knows wth amd and intel might have accomplished. Cause it's obvious, x86 architecture is old, an upgrade is needed.. But the wait... oh boy.
Posted by: Apokalipse
a lot of companies promise they'll have technology sooo much better, but the problem is, often they do not deliver. I'm njot saying they shouldn't try, and I don't doubt that cell processing can be really good, but I would wait and see for myself before I jump to conclusions about anything.
and, if they do make the cell processors, I'm sure they can develop a Linux compatible with it. Linux is open source, so literally anyone is allowed to develop one for it. although it sort of depends on Sony to decide if they want it on their PS3's
Posted by: waynejkruse10
Computers can be sooooo much better, but companies have to go with technology what is a good mix of Cost of Production and Performance.
Posted by: ThE_MarD
Heyyo,
The main prob I have with intel ain't their preformance, but their dirty antics:
[url]http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121796,00.asp[/url]
Yet again, they're investigating Intel, this time in europe, with agressive force. Sure, there's plenty of companies that do this, but c'mon, Intel is the "supposed" leader of cpu's.. why would they need dirty business antics then eh? I think they know they slipped behind AMD in price/preformance quite badly, and I guess this is how they wanna keep the big bucks.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
There was sumthin on slashdot about some compilers run AMD code slower than Intel code on purpose.
Posted by: pc_boy
didn't they have cell processors in very early "super computers?"
Posted by: Elite Bullet
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by GuitarFreak1857 [/i]
[B]ex: AMD Athlon 2.0Ghz 3200+ = Intel 3.2 Ghz [/B][/QUOTE]
Your obviously talking about 64bit then because my AMD Athlon XP 2800+ is running 2.09GHZ
Posted by: Apokalipse
yup, that's why I posted that the Athlon XP 2.2GHZ = Athlon 64 2.0GHZ
Posted by: waynejkruse10
If only my ram was better, then i could run my processor @ 400mhz FSB (XP 3200+)
Posted by: Apokalipse
does your motherboard support a 400 FSB?
Posted by: waynejkruse10
yes
Posted by: 360Man
Did you know the Athlon 64 revision E supports a 533FSB setting?
Lets hope they activate it as a bios option once ram specs are approved for it.
Right now in the war AMD is winning and Intel is resorting to deactivating SSE through Intel compilers if you dont use a Genuine Intel cpu. That was named in AMD's more recent lawsuit.
Posted by: pc_boy
dude, just overclock your ram...
Posted by: Apokalipse
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 360Man [/i]
[B]Did you know the Athlon 64 revision E supports a 533FSB setting?
Lets hope they activate it as a bios option once ram specs are approved for it.
Right now in the war AMD is winning and Intel is resorting to deactivating SSE through Intel compilers if you dont use a Genuine Intel cpu. That was named in AMD's more recent lawsuit. [/B][/QUOTE]
Revision E = Venice/San Diego core
and, technically Athlon 64's don't have a FSB, it's HTT.
all of them can reach a DDR533 HTT, but it depends on the CPU, mothreboard and RAM whether it will run stably at that
Posted by: cthanchan
pentium 4 3.4EE rocks
cheap
great performanse
energy efficiant
thats what i'm talking about
Posted by: waynejkruse10
can you get motherboards for intels pentium m donthan chips? Coz i heard they are good overclockers.
Posted by: PZEROFGH
"Basically, Pentiums give you slightly higher performance for a huge increase in price, and are known to be better with high-demand apps than AMD, whereas AMD is generally considered better for gaming.
[SIZE=4]AMDs are also known to run a little bit hotter[/SIZE]
I think if you're on a budget, gaming only with your PC, or looking for a high performance/cost ratio you should get an AMD.
If you have a lot of money to spend and you run a lot of taxing progs, go Intel.
People argue over this topic day in and day out and solve absolutely nothing. It might as well be an argument between religions or politics."[SIZE=4]AMDs are also known to run a little bit hotter[/SIZE]
wat are you talking about. the only reason im gonig with amd cause its better then intel * i been with intel for my whole life and now im switching*( ALL THE WASTED YEARS) and its good for gaming and it runs cooler then intel WAT DO YOU MEAN IT RUNS HOTTER
Posted by: ThE_MarD
Heyyo,
Yeah, everyone knows the prescott cores run hella hot, which's why their stock HSF is much more highly developped than the amd one. I mean, look at the amd one for crying out loud. It's small, doesn't look like it's worth more than $10. The P4 needs a **** expensive stock HSF solution. So yes, if you used the same cooling solution on both an amd and an intel, no doupt in my mind the amd's would be cooler.
Posted by: Counter-Strike
Umm, dude AMD's run hotter than Intel. If you used the same HSF that AMD uses on an Intel, the Intel would be cooler...ROFL dude...
Posted by: ThE_MarD
Heyyo,
Hmm, it seems no one has really done benchmarks with the an equivalent P4 and AMD cpu. I scavenged for an actual site with benchmarks for HSF's where they matched the same cooler with amd and intel, and couldn't find any, but luckly there was a site that has tested HSF's on AMD's and Intels at different times. Now this does give some hint that intel was cooler before the new prescott core, also note that the Intel p4 was only 2.4GHz, and the amd was an Athalon64 3000+:
[url]http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&number=13&artpage=1293&articID=224[/url] (<< that's a lot of tests eh? and there's even a last page. crazy.)
and
[url]http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&number=4&artpage=1194&articID=245[/url]
Now, results I used:
Zalman CNPS 7700CU
AMD Athalon64 3000+: 62.4ºC, 35 @ 40cm (dBA)
Intel P4 2.4C: 48.7º, 35.8 @ 70cm (dBA)
Hmm, also note the Intel P4 tests were from farther away, so maybe at the same range as the AMD tests it would've been a bit louder, probably not that much though. ~4dBA.
If anyone has links to something like an AMD A64 3200+ and a P4 3.2GHz EE cpu going on testing HSF solutions? please link away. :)
I read up the THG for their latest AMD and Intel stress tests, they say the new Intel duel cores can take up to 30% more power consumption than AMD onna full load. So not only is the thing costly to buy, but even whilst owning it I'd be more expensive.
Posted by: Apokalipse
Athlon 64's run between 35 and 45 degrees (C) and the high-end ones like the X2's sometimes hitting 50, however it is not uncommon for the average Prescott to reach 70 degrees (C)
Posted by: pc_boy
prescotts = frying pans :p
Posted by: FghtinIrshNvrDi
hey, first time posting in this thread. Fellas, I've got a question for those of you who have HAD the Athlon 64 3400. Did you need anything more than the standard heat-sink and fan if you're NOT overclocking? Just wondering if it's an issue if you're running it stock.
Ryan
Posted by: pc_boy
depends on the socket and core that you have... venice cores don't heat up as much
Posted by: FghtinIrshNvrDi
I think it's the newcastle. whatever the socket 754 is.
Ryan
Posted by: crazyb8ss
I work the computer section of a huge garage sale my church does where we take donated computers, mix and match to make working new condition computers and sell them. I have built over 25 pcs this way. The intel processors seem to be in better shape when we get them. The AMD processors are usually dead when we get them. I like intel. I have used it on my pcs, it works, has never failed me, and hey, dont fix what aint broke. My vote is Intel, but do what your comfortable with. If you had good AMD experiences stick with it.
Posted by: Apokalipse
the 3400+ is a socket 754, so it'll always be a clawhammer. if you're not overclocking it, the stock heatsink will be fine.
Posted by: AuBrEy Online
Right okay!!!
Listen up guys!
AMD waste Intel at everything!
The only reason why'd you would get Intel is video editing/encoding
AT GAMING the AMD CPU's waste Intel, mate!, if you can and make sure it's AMD Athlon 64 3700+ San Diego!
Also about the RAM one gig is perfect for gaming, for server hosting and video editing 2 gig comes in!
Posted by: lamdck
Please provide more information about AMD
Posted by: lamdck
Lower Pirce Comp. Accessories for Sales.
Interested, please ask for Price List.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
SPAM!
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by crazyb8ss [/i]
[B]I work the computer section of a huge garage sale my church does where we take donated computers, mix and match to make working new condition computers and sell them. I have built over 25 pcs this way. The intel processors seem to be in better shape when we get them. The AMD processors are usually dead when we get them. I like intel. I have used it on my pcs, it works, has never failed me, and hey, dont fix what aint broke. My vote is Intel, but do what your comfortable with. If you had good AMD experiences stick with it. [/B][/QUOTE]
the reason you don't get new AMD chips is cuz ppl who have them like them, and they don't want to give them away... ppl who use Intel donate them cuz they are pieces of crap and they need to get a new chip every 3 seconds in order to keep up... ;) :p
Posted by: waynejkruse10
You cannot justify the quality of todays processors with processors from 8-10 years ago. Lol, the 486's and P1's could stand a lot.
Posted by: FghtinIrshNvrDi
they're so simple... I don't see how a heck of a lot could go wrong with those things, especially models they made for a few years. they're bulletproof. We have K6 piece of garbage downstairs running windows xp, so go figure. It's slow by anyone's standards, but it runs and gets to the internet eventually.
Ryan
Posted by: pc_boy
that's why you don't put win xp on old chips... you can't teach old dogs new tricks... the CPU will be just as fast as when you got it, if you give it the same software...
Posted by: KMOTE
if u have an old processor with a heat sink that will help as well. i read that the XTs and the ATs didnt even have HS/fans and the first heat sinks were just pieces of copper/alluminium and the 12V fan was concidered a flashy new idea.
if u stick cooling on an old processor you are bound to be running well below operating temp:p
Posted by: Apokalipse
having XP running well is more about the RAM. a K6 will run XP fine, if you have enough RAM. 128MB is okay, 256 is better
2000 is less RAM hungry, and will run well on lower specs. 64MB RAM will do much more on 2000 than on XP
Posted by: waynejkruse10
I ran XP on a K6-2 550/192mb
Posted by: FghtinIrshNvrDi
oh, our old K6 machine has 512 MB of ram on it. It runs xp, but it's just slow opening up programs and all that jazz. Like I said, once firefox is loaded, it surfs the internet just fine.
Ryan
Posted by: waynejkruse10
yeah, thats because of a slow HDD.
Posted by: GuitarFreak1857
Firefox rules!
Posted by: madhouse
I started reading through this thread then suddenly realised it was over 50 pages long.....to cut a long story short, I'm looking at getting a new PC. I've seen 2 PC's that I like. One has an Intel Pentium 4 Processor 650 (clock speed 3.4GHz) and the other has an Athlon™ 64 4000+ Processor. Bearing in mind that I tend to use my PC for both gaming and genuine work (50/50), which processor would be best for me?
Posted by: vaderpro
Read the previous 50 pages....u have to decide yourself.
Posted by: ThE_MarD
Heyyo,
Needless to say the Athlon64 4000+ is easily stronger than the 3.4GHz cpu. In efficiency, the Athlon64 4000+ runs at the same rate as a P4 4GHz cpu. It easily beats that P4 in gaming, but work-wise, if anything it'll only be 1-3 seconds slower than that P4.. most likely it'll go faster there too since it's more buffed. Plus, do you happen to know if it's EE? if not then I don' think that P4's 64bit, thus if you ever upgraded to windows vista, you'd only be able to do 32bit, which is slower than 64bit.
Also dude, do ya know the rest of the specs of the computer, or is it custom? Cause if you wanna game onnit, you'll need a good vidcard for sure.
Posted by: madhouse
Here are the specs of the 2 PC's I'm looking at. Both are within my budget but the first is my preference.
AMD Athlon™ 64 4000+ Processor
Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
ASUS A8N-E PCI Express 939 Mainboard
1024MB DDR 400 RAM (PC3200) Memory
250GB Serial ATA (150Mb/s) Ultra Fast HDD
256MB ATI Radeon X800XL - PCI-Express
19" TFT Flat Panel LCD Monitor
16x Dual Layer DVD-RW (R/W all standard formats)
Creative Labs Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS Audio
Creative Labs Inspire P5800 - 5.1 Surround Speakers
Internet Ready V.92 56Kbps data/fax/voice modem
Network Ready integrated 10/100/1000 Ethernet
Logitech Cordless Keyboard and Optical Mouse
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 640 3.2GHz with Hyperthreading technology
Level 2 cache 2MB
Intel® 915P express chipset
1024MB DDR 400 RAM (PC3200) Memory
200 SATA GB
256Mb NVIDIAGeForce 6200
19" TFT Flat Panel LCD Monitor
16x Dual Layer DVD-RW (R/W all standard formats)
Intel 7.1 HD Sound Card
Internet Ready V.92 56Kbps data/fax/voice modem
Network Ready integrated 10/100/1000 Ethernet
Logitech Wired Keyboard and Optical Mouse
There is also another PC that is slightly outside of my budget, but I'm not sure whether it's worth me paying out the extra £300.
AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 4200+ Dual Core Processor
Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional 64-bit Edition
ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe PCI Express 939 Mainboard
1024MB DDR 400 RAM (PC3200) Memory
300GB Serial ATA (150Mb/s) Ultra Fast HDD
256MB nVIDIA GeForce 6800 - PCI Express
19" TFT Flat Panel LCD Monitor
SONY 16x Dual Layer DVD-RW (R/W all standard formats)*
Creative Labs Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS Audio
Creative Labs Inspire T7900 - 7.1 Surround Speakers
Internet Ready V.92 56Kbps data/fax/voice modem
Network Ready integrated 10/100/1000 Ethernet
Logitech Cordless Keyboard and Optical Mouse
Posted by: vaderpro
Go with the first for sure. The 2nd one has an outdated video card. Personally, I would think the first system will probably be good enough.
Posted by: ThE_MarD
Heyyo,
Ok, that first PC easily pwns the 2nd, but if I were you, see if you can get that 6800GT instead of the x800XL, it's much more beefy of a vidcard, but so is the price. Check this:
[url]http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050524/vga_charts-09.html[/url]
as you can see, that 6200 is low-quality, a budget vidcard. the x800XL whups it, but the 6800's beat that. The last pc is obviously the best, but I say just go for the first one, and see if you can change the vidcard, if not then don't worry, it'll still crank out great visuals with a steady framerate man. ;)
Posted by: vaderpro
Ya, i thought that too mard, but its just a 6800 listed. If you can, get the 6800GT, over the x800xl.
Posted by: pc_boy
hey, i suggest the first one, definately, and with the 6800GT, but if you get the AMD 4000+, get the San Diego core... it's much better, and runs at a lot lower tempetures and is more efficient... it costs only $1 more than the ClawHammer...
[url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103529[/url]
Posted by: madhouse
Thanks guys for all your replies. I've now come up with a shortlist of 3 PC systems. Can you guys take a look at the PC systems below and let me which PC you guys would purchase. The Mesh Computers PC is the one you guys recommended from my previous message, but I came across an Evesham PC and an Advent PC this morning. I've also included the price of each PC system so that you can see how they as value for money.
Posted by: Apokalipse
out of the ones in your sig, I'd get the second one.
the 6800 GT is a better video card. the A64 4000+ is a better CPU than the 640 and 3800+, and the speakers, keyboard, mouse, and monitor are better
Posted by: ThE_MarD
Heyyo,
That mesh computer is the best of the 3, and cost less than that advent computer, lol. Intergrated sound... vs a SB Audigy and the 5.1 speaker setup? yeah that 320GB HD doesn't make up for it, Cause 250GB is a helluva lot already.
Posted by: FghtinIrshNvrDi
I'd go with the mesh. it seems like the most powerful setup for gaming and such. And for you intel fans, there's no way the mesh will lag on any program you throw at it.
Ryan
Posted by: vaderpro
Go with the 2nd one; what's the case and power supply?
Posted by: madhouse
Thanks guys for all your replies. First thing tomorrow I'm gonna order the Mesh Computer :-)
vaderpro - you asked about the case and power supply. The case is there own (Mesh) ATX MidiTower with tool free access (Black & Silver) and the power supply is 550W.
Posted by: ThE_MarD
Heyyo,
Nice madhouse, nice. That PSU is definately strong enough to handle anything ya throw into the case, lol. By any chance do ya know the brand on the PSU? Cause there are some bad PSU brands out there, so ya have to be careful. It should be under warranty for like a couple months to a year, so if it craps out on ya bring it to the store n' ask for one that doesn't suck. ;)
Posted by: madhouse
ThE_MarD - to be honest I'm not sure what brand the PSU is. However, being a Mesh Computers system it's gonna be a decent brand because they're been voted No.1 in numerous PC mags for their systems. And don't worry, I've taken out the extended warranty on the system just in case ;)
Posted by: PZEROFGH
the mesh one is the best one out of all of them, no contest. and the psu, if its a mesh the psu has to be good
Posted by: Apokalipse
if it's an OCZ, Antec, Enermax, Thermaltake, or Cooler Master PSU, it is definately a good one
Posted by: AE-Thebornotaku
i would have to say AMD. because i run it. AMD's have slower clockspeeds, and run hotter, but they are considered better for gaming. if you are really seriosu, you can grab the new FX-57 Athlon 64 for around 1k. but like i said, they run hot, so get ready to have a better cooling solution than a CPU fan only. think about getting more casefans and think about how the air will flow.
Posted by: FghtinIrshNvrDi
I don't think he^^^ realizes that the tread really deviated from AMD vs. Pent***. Even though clearly AMD's are better... It's a proven fact. :) No, the new generations of Athlon 64's run cooler than the current version of P4 Prescott cores. Thanks to a nice core we like to call Venice! Also, San Diego is our friend.
Ryan
Posted by: pc_boy
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by GuitarFreak1857 [/i]
[B]Firefox rules! [/B][/QUOTE]
except it is **** of slow and makes you shoot your computer and go like "screw this" and walk away and do something else... :p
Posted by: FghtinIrshNvrDi
I really, really, really like firefox... tabbed browsing is the only way to fly!
Ryan
Posted by: ThE_MarD
Heyyo,
Slow? lmao. What kindof cpu you have man? *checks your sig* ah, a 2500+. Not too bad, but it is the bottleneck of your system, especially with a 6600GT vidcard. If you went up to a 3000+ you'd easily get 10-15F/S extra on any game man.
Anywho, I think firefox runs fine. Maybe 1-5 seconds slower than Internet Exploiter, but for no spyware on your comp, I say it's easily worth it. I'm never using IE unless I have absolutely no choice and I feel like risking it.
Posted by: Apokalipse
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pc_boy [/i]
[B]except it is **** of slow and makes you shoot your computer and go like "screw this" and walk away and do something else... :p [/B][/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.tech-forums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49238&highlight=speed+up+firefox[/url]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by FghtinIrshNvrDi [/i][b]
I don't think he^^^ realizes that the tread really deviated from AMD vs. Pent***. Even though clearly AMD's are better... It's a proven fact. :) No, the new generations of Athlon 64's run cooler than the current version of P4 Prescott cores. Thanks to a nice core we like to call Venice! Also, San Diego is our friend.
Ryan[/b][/quote]
that's almost right, but it's not because of the [i]Venice[/i] that Athlon 64's run cool, Athlon 64's always did before the Venice. although the Venice is still really nice. (especially overclocking)
Athlon XP's were the ones that ran hot.
and San Diego = Venice with extra 512kb L2 cache (total 1MB)
Posted by: htjosh69
[color=red]erased your 1733 word scam...stop posting it. Nobody is interested. -Q[/color]
Posted by: waynejkruse10
spam
Posted by: arandalle
Traditionally, AMD processors excel in PC Gaming, while Intel Processors excel in productivity applications and multitasking. This brief comparison of AMD and Intel processors holds true, for the most part, with today's single and dual core processors
In case anyone was wondering, the dual core processors manufacured by both AMD and Intel will NOT improve system performance while running games. That is, until dual-core processors are taken into account by game designers.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
yup, when multi threaded games are introduced it will be a very big advantage to have dual cores.
Posted by: ThE_MarD
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by apokalipse [/i]
[B][url]http://www.tech-forums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49238&highlight=speed+up+firefox[/url]
and San Diego = Venice with extra 512kb L2 cache (total 1MB) [/B][/QUOTE]
Heyyo,
Not exactly, the venice core has SSE3 instructions, whilst the san diego doesn't. So if programs supported SSE3 then the venice would do better than san diego, otherwise nope. The leap from 512KB of cache isin't that huge it seems.. then again, the leap from non to with SSE3 instructions ain't that big either. Mainly just words on paper to the average computer user.
Posted by: PZEROFGH
what about 2MB cache? from 128 to 2MB BIG DIFFERNCE FOR ME
Posted by: Apokalipse
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ThE_MarD [/i]
[B]Heyyo,
Not exactly, the venice core has SSE3 instructions, whilst the san diego doesn't. So if programs supported SSE3 then the venice would do better than san diego, otherwise nope. The leap from 512KB of cache isin't that huge it seems.. then again, the leap from non to with SSE3 instructions ain't that big either. Mainly just words on paper to the average computer user. [/B][/QUOTE]
they do actually. the FX-57's and some FX-55's are San Diego, and have SSE3
i'l see if I can find a CPU-Z screenshot
Posted by: turboFX55
OK PLAN AND SIMPLE
PENTIUM = RUNS MULTIBLE APPS WELL = MULTITASKER
AMD = RUNS ONE APP **** GOOD = SUPER GAMER
Posted by: waynejkruse10
but AMD Opterons and X2's have "hyperthreading" as well. The Opteron 8xx series has 8 threads, the 4xx series has 4 threads. The X2 is multithread as well.
Posted by: Apokalipse
yeah, the 800 series Opterons are really powerful. although they consume a lot of power themselves.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
well i guess you have to pay the price for high performance CPUs
Posted by: techy
CPU is not only thing that you must consider. Most important thing is mainboard or data bus. dual memories are fine. second try to buy max amount of memory.at last buy one of the latest CPUS. a good sound card is a mustfor gaming.
Posted by: Apokalipse
I don't think I'd call the FSB/HTT the most important aspect, although it can help a lot. but you do see the Pentium 3's with PC133 SDRAM beating out the Pentium 4's with DDR266 at same and often lower CPU clocks. the P3 1.2 actually being a bit higher than the Pentium 4 1.6
most new computers have at least 200MHZ HTT/FSB for DDR RAM
Posted by: samuel
ok, u guys dont remember me , but im on the 3ed page. i went out later and got a p4 prescott processor(stupid stupid choice now looking back). i finally conclude that intel is spending zero time thinking, and all the time trying to rush their new stuff on the market. heres my story.
ok so i got the fallowing home:
3.0ghz presscott cpu
some $200 motherboard, i forget wat kind
nice $100 case that had 6 fans in it
80 gig sata hard drive
2 sticks of pc2 ram 512mb each(set up in duel mode)
dvd-rw
dvd-rom
...... anyway heres wat happened. i get it all out of boxes, then i look at the cpu fan, guess what i see... BENDABLE PLASTIC to hold it to the motherboard. i was mad, but i guessed that intel knew what they were doing when they did that, so i assembled it all.
turns out when i turn it on, it beeps then shuts off within 1 sec. im confused. i take the whole thing apart and put it back to gether. turn it on, and it works, even more confusing. so i go into the bios and see that it is running at 160 dagrees farenhight. :eek: ... i get worried, this computer is not for me and i am getting paid for it, i didnt want to trade this thing when it is at 160 dagrees, i just wouldnt feel right knowing that these people had a toster in their computer.
so i go around online, and i get even more confused when i see a pic of someone overcocking with same specs as me and still having 110 dagrees. so i take the whole thing to a shop and ask them what is going on. they said that it is not normal. and then they find out that my heatsink is incorectly put on. so tthey get me a new heat sink and they try to put it on themselves, they broke it in their attempt and they replaced it free of charge. they are near impossible to put on, it took him through 3 differ heat sinks to attach it right.
now is the time i say whhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaattttttt is intel thinking putting that on the market!!!!!!!!!!!!
anyway, now the computer is runnign fine, its sorta loud cus of the fans. its fast, but to tell you the truth i think id stick with a amd if i could do it over agean, seeing as how i spent $2500 making that computer.
Posted by: Snake-Eyes
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by samuel [/i]
[B]anyway heres wat happened. i get it all out of boxes, then i look at the cpu fan, guess what i see... BENDABLE PLASTIC to hold it to the motherboard. i was mad, but i guessed that intel knew what they were doing when they did that, so i assembled it all. [/B][/QUOTE]
If you mean the arm to lock the heatsink onto the mobo, most processors these days have that.
Posted by: PZEROFGH
and they are supposed to be metal lol. my stock amd one has only 2, my thermaltake has 6...woohoo 25C idle now! come on winter, TIME TO OC!
Posted by: waynejkruse10
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v610/waynejkruse10/coffee.jpg[/IMG]
Posted by: Apokalipse
2 clicks, and 4 keys pressed gets that post reported: SPAM
Posted by: jim_77
easy - intel have better floating point units, making them better for spreadsheets, photoshop, recoding DVD or other media, or basically any appliaction involving division. where as AMD have better memory pipelines, allowing your graphics card's processor to get its hands on the system memory more quickly - the GFX card basically does all the division work the processor's FPU hasn't.
and that's why AMD are cheap and have "fake" mhz speeds - they market them as though they're faster because of the processor speeds games require.
plus all you gamers are tightwads when it comes down to it :)
Posted by: intel rocks
Read the name. Thats all I have to say.
Intel Rocks! There Faster
Athalon SUCKS! There Slower!
Intel comes with more options and different speeds so it can better fit your budget(if you have one!)
INTEL ROCKS!
Posted by: Shumway
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by intel rocks [/i]
[B]Read the name. Thats all I have to say.
Intel Rocks! There Faster
Athalon SUCKS! There Slower!
Intel comes with more options and different speeds so it can better fit your budget(if you have one!)
INTEL ROCKS! [/B][/QUOTE]
I think your little fan boy bus came to rest at the wrong stop!!! Maybe you should head over to [url]www.get-a-life.com[/url] i think it would be better suited to you,It make's me laugh that intel fan boy's can't relize that even the lowest amd's that they make now blow's away most intel's,And what's this > "Intel comes with more options and different speeds so it can better fit your budget" ya right [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/shumway123/rofl2.gif[/IMG][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/shumway123/rofl2.gif[/IMG][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/shumway123/rofl2.gif[/IMG] Thank's for the laugh's i really needed it :D
Posted by: ThE_MarD
Heyyo,
Yeah, a response like that was to be obvious, cause yeah, here we like to discuss our opinions intelligently, not by random "I'mma fanboy of *insert name here*".... I guess he forgot to read the posts where we actually make valid judgements.... so in otherwords pretty much the whole thread. :p
Posted by: Shumway
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ThE_MarD [/i]
[B]I guess he forgot to read the posts where we actually make valid judgements.... so in otherwords pretty much the whole thread. :p [/B][/QUOTE]
That's why i had to post just for the fun of it :D
Posted by: hillbillybob
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by intel rocks [/i]
[B]Read the name. Thats all I have to say.
Intel Rocks! There Faster
Athalon SUCKS! There Slower!
Intel comes with more options and different speeds so it can better fit your budget(if you have one!)
INTEL ROCKS! [/B][/QUOTE]
Interesting, I've seen an AMD blow a couple of programs that were endorsed for an Intel processor. Maya 5.0 and Planetside. Both very math intensive. Both requiring lots of horsepower. hmmm.....im really thinking....that it's just like religion, politics, and ultimatly, chevy vs. ford. Sometimes the arguments deny any and all logic and it's really just a matter or preference. Their are no more clear cut advantages and disadvantages.
To paraphrase all that,
shut up
Posted by: RichM499
AMD=lower clockspeed and great performance / lower price
the fastest doesnt matter if your not willing to pay 500 for the newest, INTEL is hype, AMD is the real stuff.
Posted by: Apokalipse
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jim_77 [/i]
[B]easy - intel have better floating point units, making them better for spreadsheets, photoshop, recoding DVD or other media, or basically any appliaction involving division. where as AMD have better memory pipelines, allowing your graphics card's processor to get its hands on the system memory more quickly - the GFX card basically does all the division work the processor's FPU hasn't.
and that's why AMD are cheap and have "fake" mhz speeds - they market them as though they're faster because of the processor speeds games require.
plus all you gamers are tightwads when it comes down to it :) [/B][/QUOTE]
actually, Athlon XP's had a relatively small communication speed. half that of the Pentium 4's they were competing ith. however if you look at benchmarks, Athlon XP's [b]are[/b] up there against their competing Pentium 4's
Posted by: vaderpro
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by intel rocks [/i]
[B]Read the name. Thats all I have to say.
Intel Rocks! There Faster
Athalon SUCKS! There Slower!
Intel comes with more options and different speeds so it can better fit your budget(if you have one!)
INTEL ROCKS! [/B][/QUOTE]
Omg, this made me really laugh. Is this guy this for real? Ive yet to see any recent benchmarks that show a Intel beating an equal Amd in anything (other than photoshop).....
[url]http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/3800/index.htm[/url]
Posted by: SHOCK3R WOLF
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by intel rocks [/i]
[B]Read the name. Thats all I have to say.
Intel Rocks! There Faster
Athalon SUCKS! There Slower!
Intel comes with more options and different speeds so it can better fit your budget(if you have one!)
INTEL ROCKS! [/B][/QUOTE]
And he has a celeron computer. Unless you have actually tested both, you can't really talk about it!
And just for the record, in my house i have Two Pentium 4 PC's, And my AMD! and mine rocks the other two!
Posted by: maroon1
maybe amd is better today but it will not be better forever, because intel is a huge company, and it's about 100 times larger than AMD company so intel can control the cpu market at any time.
and i don't think that a small company like AMD could compete with intel. iam very sure that intel will produce cpu's that can blow up AMD into pieces in following few years.
AMD is overrated
intel is the future
Posted by: ThE_MarD
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by maroon1 [/i]
[B]maybe amd is better today but it will not be better forever, because intel is a huge company, and it's about 100 times larger than AMD company so intel can control the cpu market at any time.
and i don't think that a small company like AMD could compete with intel. iam very sure that intel will produce cpu's that can blow up AMD into pieces in following few years.
AMD is overrated
intel is the future [/B][/QUOTE]Heyyo,
Hahahaha, the only way intel's keeping a good foothold is by bribing computer stores to sell intel chips and not stock amd chips.
[url]http://www.asahi.com/english/business/TKY200502070138.html[/url]
intel are cheating punks. I like how Japan ain't sellouts and actually promote fair business... I wish north america wasn't corrupt and more like Japan.
Posted by: vaderpro
The only reason Intel is ahead is advertising. They spend a shatload on it. Plus its like the chev/ford thing. "Well i always bought a chev so I keep buyin one". THATS IT, otherwise they'd be f?@#%d.
Posted by: Avalanch3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by vaderpro [/i]
[B]The only reason Intel is ahead is advertising. They spend a shatload on it. Plus its like the chev/ford thing. "Well i always bought a chev so I keep buyin one". THATS IT, otherwise they'd be f?@#%d. [/B][/QUOTE]
intel is still going well because of the fact that companies like HP and DELL and using intel in there pre-built computers...and there are alot of people that still buy from these companies because they either dont know how to build a computer...or they simply its easier to just go buy one already made....
without these companies we would have said goodbye to intel ;)
Posted by: vaderpro
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Avalanch3 [/i]
[B]intel is still going well because of the fact that companies like HP and DELL and using intel in there pre-built computers...and there are alot of people that still buy from these companies because they either dont know how to build a computer...or they simply its easier to just go buy one already made....
without these companies we would have said goodbye to intel ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, Id bet thats the majority of the market right there....prebuilts from Best buy...
Posted by: Avalanch3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by vaderpro [/i]
[B]Oh yeah, Id bet thats the majority of the market right there....prebuilts from Best buy... [/B][/QUOTE]
hahaha yea...and for the Aussies its harvey norman ( i call it hardley normal) haha :p
Posted by: vaderpro
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Avalanch3 [/i]
[B]hahaha yea...and for the Aussies its harvey norman ( i call it hardley normal) haha :p [/B][/QUOTE]
What??
Greg Norman??
Posted by: Avalanch3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by vaderpro [/i]
[B]What??
Greg Norman?? [/B][/QUOTE]
hahahaahahahahaahahahahahaah
nahh harvey norman is a shop here...just like best buy.
its the same as best buy...just a diffrent name :)
Posted by: vaderpro
"Well, lets put another shrimp on the barbie, mate".......hehe...
Posted by: Avalanch3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by vaderpro [/i]
[B]"Well, lets put another shrimp on the barbie, mate".......hehe... [/B][/QUOTE]
hahaha nahhh
lets put anotha snagga (sausage) on tha barbi mate..and sit back with a nice cold beer ;)
Posted by: waynejkruse10
Harvey Norman are a large department store chain that sells stuff like Tv's, Computers, Furniture, Electronics etc. They specialise in big brand computerers like HP/Compaq, Acer, Toshiba etc. They, like any big department store are really bad for buying computers as the computers generally only have integrated graphics and are mostly underpowered ram wise.
Also their things like Thumb Drives are expensive, i saw a 64mb USB drive their for $60 when our computer coordinator were selling the exact same ones for $37. This was ages ago though.
Posted by: Avalanch3
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by waynejkruse10 [/i]
[B]Harvey Norman are a large department store chain that sells stuff like Tv's, Computers, Furniture, Electronics etc. They specialise in big brand computerers like HP/Compaq, Acer, Toshiba etc. They, like any big department store are really bad for buying computers as the computers generally only have integrated graphics and are mostly underpowered ram wise.
Also their things like Thumb Drives are expensive, i saw a 64mb USB drive their for $60 when our computer coordinator were selling the exact same ones for $37. This was ages ago though. [/B][/QUOTE]
haha they are over priced on everything...for 256mb DDR ram..its like 150 dollers lol :p
Posted by: waynejkruse10
and the funny thing is - people actually buy it!
Posted by: ThE_MarD
Heyyo,
Now HP and stuff do use AMD's as well. Futureshop (who are now owned by Best Buy lol) sell every brand of computer with at least one of each type. The problem is that the salesman are biased. Intel has a "special" deal with Besbuy, so that also comes to futureshop, and it allows anyone to take the special intel training course (to train you to sell intel chips better) and in return you can buy stuff direct from intel with no retail markup pricing. This is the only way I'd ever buy an intel cpu, if they bent over and literally gave it to me. :p
Posted by: hillbillybob
naaa.
At anyrate, both are in the industry, Intel and AMD. Both have or do come out with similiar technologies shortly after the other. AMD had the first 64 bit hybrid, Intel broke the 1 Ghz barrier. I know the college I went to will always stay with Intel, because of budgetary issues. Me, I prefer AMD. I like the preformance of both, and a lot of it comes down to application of the technology.
in effect - chevy pickup, great at hauling loads, both with a trailer and not. Not as affective going over rough terrain.
Ford pickup, better at the rough terrain, not as good with the loads. Both will do the average well, but will excell in their own little niches. That said, Intel may have it's specialties, servers and extremely high end graphics/media, and AMD has it's specialties, processing power, games, and home/small business computing needs. It's all about fitting the hardware to the need.
Posted by: Zerohero2
AMD is the better in my opinion. My dad has a 2.5Ghz P4 with 256MB DDR2 Ram. I have an Athlon XP 1800+ with 512MB DDR SDRAM and I out perform him in every way you could possibly imagine.
Posted by: nitestick
lol i can agree with the other australian guys. harvey norman=P'sOS. by the way about intel breaking the 1ghz barrier, as i remember shortly after doing so they had to do a recall on a large number of those cpu's because they were fuxored and amd effectively had the fastest cpu at that point anyway.
Posted by: Apokalipse
Harvey Norman's ad actually tells you "we have the lowest prices guaranteed"
when in fact, it's really the complete opposite. they normally have about the highest prices.
Posted by: nitestick
hahahahahaha that is so true i forgot that bit :). they forget to mention their general poor quality and the small range of components.
Posted by: Apokalipse
yes, they always get low quality stuff aswell.
but they're very good at selling their stuff somehow, making it look like it's high end and good quality.
maybe it's partly because of Intel, which they use in a lot of the computers they sell.
Posted by: hillbillybob
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by apokalipse [/i]
[B]yes, they always get low quality stuff aswell.
but they're very good at selling their stuff somehow, making it look like it's high end and good quality.
maybe it's partly because of Intel, which they use in a lot of the computers they sell. [/B][/QUOTE]
hmmm....kinda sounds like walmart here in the USA. cheapo stuff, lower prices due to mass purchasing.
[QUOTE]about intel breaking the 1ghz barrier, as i remember shortly after doing so they had to do a recall on a large number of those cpu's because they were fuxored and amd effectively had the fastest cpu at that point anyway.[/QUOTE]
ya, true... didn't think bout that.
Posted by: ThE_MarD
Heyyo,
Walmart sucks.. and for premade towers? Gatway I find is the best, as long as you're getting their GT series that is. That stuff's prestige. And their mobo's insane, it's inverted. I love it. :D
Posted by: Apokalipse
IMO the best pre-built systems are from Alienware, except they are %&*# expensive. but they are good quality.
Posted by: hillbillybob
Gateway, Hewlett-packard (business class), alienware....I like em all....but if possible, I tend towards build your own. just something about it I guess.
Posted by: nitestick
another one for the australian guys. anyone seen harvey norman's post christmas "sale" yet. biggest load of **** i've ever seen. i don't think i saw one thing below what would be considered an average price anywhere else every day of the year. $97 for BF2, oh well isn't it a good thing i "bought" it from a friend :amazed: it's fun going around and looking at all the pc's that are between $1000-$3000 more expensive than your own but suck in comparison.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
its saddening to hear that people actually buy these pc's. Dell are pretty crappy but at least they are respectably priced. These ones from harvey norman are horribly overpriced.
Posted by: nitestick
their "media centre's" at harvey norman are probably the worst of all. up to over $3000 for machines with far less grunt than my $1300 build
Posted by: BlkShdw88
the harvey normans around wher i live near sell quite a lot of stuff to 50+ year olds.. im not sayin that every old person doesnt know **** im just saying that to them it seems like a good buy in the sense that it costs a lot...
their laptops are sometimes quite competitive when they are trying to get rid of them and they just brung in some ex-lease student computers (p3 1ghz? 256mb ram 20gb hdd etc) for around 600AU which is half decent
[QUOTE]their "media centre's" at harvey norman are probably the worst of all. up to over $3000 for machines with far less grunt than my $1300 build[/QUOTE]
i cant believe they put massive screens on display with the worst resolution and its not even wide screen resolution they actually stretch the picture! lol.. i seen a nec 'media centre' pc a p4 640 with 2gb ram and 250gb hdd for around $3000AU in catalogue and extra for screen i think.. its crazy
Posted by: Apokalipse
I saw a PC they were selling for $4500 and it has a Pentium 4 640, 512MB RAM and a geforce 6600...
I wouldn't even pay half that...
Posted by: BlkShdw88
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by apokalipse [/i]
[B]I saw a PC they were selling for $4500 and it has a Pentium 4 640, 512MB RAM and a geforce 6600...
I wouldn't even pay half that... [/B][/QUOTE]
you serious whereabouts in melb? thats crazy wat was so special about it did it come with a huge screen or heaps of software?
yeh i certainly wouldnt pay half either
Posted by: Apokalipse
it was called a media centre PC
Posted by: The_Tobes99
man media cente pcs are crap, i saw a review for one shaped like a vcr, they said that it overheated & crashed while watching a DVD, LOL
Moral Of The Story
DONT BASE A MEDIA PC ON THE P4 PRESCOTT
Posted by: Apokalipse
do not buy a P4 prescott....
Posted by: The_Tobes99
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by apokalipse [/i]
[B]do not buy a P4 prescott.... [/B][/QUOTE]
well i didnt want to offend those here who have a prescott but what he said :D
Posted by: BlkShdw88
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by apokalipse [/i]
[B]do not buy a P4 prescott.... [/B][/QUOTE]
unless you are willing to spend on extra cooling or do a bit of work to keep it running cool
Posted by: Apokalipse
just stick it in the freezer
Posted by: nitestick
then take it out and hit it with a hammer, have a cry and go buy an x2. thought i'd put it subtly. meh i suppose this thread is AMD vs. Intel so we can act like fanboys.
[quote]
I saw a PC they were selling for $4500 and it has a Pentium 4 640, 512MB RAM and a geforce 6600...
I wouldn't even pay half that...[/quote]
**** what in **** was the pricing department smoking. even if they had that at say $1500 i wouldn't buy it unless it came with a 42" plasma screen.
Posted by: vaderpro
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by BlkShdw88 [/i]
[B]unless you are willing to spend on extra cooling or do a bit of work to keep it running cool [/B][/QUOTE]
I own a prescott, (wish I had an Amd), but either way, aftermarket cooling helps a ton. I installed a $59 (cad), Coolermaster Hyper48 and my temp right now is 36.5 at idle. And I had the HS/F off 10 days ago, so artic silver not fully set yet......Ambient temp is 21 degrees celcius. It used to idle at 52 degrees, ouch....
Posted by: Apokalipse
the hyper48 is a good cooler. I would have got one, but it doesn't fit on socket A
Posted by: nitestick
[url]http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html[/url]
thats another version of the dual core duel i stumbled across. its the Athlon X2's vs. the Pentium D's this time though rather than the server cpu's. no doubt someone else already posted this somewhere but its a good read. summary: the X2's win every round and in one round the entire X2 range beat the Pentium D's including the EE (about $1600 au). so i'll take my X2 any day :D
Posted by: Rigard
Okay, I've got half way through, its time for the fact, most Game Rigs and Home PC's (General Use) run AMD as long as there not packaged by Dell! And Buisness PC's and Laptops Intels. If I got A PC tomorough I whould get an AMD, becuese I want poweful inexpensive processing power for the future. If I was to get a laptop I whould get a Intel. I've used both Intel and AMD quite alot over the years, and love them both!
Posted by: waynejkruse10
those turions from AMD look quite nice.
about media center pc's: you can easily keep a cpu cool in a small chassis as long as you take several precautions. The HSF is applied correctly with thermal paste, there is some airflow, and you dont use a cpu that generates a lot of heat like a Prescott or Dual Core CPU like X2.
With a regular CPU like a Venice, Sempron Palermo or even the older Athlon XP's you can get a HTPC with ample processing power. If you want to run a cpu in a case that is very small that has little airflow you may want to look into the Pentium M's or underclocking your CPU.
Posted by: Apokalipse
X2's run almost as cool as single core Athlon 64's
Posted by: waynejkruse10
really?
but they have 2 cores on them, wouldnt it make sense for them to have twice the wattage output?
Posted by: ulater6000
Intel....HA.....GO AMD!
Posted by: BlkShdw88
interesting to see what people will say when intel release conroe and drop pricing on core duo because core duo actually beats amd clock for clock so if conroe does the same (not sayin it will but i reckon it will be close) then it should even things out.
Posted by: nitestick
yeah x2's run cool. an x2 to my knowledge would be more appropriate than an athlon xp. even with my processor overclocked, with stock cooling, during the australian summer, running prime 95 on each core for 24 hours my processor peaks at 47 degrees c. it will idle below 30.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
[QUOTE] yeah x2's run cool. an x2 to my knowledge would be more appropriate than an athlon xp. even with my processor overclocked, with stock cooling, during the australian summer, running prime 95 on each core for 24 hours my processor peaks at 47 degrees c. it will idle below 30[/QUOTE]
Except that the X2 costs 5 times more, which is very unsuitable unless you are rich.
Posted by: nitestick
lol :P. well that is a good point too. i just meant in terms of heat dump the x2 is more efficient.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
yeah, however dual core would be nice for recording video on one core and doing other stuff on another core. If i were going for dual core with a HTPC a Pentium D 820 @ $300 AUD is a very attractive option. I know the X2's are better performers but a Pentium D for a HTPC just so you can multitask well is certainly very attractive.
Posted by: little_emmynem
AMD processors again have a minus point......as they do not get hung up or close down even if the temp in the CPU rises too much.....in case of INTEL Pentium processors......overclocking is detected , and then the PC is shut off immediately without any consent!
Posted by: waynejkruse10
yes, thats the thing my intel fanboy admin goes on about all the time and it is true that Intel has better protection against heat however with newer AMD processors the motherboard has protection against thermal fault in most cases. Im unsure if AMD now has on CPU protection, but i defenantly know Motherboards do because my last Athlon XP mobo had an option for shutting off the machine at a certain temp and alarming as well.
Haha yeah, you would need special protection against overheating with the prescott.
Posted by: nitestick
well as a rule you don't really need any overheat protection on an a modern athlon aside from against human negligence. i mean if you forget thermal paste of course you're gonna fry a cpu. if you set it to 5ghz your gonna fry it. but other than that, within reason i say you won't fry an AMD chip.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
what if the fan fails?
that is probably covered by warrenty though.
Posted by: ThE_MarD
Heyyo,
I'm sure AMD's warranty would cover the fan failing as long as it was plugged in, and not full of dust that caused stress on the motor and stopped it from spinnig at proper speeds. Otherwise? you're outta luck.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
yeah, it makes sense for AMD to cover a failure of a CPU caused by their fan failing and causing overheating (as long as the user takes care of the dust situation). But would a overheating cpu damage the motherboard? and if so would AMD cover that?
If a power supply dies and breaks several components with it. And the PSU is under warrenty, does the PSU manufacturer cover the cost of all the broken components?
Posted by: ThE_MarD
Heyyo,
So far I've seen a cpu fry cause of dust, but the mobo was ok. Another time, it melted the slot holder... so it all depends on how fast the comp turns off before breaking point.
Posted by: nitestick
geez, those plastics melt at like 130-140c!!!
Posted by: waynejkruse10
cpu's get up to around 300c without heatsinks
Posted by: Ste
LMAO, I would just like to point out, even though everyone has probably realized it on thier own, that the Title Should Be AMD Pro vs Intel Proc, Not, AMD Proc Vs Pentium Proc. Lol, Im sure that was said hundreds of times already, but I wasn't about to read 58 Pages of this thread. :)
Lol.
Posted by: tehcube
i think amd's r better but it really depends
Posted by: nitestick
it does depend on ypour purposes but basically if you want to talk design AMD is by far superior to Intel. AMD understand two keyterms: technology, progress. intel understands brute force. an analogy is that AMD looks at a problem and figures out the most efficient way of dealing with it. Intel on the other hand pull out a pipe wrench and after hitting themselves repeatedly on the head with it attack the problem with it. the best part of the analogy is that the time wasted beating themselves on the head is similar to the time wasted by the netburst architecture dealing with memory :D
Posted by: waynejkruse10
a friend of mine used to like intel but the netburst architechture turned him off. So he went and bought a Dothan.
Posted by: Apokalipse
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 4W4K3 [/i]
[B]But if you want to photo edit/video edit or something huge like that an Intel will usually prove better in the end, if you don't skimp on hardware.[/B][/QUOTE]well that is true for single core Pentium 4's, however Hyperthreading is usually what gave Intel the lead in video editing. now that we are into dual core CPU's, AMD X2's are better in video editing than Pentium 4's with Hyperthreading or even Pentium D's
Posted by: nitestick
good point apok. the x2s crunch video encoding and my 3800+ will outperform the $1600 au Pentium D EE
Posted by: zmatt
processor to processor amd has intel beat. just go over an dcheck out extreme tech's web site they have very detailed information on thier real world tests, in every catagory amd has won. the $600 X2 runs circles sround the $1000 pentium extreme edition. the sempron 3400+ which is a budget cpu scores better than some p4 HTs! this is what happens when you dont spend money in r&d for three years, bad move intel.
Posted by: nitestick
its really a crying shame. it looks like AMD has kind of dropped the ball for the next generation. Intel stand to forcibly take back some of their market share. why oh why did AMD not do some more marketing (or any) for their K8 series :( they could have taken control
Posted by: agustin.cruz
[color=red][SNIPPED]
[/color]
Posted by: mikee
I have found that both amd and intel processors both have their weaknesses because when intel processors overheat I find that they just shut off but amd processors can smooke and catch on fire. I had my old Athlon thunderbird almost go up in flames when the heatsink died. But amd is way better for preformance in my opinion.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
thats true to an extent. To my knowledge that happened with older Socket A and Intel Chips. The Intel would just slow itself down. But the AMD would die. Nowerdays i think most motherboards has a feature to power off the system on overheat so its a bit of a non issue.
Posted by: Tyler1989
Intel seems to be making a rather large comeback.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
to an extent, since this cpu hasnt exactly been released yet you cant really compare it to something AMD has had out for a while.
But the Conroe is probably the first Intel CPU i would buy since becoming Tech aware.
Posted by: Nubius
In regards to the overheating thing, even the socket A motherboards have shut off features when getting too hot.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
even the early ones?
Posted by: nitestick
i know motherboards have thermal protection features but it would be better to have some protection on the cpu itself (other than cool n' quiet).
Posted by: jdhore1
I ONLY USE INTEL PROCESSORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: nitestick
wow that would have to be one of the single least constructive posts i have seen on TF
Posted by: Static_11
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jdhore1 [/i]
[B]I ONLY USE INTEL PROCESSORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [/B][/QUOTE]
Have you ever used an AMD?
Have you even read this thread?
Tell me why you ONLY use Intel.
Posted by: waynejkruse10
nah, why bother even trying to convert him to amd. from the sound of that post he is extremely ignorant.
Posted by: Static_11
wasnt trying to convert him. i was trying to ask why he ONLY USES INTEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i hate when people say stuff but dont back it up...
Posted by: waynejkruse10
you dont need to get mad, just take 3 deep breths and relax.
Now when you are not in spazzy mcgee mode this is what i ment:
Dont bother to try and educate him about AMD or try to get him to switch because by the look of that post (all caps, exclamation marks) he is not extremely intelligent and it will be a hopeless case. Fool.
Posted by: thebar
thz
Posted by: nitestick
[quote] wow that would have to be one of the single least constructive posts i have seen on TF[/quote]
i take it back...... i think its been replaced ^^^^
for the love of god people we need 2 things from you if you wish to post in this thread
1. a logical, fully structured post as opposed to "I ONLY USE INTEL PROCESSORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" or "thz"
2. some information and logic behind your opinion, or at least throw some useful information in for the purposes of debate
Posted by: snakemaster
As for a gaming system, I would have to go with the AMD.
Posted by: shdwsclan
I myself would choose intel because they havent been cheating the benchmarks.....
I do have a p4 2.0ghz and a xp2200 and the p4 crushes it...
AMD is not better, by far
AMD = Ferrai
INTEL = School Bus
Think about it carefully....the ferrari can only carry 2 people, well actually 1 person, since the drive....at 200mph
The bus can carry 75 people at a top speed of 70mph....
Are you getting the picture.....slowly....
Intels old architecture has a 31 stage pipeline, which is the school bus....
When there is somesort of write dependency, it has to hold 31 processes....
But as you can see, that the throughput is greater after it gets going........
So itll start out slow and then speed up dramatically.
The amd will give you usually constant speed, and thats why its better for games currently....
With intel's core, they are cutting the pipeline stages in half and adding a four execution units.......
This new core will completely crush anything AMD will release for a couple years....
At least Intel wasnt found out to be cheating benchmarks.......
For referece, the were found cheating with their XP estimates.....the 2000+ was nowhere near as fast as the p4 2.0....and they got busted on new benching progs....
PPC got busted recently....trying to get Apple back with rigged benches....
Yes, you can actually make a processor to detect a benchmark so it will skip ahead and give fake benching scores....
Also, I do own an AMD64....well actually there is no such thing as AMD64....its IntelArchitecture32EXT....yes thats right.....fake 64 bits ISA.....
The only true IA64 is the ITANIUM.....
If you want the ultimate multipurpose processor, get an intel Itanium 2.....
Oh...by the way, intel makes the architecture that AMD uses, so the dollar always stops at intel....no matter what you buy...
Posted by: BlkShdw88
[QUOTE]Intels old architecture has a 31 stage pipeline, which is the school bus....[/QUOTE]
intel started this architecture when the first pentium 4's were around and it hasn't much to do with their original architectures, they had doubled the pipelines to 20 from 10 and when the prescotts came about upped it again to 31 .. it is not really old architecture just a sort that doesn't do the processors good at slower clock speeds. i dont really see where you are going with your ferrari and school bus thing, intel's prescotts arent less than half the speed of amd when comparing equivalent ranked processors (not price). but you dont have to worry with conroe they are going back to their 'original' style of shorter pipelines lower clockspeeds and more efficiency and effectiveness.
Posted by: shdwsclan
Well, they are old now....since there new architectures are
14 stage and contain 4 execution units.....
Posted by: hillbillybob
Do you have links for where it says Intel makes the architecture that AMD uses?
Posted by: waynejkruse10
[quote] Do you have links for where it says Intel makes the architecture that AMD uses?[/quote]
Depends what you are on about. Intel made the X86 platform first and struck a deal with AMD so they could make X86 cpu's. When AMD made the 64bit instruction sets, Intel adopted it to run on its CPU's.
Posted by: hillbillybob
hmmm...seems counter productive doesn't it? but by the same token, competition breeds inovation
Posted by: SneakyNinja
i have my AMD Athlon XP 2600+, ive never had a heating problem,or a problem for that matter, though now it seems to bethe bottleneck, i need a more powerful one. Might be time to upgrade to amd64 9when i can afford it)
Posted by: bogus
amd all the way
Posted by: talldude123
my celeron was overheating badly, like 70 degrees celcius for the CPU, so i opened up the case, bought a cheap $20 vaccuum and spray can from Wal-Mart, and my system is running very cool, at 23 degrees celcius :)
I'm not 100% sure if AMD's overheat easily, my parent's PC is very cool, and its never cleaned out for dust.
Posted by: Apokalipse
K8 CPU's run quite cool, my Sempron doesn't go above 32°C, and that's only when it is at 100% load all night (like when running Folding@home)
Posted by: talldude123
Is it AMD's or Intel's that can withstand overheating the most? Like over 50 degrees celcius.
Posted by: nitestick
the prescott core has a remarkable tolerance for heat. the problem is that performance degrades with heat although it does save the cpu
Posted by: idiotec
I think we can finally put this thread to rest....
[IMG]http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/9913/x6800473910s7506sr.gif[/IMG]
:p
[URL=http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=100978]X6800 ES modPI 1M WR @10.750s by TAM[/URL]
Posted by: talldude123
That is one sexy computer! 4.8Ghz, 4MB cache, 1.5Ghz FSB.
Must've costed about $800 for the CPU alone!
Posted by: Smokin-A.I.
the answer that all seem to be lookin for is really simple to answer...
AMD or INTEL ? right ...answer ..
doesnt really matter, the high priced stuff you buy today is going to be outdated tomorrow.
Posted by: mophead740
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Nubius [/i]
[B]
They put chips in dells, HP's, e-machines, all for grandmas and whatnot so the majority of the people who use Intel generally don't know squat about computers whereas someone with an AMD Built machine either built it themselves, or atleast ordered the parts for someone else to build.... You kinda have to know a little about computers just to know of AMD, whereas you're practically born knowing about Intel as the leading brand.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I know i'm a bit late but its so true
when i was ike a little kid (im still onlt a teen) i thought intel was the best a argued that fact but really i knew nothing
now i no more about pcs and how to build them and i choose AMD every time. I dont have anything against people who choose AMD i just think that they often don't know that much about pc's
Posted by: jon2231
AMD
Posted by: lauree
AMD, but more expensive thn Intel
Posted by: jcortes
the new Intel Core 2 duo is killing AMD, AMD responded to the new processor by saying they dont have an answer to the new processor atleast in 2006. also amds run extremely hot and fry almost instantly without proper cooling.
Posted by: Apokalipse
umm, AMD CPU's don't run hot. they run pretty cool. much cooler than anything Intel had before the Core 2 Duo came out.
and anyway, without proper cooling, any modern CPU would fry very quickly, unless the PC shut itself off.
yes, the Core 2 Duo runs cooler than what AMD has at the moment. that doesn't make AMD CPU's hot. it just means the Core 2 Duo is cool.
Posted by: maroon1
Does intel core X6800 have 4MB L2 cach memory on each core ? or the two cores have 4MB fs (2MB for each) ?
And Why they don't write 2x4MB or 2x2MB ?
IN pentium D they use to write 2x2MB, which mean that each core has 2MB of memory.
Posted by: The General
I believe they share a common 4mb of cache.
Posted by: jcortes
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by apokalipse [/i]
[B]umm, AMD CPU's don't run hot. they run pretty cool. much cooler than anything Intel had before the Core 2 Duo came out.
and anyway, without proper cooling, any modern CPU would fry very quickly, unless the PC shut itself off.
yes, the Core 2 Duo runs cooler than what AMD has at the moment. that doesn't make AMD CPU's hot. it just means the Core 2 Duo is cool. [/B][/QUOTE]
found this for you :)
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgOmMAasqto[/url]
Posted by: MDofPC
Try playing games on the below system:
AMD X2 FX60 Dual Core Processor
(2.6ghz x 2 , 2 x 1mb cache)
ATI X850 GTO 16x PCI Express Video Card
Posted by: nitestick
ok just a heads up that i am probably going to become a moderating nazi, so in future for this thread [color=red][size=large][b]NO BANDWIDTH WASTERS[/b][/size][/color]
a bandwidth waster is a post that is:
a) not even a single complete sentence
b) sounds as if the writer is blind, drunk or blind drunk
c) has no reasoning deemed to be acceptable on this plane of existence
so no more "AMD rulz foolz" posts.
Posted by: Apokalipse
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jcortes [/i]
[B]found this for you :)
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgOmMAasqto[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]umm, I'm talking about the CPU's [i]with[/i] heatsinks on. stock ones.
besides, that is motherboard dependant. a lot of K8 motherboards do cut power when there's a problem like that.
Posted by: shdwsclan
Generally, the definition is speed is misunderstood between people knocking procs on this forum.
Im talking pre-intel core 2
Do you need a fast response for front end processing like gaming and doc ?
AMD will do that because it has a short pipeline of only 14 rungs.
Do you need something with high bandwidth, low response, and lot of back end processing like rendering, compiling and compressing ?
Intel will do that, because the pipeline is double the length +2 rungs of amds (30 rungs). If each rung or stage of the pipeline is saturated, then it will outperform the AMD by more than 40%.
Now, the new procs.
AMD is still at 14 stages and 3 execution units.
Intel mirrored AMDs pipeline and added a fourth execution unit.
Basically, AMD is your typical generic, and cheap processor, like the people's processor, a ford fiesta, or VW beetle.
Its meant for front end, regular processing, but you get kicked in the pants when you try to do some back end....
FYI
AMD has a liscense from Intel to use the IA32, and IA32EXT(What amd calls AMD64).
I have a X2 and the core switching is terrible.
Its like you back in 1998, but now you have 2 procs.....
And lets not forget the Itanium 2 which basically sets Moores law.
AMD hasnt had anything to compete with that for a VERY long time.
And lets not forget the other generic IA32/IA32EXT liscensee, Cyrix...
Posted by: nitestick
[quote]or VW beetle.[/quote]
great post. hope you mean the good old People's Car Beetle though :p seeing as the new ones aren't so cheap.
i was under the impression that AMD64 was under lease to Intel as EMT64, IA32EXT may be what AMD64 is based on but it's not the same is it? this is genuine curiosity :D
Posted by: AdamLA
Nowadays Core2 system is more powerful than any X2 or Pentium. So woul be bette to buy Core
Posted by: Apokalipse
yeah, that's been said lots of times.
but then again, quad cores are around the next corner, as well as AMD's rebuttal (K8L)
I've been trying to follow AMD's developments on K8L, and it looks like they're doing a lot.
Posted by: militarymind
hi
i'm new here
and i've read some of the quotes
finally should i buy for my laptop a amd turion or a intel core 2 duo
Posted by: talldude123
Hello militarymind,
The processor depends on what you're looking for.
If you're looking for more battery life than performance, go for the AMD Turion.
If you want really high performance with less battery life, go for the Core 2 Duo.
Posted by: Lord AnthraX
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by talldude123 [/i]
[B]Hello militarymind,
The processor depends on what you're looking for.
If you're looking for more battery life than performance, go for the AMD Turion.
If you want really high performance with less battery life, go for the Core 2 Duo. [/B][/QUOTE]
Any data to back this up?
I would go for the Core 2 duo hands down.
The Turion was a big disapointment.
Posted by: Apokalipse
the benchmarks say otherwise.
no, they don't match C2D in performance; but they're pretty competitive to Pentium M's in both performance and power consumption.
Posted by: Anthraxx
my old p4 owns my AMD 64 3500+ at 2200Hz for some reason???
Posted by: talldude123
Because your AMD is full of viruses...
Posted by: Apokalipse
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Anthraxx [/i]
[B]my old p4 owns my AMD 64 3500+ at 2200Hz for some reason??? [/B][/QUOTE]CPU alone != better performance.
what speed P4 was it? and what are all the other circumstances? for example, other hardware, how many and what programs are running, how fragmented the hard drive is, the temperatures of the hardware, etc etc...
Posted by: swtwc
This argument will go on until the end of time. Everyone is a fanboy of one. I'm a AMD guy. 1st comp I ever owned had a K6-2 350 in it. Never failed me so I just stuck with them.
Posted by: talldude123
It's weird. I was first into Intel and liked them. Everybody dissed me because I had a Celeron.
I bought an AMD, and now people are going into Intel. Next, I buy a Core 2 Duo and people will go into the new AMD's..
Posted by: vernong1992
lol, ur luck sucks but intel core 2 duo is awesome!!!! I should get a e4300 its cheap and anandtech.com says overclocking it to 375 X 9.0 gives better performance than a x6800 if u have the chipset fan to go with it.......
Posted by: talldude123
Someone on the forum just told me that AMD's gonna be big again, with four-core processors and stuff...AMD's not going to charge $250 for an E6300 at least...
Posted by: Infernicus
yea but you must remember they have two different roots of speed o.O
and yes Intel core 2 out performs AMD but only at the moment
if AMD release some new processors im sure they could kick intels butt and at a cheaper price
what you have to ask yourself is if its worth waiting
btw. all technology is rendered pretty much useless after a year anyway
Posted by: vernong1992
ya i might wait to buy a new PC, too bad i alrready begged my parents for this one i have now....
Posted by: Infernicus
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by vernong1992 [/i]
[B]ya i might wait to buy a new PC, too bad i alrready begged my parents for this one i have now.... [/B][/QUOTE]
ha, dont worry, thats why we upgrade ;]
Posted by: talldude123
You got an E4300? WHY??
Posted by: maroon1
vernong1992 - did you overclock your CPU to 3420mhz at stock cooling ?
Posted by: talldude123
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by maroon1 [/i]
[B]vernong1992 - did you overclock your CPU to 3420mhz at stock cooling ? [/B][/QUOTE]
If it's stock cooling, it would be pretty big fans :D
Posted by: nagasama
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Infernicus [/i]
[B]yea but you must remember they have two different roots of speed o.O
and yes Intel core 2 out performs AMD but only at the moment
if AMD release some new processors im sure they could kick intels butt and at a cheaper price
what you have to ask yourself is if its worth waiting
btw. all technology is rendered pretty much useless after a year anyway [/B][/QUOTE]
q3 2007 hopefully. and yes, i suppose the new am3 will perform equal to c2d <gasp>
and its worth waiting for me, as i have an am2 platform and am not quite ready to ditch it for a c2d....
Posted by: nagasama
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Infernicus [/i]
[B]yea but you must remember they have two different roots of speed o.O
and yes Intel core 2 out performs AMD but only at the moment
if AMD release some new processors im sure they could kick intels butt and at a cheaper price
what you have to ask yourself is if its worth waiting
btw. all technology is rendered pretty much useless after a year anyway [/B][/QUOTE]
q3 2007 hopefully. and yes, i suppose the new am3 will perform equal to c2d <gasp>
and its worth waiting for me, as i have an am2 platform and am not quite ready to ditch it for a c2d....
Posted by: traderonline
i love my athlon 64 3500+ (i think it is par with the intel pentium D probably a little better)
C2D is the worlds top processor :)
Posted by: Apokalipse
right now. but wait for Agena/Barcelona
Posted by: nagasama
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by traderonline [/i]
[B]
C2D is the worlds top processor :) [/B][/QUOTE]
lol are you the one who came up with the breakdancing commercials?