[Him]

And some of you guys are adamantly against Intel. I feel like you are conspiring to kill the intel guy (me) behind my back.

<Looks over shoulder followed by shifty eye shifty eye>

[Rundat]

Originally posted by Him
Man, I know people that would emptyt their bank account for that. Question on AMD... Why does AMD rate their processors like they do? I mean, I have an AMD 2400+ but it is 2gHZ. The 2000+ I believe is 1.8 or there around. Why dont they just call a 2.4gHZ cpu a AMD 2400+? There has to be a reason for this.

I was wondering the same thing.

[YanBooth]

One thing that should be considered... When Dual Cores where first mentioned a while ago, AMD said that Dual cores where NOT FOR GAMING. They said to single core FX chips would be the line for gamers...

That may have changed...

What do you think?

[horndude]

Originally posted by YanBooth
One thing that should be considered... When Dual Cores where first mentioned a while ago, AMD said that Dual cores where NOT FOR GAMING. They said to single core FX chips would be the line for gamers...

That may have changed...

What do you think?

Depends on the software doesnt it, as things stand right now at this moment if your building an expensive "wintendo" machine, dual cores arent going to do much for you are they?

In about a year to a year and a half when quad core chips hit the market windows wont be ready, just like they werent ready when the 64 bit AMD's hit the market, and even to this day windows still isnt ready IMHO despite the 64 bit patch over job they did to windows.Windows isnt ready for dual cores now really either, its task scheduler sucks, as does its multithreading capability, the hardware coming out is getting way far ahead of the software, with windows OS releases getting further and further apart and not being able to keep up.So either a switch is made to something more suitable or the software just lags for awhile, in either case, as far as wintendo machines go, nope, dual core isnt the new cool thing just yet.

[DJ-CHRIS]

Originally posted by Him
Man, I know people that would emptyt their bank account for that. Question on AMD... Why does AMD rate their processors like they do? I mean, I have an AMD 2400+ but it is 2gHZ. The 2000+ I believe is 1.8 or there around. Why dont they just call a 2.4gHZ cpu a AMD 2400+? There has to be a reason for this.

Because a 2.4GHZ AMD RAPES a 2.4GHZ p4 and even dale will admit that

[Nubius]

It's not 4800+, it's 4.8GHZ, dont see why they dont rate it at like 6000+ unless AMD have gotten less efficent

What? It is the 4800+ that's what it's called, it's not 4.8GHz because it's not two 2.4GHz cores working like that so you can't technically consider it working at 4.8GHz at all....it's the equivelant to a 4.8GHz intel, so it'd be pointless to call it a 6000+ since it doesn't perform to a 6Ghz Intel.

Man, I know people that would emptyt their bank account for that. Question on AMD... Why does AMD rate their processors like they do? I mean, I have an AMD 2400+ but it is 2gHZ. The 2000+ I believe is 1.8 or there around. Why dont they just call a 2.4gHZ cpu a AMD 2400+? There has to be a reason for this

As chris said basically, it's to help Intel users although all I've ever seen it do is confuse people. It's at 2GHz (if it's an XP and 1.8GHz if it's an XP-M, this being the 2400+ I'm talking about) but it can do the same if not better performance of that of a 2.4GHz Intel chip.......like I said they do that number so if you don't know of AMD chips, you'll be like "Oh it's kind of like a 2.4GHz intel even though it's 2GHz, I got it...cool!!!!!!"

Of course with a name like FX-55 lol and you just see it's 2.6GHz and costing $800+ I guess you'd think AMD is crap and overcharges when in reality that chip is awesome.

4800+ dual core..........that's just amazing

[desiboi]

Yep Nubius that's a real beauty. lol.

[Him]

Ohh, so basically AMD is very pretentious.

"We have this chip, and it's only 2 GHz, but it kicks thecrap out of any 2.4 GHz Intel!"

[Trotter]

Pretentious? Naw, just honest.

AMDs are a different breed than Intel, even though they perform the same function. The details get really picky, but suffice it to say that AMD tends to do it faster, better, and cooler.

'Nuff said.

[dhw200]

those things look sweet....

however, im quite happy with my 64 3200+. For now, it'll just go on burning a p4 3.6 (p4 3.8 at half life). when the FX-53 drops in price, ill grab one. For now, the dual cores can stay for servers and workstations.

intel just sucks...they just try to brute force it with their architecture, and AMD is more like the, quicker, slicker, more nimble guy. intel is just a brute.