AMD Processor vs Intel Processor

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
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.
 
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:
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
FadingTheory said:
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?
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom