AMD advertising is not right!!!

[amd643200+]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
agree 100%

amd all the way

 

[Cappy]

Intel Rules

 

[dethangel]

no in that i'd go with the 2500+. Intel has high clock speeds with basically the same fsb as amds but quad pumped hence making it over 2 x amds fsb speeds. But design now adays is the main feture, Because take the 3000+ vs the 3ghz 800 fsb intel 512 die cache. there roughly about the same but wait a second the amd has less fsb and less clock speeds what makes up for that=Design. benchmarks are meaningless

the reason AMDs are faster with a slow clock speed (ie: a 1.8GHz runs like a P4 2.5GHz) is because of the instructions set, AMD runs off of CISC and intel runs off of RISC, the difference is IPC the instructions per clock, AMD sends more instructions per clock cycle, therefore doenst need as fas of a clock speed, but intel sends fewer instructions per clock, so the processor has to be faster, BUT that is why Intel has major heat problems, and thats why AMD is not supported by MS

by the way, i am intel all the way, ive seen the new benchmarks, and the fact that you can run pc3200 in dual channel with the new P4s was enough to convince me to get a 2.8GHz, i cant wait till i get it all together, its gonna be sweet!

 

[Flavor4real]

well ok, what would be good for a workstation? AMD64 3200 or a P4,800 mhz ??

 

[ekÆsine]

800Mhz bus? many P4 are 800 bus. for workstation get xp2500 or P4 2.4Ghz version C 800Mhz front side bus.

 

[Dimitri]

INTEL SUCKS! (not litterally) But the point is that AMD like someone already said is more widely used by builders than intel, which will come default with dell/gateway etc. I think that INTEL is worse with their advertising because they're all that people see nowadays... "Oh wow, a dell, with a pentium 4!" thats the "good standard" Together, dependent on each other, Microsoft, INTEL, and Dell hold such a big monopoly its not even funny... And they all strengthen each other... Where Would Microsoft be without INTEL or Dell? Where would INTEL be without Microsoft and Dell? Where would Dell be without Intel and Microsoft? Well... what Im getting at is that if u use an AMD u probably know enough about it that you wont get "tricked" by their ads, and if you do, uve probably used INTEL a bit too much...and maybe Dell... Or Microsoft...
Dimitri
USE AMD AND LINUX!!!!!

 

[Dimitri]

AMD all the way... Intel is just not right, with their trimonopoly with Microsoft and Dell... Its wrong...

 

[mokelizer]

AMD is the underdog, but intel holds the reigns, intel has the money and power for technology and will always hold the lead, AMD is a smaller corp but does make good products, considering the giant comp their against. Still and intel fan though,

 

[BxSlipSk8718]

I think Dimitri put it perfectly dont conform be uniquie amd i see it like this it depends on what you what to do if you want to run half-life 2 go amd if you wanna run a server go intel

 

[Guapo]

The XP version of AMD's CPUs are compared against the 533Mhz CPUs by Intel. For example an AMD XP 2500+ is comparable to Intel's 2.53 533Mhz.

However, when Intel bumped their FSB to 800Mhz, this increased their performance. The same 2.53 would now run much faster.

AMD did the same thing. Their 2200+ processor runs at 1.83. The 2500+ also runs at 1.83. The only difference is the latter has a higher FSB. The 2200 (Thorougbred) runs at 266 fsb. The 2500 (Barton) runs at 333.

One more thing to look at. The AMD XP 3200+ is not nearly as fast as the AMD 64 3200+. They both have the same "3200" rating and they both run at 2.2Ghz, but the former is definitely slower.

Intel does this too. They have a 3.2 Northwood & Prescott cores. Some Northwoods run at 533Mhz and some run at 800Mhz. The Prescott doubles their cache and adds other stuff to the chip. Plus they have some Northwoods that are called Extreme Editions. Mind you, all have the 3.2 rating, but there are so many different versions and their performance all varies so drastically.

In summary, the only reason we have to put up with the ratings is for MARKETING. Afterall, how would you explain AMD getting much more performance out of a slower CPU? People see 4Ghz and wet themselves. If AMD's could provide the same performance, but only running at 1Ghz, they could potentially loose out on a lot of profits from non-tech savy customers.

Thankfully, AMD has started to get away from their rating system and have released a new name for their fastest chip - the FX-51.