What's the advantage of AMD over Pentium?

[Mr_Threepwood]

I think they k6 and the pentium were the EXACT same, wern't they. AMD and Intel had some sort of contract so AMD just copied the exact model that intel made. I mean, they both go into the same socket even.

 

[mole1135]

i dont think anybody is winning the ati/ nvidia battle.

Ati releases a high-end card that beats the latest nvidia then nvidia releases a card that beats that one, and so-on

 

[Green Radience]

i dont think anybody is winning the ati/ nvidia battle.

Ati releases a high-end card that beats the latest nvidia then nvidia releases a card that beats that one, and so-on

That wasn't the point. The point is that ATi USED to be the biggest, but they underestimated Nvidia and...well, one word: Geforce 7900GTX.

 

[mole1135]

one more word x1900xtx

 

[Nitestick]

i hate these threads because so many misconceptions and misinformations find their way into the discussion. not to mention they get rather off topic.

Now logic tells me that a P4 3.8 would be faster than an AMD 3800+ that runs at 2.0, but then again we are talking about computers so logic pretty much gets thrown right out the window.

quite the contrary, it is purely logical. gaara's post pretty much summed up the main points.

the k6 was not a complete copy of the pentium. it was based on the same architecture. AMD at one stage (i think late 70's to early 80's) was contracted to manufacture Intel chips. AMD's processors of the late 80's until mid/late 90's were clones of intel's processors but not under contract. the k6-II is when AMD started to break into the market. the K6-II allowed clock speeds of up to 500mhz on socket 7 motherboards (that people had payed good money for and didn't want to upgrade). the original athlon marked AMD's independance as a company and when they started to leap forward technologically. it was no longer enough to clone intel's chips to survive. i think you guys know the rest of the story. also you video card fan boys need to be a little more objective. nVIDIA is actually winning the war at the moment and probably will for quite some time. the winner is not really determined by which makes better cards but by which makes more money. i will not start a debate on whether the 7900 or x1900 is better, you guys just have too much money to argue with

 

[b1gapl]

What is the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ equivalent to, I read it beats Intel's best dual core. I'm planning to get the 4800+ for my next comp, but should I get that or the AMD FXs, like the FX-55.

 

[Brtnboarder495]

An OC'd x2 3800+ can easily beat any of Intel's dual cores in gaming except for maybe the EE.

If you plan on OCing, get the Opteron 165. If not OCing, go for the x2 3800+ or x2 4400+.

 

[Nitestick]

probably the only dual core my x2 couldnt face up to is the 955 EE like Brtnboarder495 said. of course i would have to overclock a fairway but the fact of the matter is for a lot less money it will outperform the higher priced cpus. i don't quite know how well the new presler (65nm) pentium D's perform but the x2 4800+ is roughly equal to 2x4000+'s so when compared to the standard smithfield core (90nm prescott based) it has no comparable intel chip because there is no 4ghz smithfield that i am aware of.

 

[b1gapl]

Just curious...what would an Intel equivalent processor be, compared to an FX-60? What does the 60 mean?

 

[Nitestick]

60 is just a model number. the FX-60 would have a P-rating of 5200+ (following the dual core p-rating system) and be equal to 2x4300+ cores (i'm guessing here as no such core exists).

edit: sorry i missed the point of your question . there really isn't an Intel equivelant. it would take a Smithfield core Pentium D clocked well over 4.3ghz to come close and a presler core at perhaps slightly under 4.3ghz but once again i'm just guessing