AMD vs INTEL - Page 3 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Overclocking and Modding
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: are you in a clan?
yes, and i like it 4 50.00%
yes, and it sucks 0 0%
no, but i want to be 2 25.00%
no, i don't like clans 2 25.00%
Voters: 8. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 02-13-2004, 07:10 AM   #21 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 116
Default

Silesia thats a real good choice, I am also AMD all the way.....
__________________

__________________
Walking in the dark
Meck is offline  
Old 02-14-2004, 09:27 PM   #22 (permalink)
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 62
Default Just so you know what I was thinking, Intel still rocks

FYI, in the lastest issue of PC Modder, they did bench the Intel 3.2GHz. "Extreme Edition" VS. the AMD64 "FX-51", as well as running overclocking tests, they where pretty much undecided, with no clear winner, the Intel scored highest in raw processing power on the PCMark2002 scores, but the AMD64 scored higher on the 3d mark scores. This pretty much stayed the same when overclocked as well. It makes me wonder though, why AMD has to go to a 64bit processer just to keep up with Intel. That's my argument for why Intel Rocks
__________________

__________________
A test to which no one knows
Jnewt427 is offline  
Old 02-15-2004, 10:31 AM   #23 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 164
Default

amd is faster, brakes alot easier. I suspect they have good designs with bad manufacturing
Forceflow is offline  
Old 02-16-2004, 11:25 AM   #24 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 30
Default

it all depends on what you use your computer for. in gaming, amd owns. in word processing/spreadsheets/other "work" stuff, intel is better.
halodude is offline  
Old 02-16-2004, 11:35 AM   #25 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 934
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by XT
bench marks are meaningless today. both good chips non better than the other who ever disagrees must learn that clock speeds and fsb dont mean a hole lot now a days yet design does. Once again benchmarks are meaning less when comparing and intel setup to an amd setup.
stop using home applications and use video editing, and you would notice a difference,

your just running software that doesnt require that high power.

simply the software isn't keepin up with the hardware so depending on what your using the computer for, you might notice a difference or you might not.
__________________
<font face=arial><h1>spfdz - NEVER FORGET</h1></font>
spfd is offline  
Old 02-16-2004, 11:37 AM   #26 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 934
Default Re: Just so you know what I was thinking, Intel still rocks

Quote:
Originally posted by Jnewt427
FYI, in the lastest issue of PC Modder, they did bench the Intel 3.2GHz. "Extreme Edition" VS. the AMD64 "FX-51", as well as running overclocking tests, they where pretty much undecided, with no clear winner, the Intel scored highest in raw processing power on the PCMark2002 scores, but the AMD64 scored higher on the 3d mark scores. This pretty much stayed the same when overclocked as well. It makes me wonder though, why AMD has to go to a 64bit processer just to keep up with Intel. That's my argument for why Intel Rocks
Thats like saying why did intel have to make 400, 533, and 800 fsb for there processor.

the answer is simply technology is growing.
__________________
<font face=arial><h1>spfdz - NEVER FORGET</h1></font>
spfd is offline  
Old 02-16-2004, 11:48 PM   #27 (permalink)
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 62
Default Re: Re: Just so you know what I was thinking, Intel still rocks

Quote:
Originally posted by spfd
Thats like saying why did intel have to make 400, 533, and 800 fsb for there processor.

the answer is simply technology is growing.


Going to a 64 bit chip, probably was not the answer. As we all now there is not a whole lot of applications to run on this platform, which to me is going to make a big divide in software company's trying to accomodate both 32 and 64, yea sure the AMD64 can run on 32bit software, but thats a waste, you default the advantage's of why you would of bought it in the first place. Increasing FSB does not have that drastic of an effect, With the 3.2 H/T neck and neck with the AMD64. Intel will be saying, while your guns are raisen, my guns are blazen", when the Intels newest prescot chips come onto the market, I will be the one to set up a new poll, AMD "DEAD OR ALIVE" oh yea, Intel rocks.
__________________
A test to which no one knows
Jnewt427 is offline  
Old 02-17-2004, 02:57 AM   #28 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 300
Send a message via Yahoo to mike11973
Default

We want competition....AMD is my choice simply b/c i have owned both and feel like i get more for my money from AMD....intel benches better on certain ones and AMD on others.....either way most of us wouldnt feel any substancial difference between the 2....they both need to be around....it provides all of us with better options.....competition is key to growth.....now lets see how long it takes for software to catch up to the hardware available.
__________________
NF7/S Rev2.0 : D25 Modded bios by -=Merlin=-(cpc on)
2500+M @ (250*10)
G.Skill ddr 400LA(TCCD)running 1:1@250
3-3-3-3
Saphire 9800 Pro
cpu-1.8v
ram-2.7v
chipset-1.6v

Knowledge IS power....dont be afraid to be open to it.


<a href=\"http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=1493626296\">My aquamark score</a>

overclocking 101
mike11973 is offline  
Old 02-17-2004, 04:50 PM   #29 (permalink)
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 60
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Olinskis7
What better way to test 2 different chips than to configure their surroundings similarly and then count the seconds it takes to complete tasks.

hehe you can play any of the Sims games....
__________________
Seattle Computer and Laptop Repair
http://www.datazingtech.com
Datazing is offline  
Old 02-17-2004, 09:29 PM   #30 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 14
Default

ive run sandra multiple times on many different fsb/multi's/mem ive found that the 3200 barton really is exactly like a 3.2 ghz....without hyperthreading. the 3200 when compared to to the 3.2 HT well.... it just doesnt. the pentium is so much better it isnt funny and its because of the HT. now the fx-51's of course blow the 3.2 HT and even the
3.4 EE ES (prescots) away. by the end of 2004 though the new pentium cores will come stock at 4 ghz.(officially announced by Intel). im wondering how it is going to compare there. ive seen the aquamark and orb for 3dmark2k1 and the Pentiums are 3 of the top 5, the other 2 are fx's. now note that 2 pentiums are at 3.6/3.7 ghz and one is at 4.4 ghz. the fx's are at 2.4 and 2.6 ghz. So no matter what people say, it IS about the fsb and the ghz. i feel that once the prescots start coming stock at at least 4 ghz that amd wont be able to keep up.
__________________

toddrm2k3 is offline  
Closed Thread

« Static!! | Help!! »
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.