AMD Processor vs Intel Processor - Page 18 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Monitors, Printers and Peripherals
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 01-06-2005, 07:17 PM   #171 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,046
Send a message via AIM to 4W4K3
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by pc_boy
....so I win!
...your ignorance dooms you to failure. i did not say "ya, you think your computer is good cuz you don't do $h!# with it"...you did. stop making things up in your mind and get with the program. There are far more CPU intensive apps than imaging photo/video's, you just don't know how to use them and don't need them (i bet NO ONE here would run these kinds of programs) Programs that require multiple buildings of PC power and years of # crunching. these kinds of programs put photo/video imaging to shame.

You compared your PC to a 2.8GHz P4??? what kind of comparison is that? that's nothing! with a standard overclock my slapped together rig will beat a 3.4GHz Intel in benchmarking...2.8GHz is nothing. Try comparing your system to a 5.4GHz Intel (overclocked of course) or something up there...and it loses, by many miles.

Quote:
Originally posted by pc_boy
the ATHLON 64 IS ONLY 2.6GHZ, for you people who are P4 fanz*


* like that one kid who bladdered about my PC being far from a 2.5GHZ P4 even overclocked to 3200+
you obviously don't understand the efficiency ratings of AMD vs. Intel. GHz aren't everything. To say "my 2.6GHz AMD beats your 3.4GHz Intel...HAHA!" is stupid. they are on entirely different levels, one is 64-bit and one is not, the AMD64 cannot be compared to an Intel based on GHz alone.

again you are making things up...i never said your computer would lose compared to a "#Ghz P4 system." You read what i said and just decided to twist my actual text. it would help if you QUOTED people instead of typing up your own false version of what was really typed.
__________________

__________________
<marquee scrollamount=\"1\" scrolldelay=\"8\" direction=\"up\" width=\"400\" height=\"65\" style=\"font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt\">
Compaq Presario V5000 laptop
¯\\(º_o)/¯</marquee>
4W4K3 is offline  
Old 01-06-2005, 07:48 PM   #172 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,782
Default

In the not to distant future, Intel chips arnt going to be getting performance increases just by ramming up the Ghz, which is what they have been doing. Amd have been getting performance increases not by ramming up the ghz but making thier processors more efficient, and putting in more cache, and increasing the bus. Intel will soon have to adopt the strategy that Amd are taking with thier chips.

Now the tides have turned

mwahahahahaha
__________________

__________________
Core 2 Duo E6400, DFI Infinity 975X/G, 2x 512mb DDR2 667mhz, Albatron 7900gt, WD 200gb SATA, Samsung DVD-RW, Silverstone ST-50EF 500w PSU.
waynejkruse10 is offline  
Old 01-06-2005, 07:55 PM   #173 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,046
Send a message via AIM to 4W4K3
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by waynejkruse10
In the not to distant future, Intel chips arnt going to be getting performance increases just by ramming up the Ghz, which is what they have been doing. Amd have been getting performance increases not by ramming up the ghz but making thier processors more efficient, and putting in more cache, and increasing the bus. Intel will soon have to adopt the strategy that Amd are taking with thier chips.

Now the tides have turned

mwahahahahaha
exactly. also with an AMD chips you can run PC3200 and still be fine in most situations. For insane overclocks on a P4 (most particularly trying to run higher FSB) you need like PC4400+ or better and its freaking expensive.
__________________
<marquee scrollamount=\"1\" scrolldelay=\"8\" direction=\"up\" width=\"400\" height=\"65\" style=\"font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt\">
Compaq Presario V5000 laptop
¯\\(º_o)/¯</marquee>
4W4K3 is offline  
Old 01-06-2005, 09:14 PM   #174 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,286
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by 4W4K3
...your ignorance dooms you to failure. i did not say "ya, you think your computer is good cuz you don't do $h!# with it"...you did. stop making things up in your mind and get with the program. There are far more CPU intensive apps than imaging photo/video's, you just don't know how to use them and don't need them (i bet NO ONE here would run these kinds of programs) Programs that require multiple buildings of PC power and years of # crunching. these kinds of programs put photo/video imaging to shame.

You compared your PC to a 2.8GHz P4??? what kind of comparison is that? that's nothing! with a standard overclock my slapped together rig will beat a 3.4GHz Intel in benchmarking...2.8GHz is nothing. Try comparing your system to a 5.4GHz Intel (overclocked of course) or something up there...and it loses, by many miles.



you obviously don't understand the efficiency ratings of AMD vs. Intel. GHz aren't everything. To say "my 2.6GHz AMD beats your 3.4GHz Intel...HAHA!" is stupid. they are on entirely different levels, one is 64-bit and one is not, the AMD64 cannot be compared to an Intel based on GHz alone.

again you are making things up...i never said your computer would lose compared to a "#Ghz P4 system." You read what i said and just decided to twist my actual text. it would help if you QUOTED people instead of typing up your own false version of what was really typed.
GHZ ain't everything, exatcly, but you said my PC is far from an intel of same speed (either way, 1.8 or 2.5), totally based on GHZ there buddy!!!
__________________
Samsung QX410 notebook <-- lol, I'm always on the go these days :(
pc_boy is offline  
Old 01-06-2005, 09:23 PM   #175 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,286
Default

Quote:
i did not say "ya, you think your computer is good cuz you don't do $h!# with it"...you did

"real world" applications your AMD runs fast enough for you and gets the job done, and that's all you want, I agree 100%. No Intel system is going to give me "better" performance for what i need, because my AMD does all i want and more. But if you raise your epxectations alot, or become a benchmark enthuisiast, Intel is really the only way to go when using multi-media apps.

Quote:
There are far more CPU intensive apps than imaging photo/video's, you just don't know how to use them and don't need them (i bet NO ONE here would run these kinds of programs) Programs that require multiple buildings of PC power and years of # crunching. these kinds of programs put photo/video imaging to shame.
exatcly, you admit no1 here does it and it's done on hudge machines. And they ain't done on P4's either. So what else could I do with my computer to slow it down, other than 3D animation and photo editing since the stuff you are talking about is not even for our computers and those are gov. databases and stuff. So my point is no1 would use a PC (PERSONAL computer) to do anything more demanding than Maya.
__________________
Samsung QX410 notebook <-- lol, I'm always on the go these days :(
pc_boy is offline  
Old 01-06-2005, 10:02 PM   #176 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,046
Send a message via AIM to 4W4K3
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by pc_boy
exatcly, you admit no1 here does it and it's done on hudge machines. And they ain't done on P4's either. So what else could I do with my computer to slow it down, other than 3D animation and photo editing since the stuff you are talking about is not even for our computers and those are gov. databases and stuff. So my point is no1 would use a PC (PERSONAL computer) to do anything more demanding than Maya.
normal people run those machines, and there not government controlled (most of them) they are normal office buildings. my dad has to keep track of every single server room for Fidelity Investments in the Westlake Area, that's his job. he's a normal human being, and he works from home 75% of the week. He runs there programs from home when he absolutely has to and it takes hours to receive some of the info they send him...it's just as CPU intensive as video editing or photo imaging if not more. theres a point in which the stress can't get any higher...and thats when TIME kicks in. your Maya program uses 100% usage...so does opening a Word document if it's big enough. the difference is Maya will take LONGER at 100% than Word would to copress an image or w/e you do (expected). Some of the stuff my dad receives fromhis work takes hours (sometimes up to 8hrs.) and he's running a dual P4 machine with 2GB of RAM. When was the last time it took 8hrs. to load up an image? I'm hoping never...
__________________
<marquee scrollamount=\"1\" scrolldelay=\"8\" direction=\"up\" width=\"400\" height=\"65\" style=\"font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt\">
Compaq Presario V5000 laptop
¯\\(º_o)/¯</marquee>
4W4K3 is offline  
Old 01-07-2005, 05:58 PM   #177 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,286
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by 4W4K3
normal people run those machines, and there not government controlled (most of them) they are normal office buildings. my dad has to keep track of every single server room for Fidelity Investments in the Westlake Area, that's his job. he's a normal human being, and he works from home 75% of the week. He runs there programs from home when he absolutely has to and it takes hours to receive some of the info they send him...it's just as CPU intensive as video editing or photo imaging if not more. theres a point in which the stress can't get any higher...and thats when TIME kicks in. your Maya program uses 100% usage...so does opening a Word document if it's big enough. the difference is Maya will take LONGER at 100% than Word would to copress an image or w/e you do (expected). Some of the stuff my dad receives fromhis work takes hours (sometimes up to 8hrs.) and he's running a dual P4 machine with 2GB of RAM. When was the last time it took 8hrs. to load up an image? I'm hoping never...
Wow, ya but don't expect me to do that stuff LOL!! and

FYI

It took 6 months to render shreck, and they have like dual processors and like the best ram and, well basically the fastest computer you can get. Come on, 6 months running full time at 100% usage. So that is pretty machine demanding LOL
__________________
Samsung QX410 notebook <-- lol, I'm always on the go these days :(
pc_boy is offline  
Old 01-07-2005, 11:17 PM   #178 (permalink)
Content Team
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 215
Send a message via AIM to ReverseFluxx Send a message via MSN to ReverseFluxx
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by pc_boy
Wow, ya but don't expect me to do that stuff LOL!! and

FYI

It took 6 months to render shreck, and they have like dual processors and like the best ram and, well basically the fastest computer you can get. Come on, 6 months running full time at 100% usage. So that is pretty machine demanding LOL
Um... they don't have supercomputers for that.
__________________
http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sf/type/2/qlutch.png
Core 2 Duo E6850, Foxconn P35A-S, 8GB DDR2-800, 160+160=320GB SATAII RAID 0, BFG 9800GTX, Windows 7 Pro, HP 24" LCD, AG Neovo 19" LCD
ReverseFluxx is offline  
Old 01-08-2005, 12:18 AM   #179 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,046
Send a message via AIM to 4W4K3
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by pc_boy
It took 6 months to render shreck, and they have like dual processors and like the best ram and, well basically the fastest computer you can get. Come on, 6 months running full time at 100% usage. So that is pretty machine demanding LOL
Of course i don't expect you to do that, you couldn't if you wanted to. Why? As you stated it "supposedly" takes 6 months for even a super computer to do something that large...your machine wouldn't be able to even handle that kind of an application (not many would.)

So far all you have stated is your 2500+ setup will "--..::OWN::..-- " a p4 setup in this Maya application you run. This is a half truth true, and somewhat misleading. Go to the higher end p4 setups and you fall behind, as does the ENTIRE XP line of AMD processors. they were a good chip, but are obsolete now. buying a more advanced P4 setup (while costing you more money of course) will get the job done faster that your 2500+. it has its limits, and they are exceeded by the higher end P4 processors (especially when overclocked.) You say you can beat a 2.8GHz P4...what about 3.2GHz, 3.4GHz, 3.8GHz, 4GHz, 4.5GHz, 5.0GHz, 5.4GHz??? 5.4GHz is obtanable with an Intel rig to run 100% stable with liquid nitrogen cooling. 6.0GHz is obtainable but not 100% stable after hours of running. Even a XP 3200+ overclocked to its limits (~2.8GHz? maybe a bit more?) can't keep up with those kinds of speeds. More memory won't necessarily help out if your CPU is the bottleneck. You need an A64 rig to start getting ahead of the P4 line when overclocked. Beating a stock p4 is doable with a bit of overclocking of course.
__________________
<marquee scrollamount=\"1\" scrolldelay=\"8\" direction=\"up\" width=\"400\" height=\"65\" style=\"font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt\">
Compaq Presario V5000 laptop
¯\\(º_o)/¯</marquee>
4W4K3 is offline  
Old 01-08-2005, 05:10 AM   #180 (permalink)
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 97
Default

im a little slow in posting this so please bear with me. back on page II or something u huys were talking about temperatures well my celeron II 1GHz used to run steadily at around 57c and climbing about 2 a month. but then i cleaned the fan and heatsink.
__________________

zombie_master is offline  
Closed Thread

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 Off
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 01:34 AM.


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