AMD Processor vs Intel Processor - Page 38 - 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 03-31-2005, 12:26 AM   #371 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 20
Send a message via AIM to opticalsky
Default

AMD rocks the ground hardcore....


I don't like companies (intel) that change the name of established cpu technical terms to something their own.

FYI= Intel's L1 Cache = renamed it to Rapid Execution Cache
__________________

opticalsky is offline  
Old 03-31-2005, 11:52 AM   #372 (permalink)
I Rule You
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 543
Send a message via AIM to FadingTheory Send a message via Yahoo to FadingTheory
Default

Thats a really bad excuse to hate Intel... And in any case, even if they changed the name, its for ease.

In any case... REC is EXACTLY what the cache is. Its not like they made up some weird stuff.
__________________

__________________
Iraq... whee.
FadingTheory is offline  
Old 03-31-2005, 07:10 PM   #373 (permalink)
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 47
Default

I, personally, don't hate Intel the least bit.

Infact, I DO believe that they WILL catch up with AMD- just not before 2yrs time. AMD is in the lead for K9 AND K10 ( I know, AMD is dropping the "Kx" naming scheme, but I forget what is replacing it). Intel's dual core and "64 bit" technology doesn't CURRENTLY offer the performance GAINS of AMD's.

But thier FUTURE technologies just may. I assume that the P5 (if they will release it, for all we know they may just drop the Pentium line and move onto something else- though I don't see why they'd do that) could put up quite the competition. If not the P5 then I say the P6 for sure.

But all current P4s are hosed, doomed- when considering performance, cooling, and price/performance ratio.

I say the above cause all benches shows AMD taking the lead in areas where Intel used to "own", thanks to the addition to SSE3- and the dual core chips will steal the multi-threaded lead from Intel aswell.

So Intel's current architecture is sunk- the next one may VERY WELL soar- but only time can tell THIS.
retherfordaehs is offline  
Old 03-31-2005, 08:05 PM   #374 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 162
Default

Guh, stupid argument.

I currently have an AMD 64 setup (see sig) however I used Intel chips for over 8 years (including my original 486SX/33) and I have NEVER had a problem. It's always performed exactly the way I expected it to and the temperature of peripherals were always great.

Now with that being said, comparing my current setup to anything that Intel could put together, they don't come close in terms of performance. Intel has yet to come into the 64-bit market (aside from the feeble attempt with emulated 64-bit technology - EM64T), and until they do, AMD will continue to outperform.

However, when Intel decides to come out with a true 64-bit consumer-based CPU, the hype of it will easily bring sales above and beyond anything AMD has done, solely because it's Intel and Intel has a crazy good reputation amongst PC professionals as well as new PC users.

My example: Dell has, and probably always will, refuse to use AMD CPU's. Possibly due to the "unknown" that is AMD's technology, and how comfortable the public is with the CPU brand Intel.

All in all, it's hard to battle about something so trivial. They're competitors, what does it matter if you hate one or the other? At least it's not a monopoly where the only CPU we can choose is either AMD or Intel, not either or.
__________________
http://www.eraserinc.com/ims/pic.php?u=5VNS3T&i=103
Advanced Geeks - Advanced Technology Forums.
Have a technical question that no one here has an answer to? Ask certified professionals! Try us out!
We need your help!
AdvancedGeeks.com requires knowledgable mods and users to help handle a variety of tasks. PM me for more info.
caseyc is offline  
Old 03-31-2005, 08:18 PM   #375 (permalink)
Master Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,433
Default

Also, Intel markets much more aggressively than AMD. If AMD were to have Intel's marketing budget, Dell might be refusing to use Intel's stuff.
__________________





-AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Winchestor
-MSI K8N Neo4-F
-Sapphire Radeon X850 XT
-2x 1024 Corsair XMS Pro

<form action=\"http://www.srsyo.org/tfsearch.php\" method=\"get\">
<input type=\"text\" name=\"search\"><input type=\"submit\" name=\"submit\" value="Search!"></form> Search TF before you post!
dhw200 is offline  
Old 03-31-2005, 09:15 PM   #376 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Apokalipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 14,559
Default

AMD hardly advertises at all, but they are doing very well against Intel.
just shows that AMD don't necessarily need to advertise all the time, because their products are good and a lot of people know that (but not enough)
__________________
Apokalipse is offline  
Old 03-31-2005, 09:39 PM   #377 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 635
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by caseyc

Now with that being said, comparing my current setup to anything that Intel could put together, they don't come close in terms of performance. Intel has yet to come into the 64-bit market (aside from the feeble attempt with emulated 64-bit technology - EM64T), and until they do, AMD will continue to outperform.

However, when Intel decides to come out with a true 64-bit consumer-based CPU, the hype of it will easily bring sales above and beyond anything AMD has done, solely because it's Intel and Intel has a crazy good reputation amongst PC professionals as well as new PC users.

Intel came out with truland 2 days ago.. It's their next feeble attempt at a 64bit design.. Almost 800$ for the cheapest chip.
__________________
AMD 64 x2 3800 Venice @ 2.0
Zalman 7700 @ 28c
Gigabyte K8NXP-SLI
2 x Samsung 1gb DDR400 CL2.5
2 x eVga 6800 256mb GT
430mhz Core / 1.1ghz Memory
M-Audio Firewire-410
Sandra Memory Bench:
Sandra Cpu Arithmetic:

Eat your heart out intel.
senseless is offline  
Old 04-02-2005, 12:15 AM   #378 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 531
Send a message via AIM to jnev_89
Default

are you talking about emt64?? the lowest chip is a 3ghz and is about $200-210.


btw, i'm kinda beginning to regret that i got intel over amd... with xp64 coming out and linux already supporting 64bit, i kinda wish i had gotten at least an emt64 cpu (they came out a week after i ordered my cpu). i'm notediting photos/movies as much as i had previously hoped so it's kind of a waste...

ah well, what's done is done.
jnev_89 is offline  
Old 04-02-2005, 03:40 AM   #379 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Apokalipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 14,559
Default

EMT64 is much slower on Intel's against Athlon 64's
__________________
Apokalipse is offline  
Old 04-02-2005, 12:34 PM   #380 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 531
Send a message via AIM to jnev_89
Default

from what i understand, emt64 runs 32bit natively and emulates 64bit instructions while a64 does exactly the opposite...
__________________

jnev_89 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 05:23 AM.


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