AMD Processor vs Intel Processor - Page 49 - 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 04-24-2005, 05:32 PM   #481 (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

And that 3.8 GHz Pentium will thump the 3200+ in applications with hyperthreading.
__________________

__________________
Iraq... whee.
FadingTheory is offline  
Old 04-24-2005, 06:00 PM   #482 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,363
Default

Yeah, and the Opteron will rape the Xeon in gaming! lol. Who uses an Opteron for gaming?
__________________

__________________

Quote:
Ricer: from the latin word Ricarius meaning to suck at everything you attempt.
desiboi is offline  
Old 04-24-2005, 06:02 PM   #483 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Apokalipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 14,559
Default

not really, the latest P4's (600 series) are even worse in efficiency. the 3.73GHZ gets outperformed by the 3.2GHZ in a lot of benchies

AMD is doing something that makes more sense, they are using dual cores in their Opterons (servers) not their desktop CPU's
just think about it, does a desktop user use multitasking like a server?
__________________
Apokalipse is offline  
Old 04-24-2005, 08:10 PM   #484 (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

Sometimes. When you build hardware to do a certian thing well, software will be programmed to optimize that ability. If you give a gaming rig a dual core, then games will be optimized for that.
__________________
Iraq... whee.
FadingTheory is offline  
Old 04-24-2005, 08:12 PM   #485 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,286
Default

ok, just to prove that intel is retarded (i'm using it as the literal meaning of the word, it means "behind or slow in development")..
pentium had the 3.2 crap for a long time... and they stayed there till today, tried to come out with some 3.7 crap but turned out to be $#!t like some1 here pointed out...
AMD, on the other hand came up with Athlon 64-FX 55 which rapes all the intel crap you can name right here in front of me.... and also the Dual Opteron for servers and stuff you will start arguing about.
so, bottom line

AMD > intel
__________________
Samsung QX410 notebook <-- lol, I'm always on the go these days :(
pc_boy is offline  
Old 04-24-2005, 08:41 PM   #486 (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

To PC_Boy:

?

You just made a broken post.

First of all, it is entirely too early to say dual opterons will 'rape' anything. Unless I'm missing a load of benchmarks, it hasn't been completely documented.

Second, all of the CPU makers are behind. Intel lacks an onboard memory controller (Hyper-transport) and AMD lacks the mult-threading technology (hyper-threading). So, no ones really up to date. untill both companies get back to having the same options, and simply going for a race of speed, no one will be on top in this aspect.

Second, its unfar to to judge an entire line up by its heavy weight. You can say an AMD FX whomps a P4 3.7EE, but but you can't conlude that everything else will end up the same.

Example: an AMD 3000+ is named just that for a reason: its runs similiar to a P4 3.0 GHz. Each has its strengths.

And if Intel was so 'retarded,' then wouldn't everyone own an AMD?
__________________
Iraq... whee.
FadingTheory is offline  
Old 04-24-2005, 08:59 PM   #487 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,019
Default

Pc_Boy you're just a moron. I've got a 3.2E and I bet you $100 that it would whomp the crap out of your processor in any benchmark at any clock speed. So by sayin the 3.2 was a crap line is total BS. I think the EE was a BS line, but the E's are what i would say are their best processors around, until they bring out a new range
__________________
Sig reinstated. SigSanta
VIII is offline  
Old 04-24-2005, 09:29 PM   #488 (permalink)
Master Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,433
Default

I personally prefer AMDs cuz i think the architectural theory is cooler. Also, the 3000+ was equal to a P4 3.6ghz in some gaming tests. But anyway. Both companies have their strengths and weaknesses, like fadingtheory said. Intels are better for video design, editing, and multitasking. AMDs pwn intel in games. It comes down to personal preference.
__________________





-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 04-25-2005, 03:32 AM   #489 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Apokalipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 14,559
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by FadingTheory
To PC_Boy:

?

You just made a broken post.

First of all, it is entirely too early to say dual opterons will 'rape' anything. Unless I'm missing a load of benchmarks, it hasn't been completely documented.

Second, all of the CPU makers are behind. Intel lacks an onboard memory controller (Hyper-transport) and AMD lacks the mult-threading technology (hyper-threading). So, no ones really up to date. untill both companies get back to having the same options, and simply going for a race of speed, no one will be on top in this aspect.

Second, its unfar to to judge an entire line up by its heavy weight. You can say an AMD FX whomps a P4 3.7EE, but but you can't conlude that everything else will end up the same.

Example: an AMD 3000+ is named just that for a reason: its runs similiar to a P4 3.0 GHz. Each has its strengths.

And if Intel was so 'retarded,' then wouldn't everyone own an AMD?
I agree with you for the most part, except AMD do make use of multitasking. the Athlon 64's are not for multitasking, but the Opterons, and the Athlon MP's (the MP's were the server processor alongside Athlon XP's) do. even without dual cores, they do a good job of multitasking especially the 8xx series Opterons which emulate 8 CPU's
__________________
Apokalipse is offline  
Old 04-25-2005, 06:14 AM   #490 (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

But those CPUs rely on redunduncy (more then one processor). No AMD CPU has hyper threading, correct?
__________________

__________________
Iraq... whee.
FadingTheory 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 07:54 PM.


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