why is AMD as fast as INTEL - Page 8 - 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 08-26-2004, 08:39 PM   #71 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 887
Default

hey this isn't fair, i just said half of what this dude said. mi vex.

just kiddin anyway.
__________________

xotix is offline  
Old 08-26-2004, 11:27 PM   #72 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 348
Default

yeah that summed it up quite nice alecjahn. its funny, cause they are actually experiencing the same problem with hard drives. they cant make them much faster than 15,000RPM cause after that, the disk actually starts approaching the speed of sound. When somehting starts approaching the speed of sound, it starts becoming warped. Hence the problem....
__________________

sithspawn is offline  
Old 08-26-2004, 11:34 PM   #73 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 821
Default

Oh man, that REALLY stinks...limits on processsors and hard drives...
Regulus is offline  
Old 08-27-2004, 03:04 AM   #74 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Apokalipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 14,559
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Regulus
Ok, so the FX-55 or whatever can be overclocked to JUST 2.8?!?!?! Come on now, Intel's well into the 3 gigs. Can't AMD pick up the pace a little?!?!
if AMD went to 3GHZ they would perform even better against Intel's CPU's than they currently do they would make a Prescott overclocked to 3.6GHZ look really bad - currently the FX-53 is in the lead with performance even though it's only 2.4GHZ (or is it 2.2?)
__________________
Apokalipse is offline  
Old 08-27-2004, 03:56 AM   #75 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,714
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by apokalipse
if AMD went to 3GHZ they would perform even better against Intel's CPU's than they currently do they would make a Prescott overclocked to 3.6GHZ look really bad - currently the FX-53 is in the lead with performance even though it's only 2.4GHZ (or is it 2.2?)
fx-53 is at 2.4

i have heard of people overclocking it all the way to 3.6GHz!! :amazed: :amazed: :amazed:

thats a 50% increase!!

but then again, they're usually like . . . phase change or hyper liquid cooling or wtvr . . .
__________________
<SMALL><font color=\"blue\">Desktop
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ Winchester @ 2000MHz
MSI K8N Neo4 nForce4 Ultra
ThermalTake Tsunami Dream Black w/ Side Window
Antec Neopower 480W
Maxtor 250GB SATA + Seagate 200GB SATA
Patriot 2GB (2x1024) PC3200
NEC ND-3520A DVD+/-RW
Dell 2005FPw 20.1\" Widescreen LCD
ATi Radeon x800XT
-----------
Avatar - Infiniti G35
</font>
koldapu is offline  
Old 08-27-2004, 09:45 AM   #76 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 821
Default

Wow! 3.6GHz?!?! Yikes!
Regulus is offline  
Old 08-27-2004, 10:30 AM   #77 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 233
Default

I haven't had the chance to try a computer system running the AMD Athlon 64 but when comparing the P4 Northwood to an Athlon XP I found Intel is much better and faster. I compared a system with an AMD Athlon XP 3000+ to a system with an Intel Pentium 4 2.8Ghz Northwood with an 800mhz FSB and HT Tech and found that the P4 was more than twice as fast as the Athlon when benchmarking with AquaMark3. The first system scored a 8,485 while the Intel scored a 16,225. I believe this to be the faster FSB, HT Tech, Dual Channel RAM, and a few other things not CPU related. Unfortunately his computer came equiped with an eVGA nVidia GeForce FX 5200 with 128MB RAM while the Intel system has an eVGA nVidia GeForce FX 5700 LE with 256MB RAM. Although the faster system has a better video card, I beg to challenge the fact that a video card swap would really give the AMD the upper hand. Anyways, I think I'll stick with Intel and hopefully they will come up with a 64-bit idea that's more stable than AMD and doesn't use performance ratings as I think they are a sorry idea and make AMD look like they are having trouble keeping up in the race.
__________________
Come visit a new technology and digital image arena website where you may compete in monthly image contests and chat about technology. t3ch.l33t is currently searching for members to help manage different areas of the site. t3ch.l33t Image Arena Home

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...ch_l33tsig.jpg
crazybeans is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 05:38 PM   #78 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,842
Send a message via AIM to lazerman Send a message via Yahoo to lazerman
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Regulus
Ok, so the FX-55 or whatever can be overclocked to JUST 2.8?!?!?! Come on now, Intel's well into the 3 gigs. Can't AMD pick up the pace a little?!?!
2.8 ghz AMD speed is equal to over 4ghz intel speed.
__________________
The Stargate MMORPG
lazerman is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 06:22 PM   #79 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Nubius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,600
Default

Quote:
Ok, so the FX-55 or whatever can be overclocked to JUST 2.8?!?!?! Come on now, Intel's well into the 3 gigs. Can't AMD pick up the pace a little?!?!
lol yeah, what lazerman said. This is how bias'd opinions form and then flames are later produced. Simply from people not being educated in something they do not know. Obviously if AMD were putting out 64bit chips that couldn't compare past 2.5GHz they'd be out of the business by now

What really needs to be said is, Intel needs to stop being marketing whores and just showing off big numbers to people who don't know what these numbers represent. That's all Intel does. "BUY IT NOW!!! 3.6GHZ HT TECHNOLOGY!!" common consumer who buys dells and hp's and prebuilts alike, where Intels main source of income comes from, don't even know that AMD exists, probably doesn't know what HT TECHNOLOGY!!! even means, and doesn't know what the latest speeds are.

AMD IMO gets mad props for creating a chip that not only compares to the Intel chips quite easily, but also does more work off of lower clock speeds.

No offense regulus, but a statement like the one both lazerman and I quoted is basically an Intel bias'd uneducated answer. Not uneducated regarding computers, but towards the variety of CPU's and manufacturers out there. If you don't really know that much about another company, or what their product is capable of, then you really can't say things like 'AMD needs to pick up the pace'
Nubius is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 06:49 PM   #80 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 582
Default

crazy beans you can't even begin to compare those 2 systems... the whole point is to make 2 exact same systems and only differ in processor choice, then test them, those benches you speak of mean nothing.
__________________

__________________

The World is my trashcan and i intend to fill it...
Leonidas 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 02:10 PM.


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