TrueWeltall
Newbie
- Joined
- May 15, 2003
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 0
Originally posted by [Hunter]Ridic
i need a rattle. u think i care what u say, boy?
Yes you do care, if you didnt you would stop posting and act like a mature adult if you are one.
$pazmatazz
Newbie
- Joined
- May 26, 2003
- Messages
- 276
- Reaction score
- 0
Geez Ridic..
First off all lets ditch clock speed for comparison. AMD themselves have made a point of not judging processors on clock speed alone with their "+" modeling system. Lets put your argument into perspective:
Say there was a 1.7GHz P4 for $150, and, lets say, a 1.5GHz (1700+) AMD for $150, and both CPU's performed EXACTLY the same (this is not true). Your argument would be that the AMD chip is better just because it's clocked lower. This is stupid. Why, if both are priced the same and perform the same, would one be better? It's just the way they're designed. "infin|ty" also made the point very clear with comparison to car engines.
If each company uses different units of measurement for each CPU, why compare them. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
Here we are again with the clock speed comparison. Clock for clock, yes, the AMD's are faster. But comparing them class for class, no, the P4's outperform in almost all areas.
Where are we here? What P4? Did it have a 400MHz FSB, or the newer 533MHz FSB? What operating systems were they both running? What background applications were running?
Yours isn't a relevant point.
This is quite far from the truth. The 3.06GHz P4 is the processor with the 533MHz FSB as opposed to the newer 800MHz bus, so the difference isn't as large. The 3.06 will however, outperform that 2800+ (which is what I'm assuming you meant by 2.8 AMD).
Now let me back that up. First off, here's benchmarking scores for gaming performance in UT2k3, shown at Anandtech.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1810&p=8
Notice the 3.06 outperforming the 2800+, and also in this case, the 3000+.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1810&p=9
Here we are again in Quake III with the same thing.
Now at Toms Hardware Guide.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030521/800fsb-09.html
Keep looking through the benchmarks to see AMD to Intel comparisons, and the AMD's get smoked.
I'm assuming you are talking about Toms Hardware guide, sinse you made this comment shortly after someone linked to their site.
First off, please tell me why you think they're biased. You do always see P4 chips outperforming AMD chips MUCH more at Toms then other places, which could be your reason for being biased, but there's a reason for this.
AMD is pushing reviewers to use custom software, undoubtedly optimized software, for the reviews. Not only that, but they're also pushing reviewers to use very specific hardware and firmware settings to bias the benchmarks even further. Toms harware pointed this out, and refused to do these things in their tests. As for other sites, I'm not sure.
1. You need to settle down.
2. Where did any of us say or give the impression that we prefer Intel to AMD because we like to pay more? This is a stupid argument. We've consistantly given information and proof that, processor to processor, Intel is now the faster CPU.
Twice the FSB of the fastest AMD Chip, contains Hyper-Threading, definately cooler and has more optimizations for specific software than Athlons.
First off all lets ditch clock speed for comparison. AMD themselves have made a point of not judging processors on clock speed alone with their "+" modeling system. Lets put your argument into perspective:
Say there was a 1.7GHz P4 for $150, and, lets say, a 1.5GHz (1700+) AMD for $150, and both CPU's performed EXACTLY the same (this is not true). Your argument would be that the AMD chip is better just because it's clocked lower. This is stupid. Why, if both are priced the same and perform the same, would one be better? It's just the way they're designed. "infin|ty" also made the point very clear with comparison to car engines.
If each company uses different units of measurement for each CPU, why compare them. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
Here we are again with the clock speed comparison. Clock for clock, yes, the AMD's are faster. But comparing them class for class, no, the P4's outperform in almost all areas.
Where are we here? What P4? Did it have a 400MHz FSB, or the newer 533MHz FSB? What operating systems were they both running? What background applications were running?
Yours isn't a relevant point.
This is quite far from the truth. The 3.06GHz P4 is the processor with the 533MHz FSB as opposed to the newer 800MHz bus, so the difference isn't as large. The 3.06 will however, outperform that 2800+ (which is what I'm assuming you meant by 2.8 AMD).
Now let me back that up. First off, here's benchmarking scores for gaming performance in UT2k3, shown at Anandtech.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1810&p=8
Notice the 3.06 outperforming the 2800+, and also in this case, the 3000+.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1810&p=9
Here we are again in Quake III with the same thing.
Now at Toms Hardware Guide.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030521/800fsb-09.html
Keep looking through the benchmarks to see AMD to Intel comparisons, and the AMD's get smoked.
I'm assuming you are talking about Toms Hardware guide, sinse you made this comment shortly after someone linked to their site.
First off, please tell me why you think they're biased. You do always see P4 chips outperforming AMD chips MUCH more at Toms then other places, which could be your reason for being biased, but there's a reason for this.
AMD is pushing reviewers to use custom software, undoubtedly optimized software, for the reviews. Not only that, but they're also pushing reviewers to use very specific hardware and firmware settings to bias the benchmarks even further. Toms harware pointed this out, and refused to do these things in their tests. As for other sites, I'm not sure.
1. You need to settle down.
2. Where did any of us say or give the impression that we prefer Intel to AMD because we like to pay more? This is a stupid argument. We've consistantly given information and proof that, processor to processor, Intel is now the faster CPU.
Twice the FSB of the fastest AMD Chip, contains Hyper-Threading, definately cooler and has more optimizations for specific software than Athlons.
Ridic
Tank
- Joined
- May 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,555
- Reaction score
- 0
dude wow so its faster...big deal...u can get the same quality out of a game with a 3.457 56745764578 Ghz P4 as a 2.4Ghz p4, or a 2400 amd.........................................................its pointless to pay for such a thing untill it is needed...see i dont make a gillion dollars, so im not going to buy the most expensive thing because its good. if i can get the same performance in a NEW game with something cheaper, lower, then whats the point? remember im trying to talk about HL2 and gaming here, not what preforms better in whatever other area...
TrueWeltall
Newbie
- Joined
- May 15, 2003
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 0
Some people just dont get it.
TrueWeltall
Newbie
- Joined
- May 15, 2003
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 0
Your a smart one.
TrueWeltall
Newbie
- Joined
- May 15, 2003
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 0
Do you enjoy posting here? You need to chill out or leave. Your getting pretty annoying.
SpuD
Newbie
- Joined
- May 29, 2003
- Messages
- 3,345
- Reaction score
- 0
Man, i just read EVERY SINGLE POST and I AM CONFUSED AS ****. Now, The two **** holes that are fighting, STFU! Your fighting eachother over companies that make processers. Now, remember, you two arent fighting, your like the pokemon guys and your poke ball dealies contain different companies and your having them fight it out. Yes, I did just make a reference to Pokemon, Yes I ****ing hate pokemon. So in other words... WHY CANT WE BE FRIENDS, WHY CAN WE BE FRIENDS.
J
jinx
Guest
lol
someone said Dell... ha
someone said Dell... ha
Mr. Redundant
Newbie
- Joined
- May 20, 2003
- Messages
- 4,446
- Reaction score
- 0
hey now....
IM THE REDUNDANT ONE
and I feel so at home
IM THE REDUNDANT ONE
and I feel so at home
B
Blud Stane
Guest
my HL2 rig:
AMD athlon 2.2 processor
radeon 9800 pro
1 gig ram
soundblaster 5.1
-i'd recommend ATI and AMD over pentium and nvidia any day. My dad's been building systems for 12 years, and I've been experimenting with every card I can get for 10. We've had pentium and amd side by side with equal processors and AMD is just faster loading, Intel P4 is good but you're paying for their cocky name. AMD doesn't overheat unless you're OCing
-as far as vid cards, it's a no brainer with ATI. They've leapfrogged Nvidia in the field with AMD 64 bit... but forget that, i'm basing my experience off the 2 geforce cards i have used that both overheated right out of the box. ATI has never given me a problem with the 4 cards i've tried. I'd strongly recommend AMD and ATI to anyone, they don't overheat, have frequent drivers that aren't hyped in benchmarks only
*i'm seriously amazed how people are defensive of their equipment, and just because they have a "X" piece of hardware they'll swear up and down it's the best. Try each piece yourself Line up ATI = Nvidia and AMD = Pentium with equal specs and see yourself, if you had time keep them there and see which lasts longest without overheating during intense use
AMD athlon 2.2 processor
radeon 9800 pro
1 gig ram
soundblaster 5.1
-i'd recommend ATI and AMD over pentium and nvidia any day. My dad's been building systems for 12 years, and I've been experimenting with every card I can get for 10. We've had pentium and amd side by side with equal processors and AMD is just faster loading, Intel P4 is good but you're paying for their cocky name. AMD doesn't overheat unless you're OCing
-as far as vid cards, it's a no brainer with ATI. They've leapfrogged Nvidia in the field with AMD 64 bit... but forget that, i'm basing my experience off the 2 geforce cards i have used that both overheated right out of the box. ATI has never given me a problem with the 4 cards i've tried. I'd strongly recommend AMD and ATI to anyone, they don't overheat, have frequent drivers that aren't hyped in benchmarks only
*i'm seriously amazed how people are defensive of their equipment, and just because they have a "X" piece of hardware they'll swear up and down it's the best. Try each piece yourself
Line up ATI = Nvidia and AMD = Pentium with equal specs and see yourself, if you had time keep them there and see which lasts longest without overheating during intense useSimilar threads
