Intel Prescott
- Thread starter Barrett
- Start date
Lord Kalthorn
Guru
- Messages
- 13,293
- Location
- Britain
Lol!
Actually, the AMDs are not that high above the Prescotts in Performance (3.4Ghz HT EE knocks the socks off AMD in almost all benchmarks); and the Intel Prescott was only designed for battle against the AMD XPs; not the Claw- and Sledge-Hammer Range of AMD Processors.
Basically; Intel have always been best. In all due time they shall once more.
Actually, the AMDs are not that high above the Prescotts in Performance (3.4Ghz HT EE knocks the socks off AMD in almost all benchmarks); and the Intel Prescott was only designed for battle against the AMD XPs; not the Claw- and Sledge-Hammer Range of AMD Processors.
Basically; Intel have always been best. In all due time they shall once more.
killerdoberman
In Runtime
- Messages
- 286
Intel is the leader and AMD is the follower.
Intel has nothing to compete when they break new ground first.
Intel has nothing to compete when they break new ground first.
Lord Kalthorn
Guru
- Messages
- 13,293
- Location
- Britain
Lol; yeah.
And I have totoal trust that when Intel 64-bits come out for Home PCs they will kick whatever AMD Processor is out in 2006 very hard.
And I have totoal trust that when Intel 64-bits come out for Home PCs they will kick whatever AMD Processor is out in 2006 very hard.
killerdoberman
In Runtime
- Messages
- 286
Intel's 64-bit chip kickass all over AMDs 64-bit chip.
AMD just went to the home user because it can't compete with Intel in a real application.
LOL...whatever.
AMD just went to the home user because it can't compete with Intel in a real application.
LOL...whatever.
E
entity512
Guest
When we actualy can use the 64bit to full use, maybe you can shut up about the 64 and italium in the mean time.
Lord Kalthorn
Guru
- Messages
- 13,293
- Location
- Britain
I'm not entirely sure what Doberman was trying to say; but I do doubt he was even reffering to the Itanium.
The point is; in this we are looking forward into a time where we can use the 64-bit to full use. It doesn't matter whether we can or cannot now - but in the time that we are discussing, we theorise that Intel will wallop AMDs arse in the matter.
But by all means, lets move on from that theoretical subject to which we cannot agree until the time when the stats will prove either of us right or wrong.
Point is; this is an ignorant (no offense to Barrett, I quite like him) thread flaming Intel and I think from such a title you can expect the opposite to counter it. Would you prefer or expect 'cheer's and 'yey's and 'down with Intel's? Not even is the main body of the original post correct; "AMD 64 3200 whoops up on it in most benchmarks" is not a correct statement - as in a majority, however close, the Intel beats the AMD. And when Intel is beaten - it is in no way by such a degree to classify as 'whoops up'. The only major stumbling point in the Prescott; which is the reason I did not buy it - is because AMD64s are, well, 64-bit. I needed this for Longhorn-Beta-2 and othersuch 64-bit Applications I may get between now and 2006 when I can get an Intel 64-bit instead.
If you want to battle out over the pros and cons of Intel versus AMD - come with an Army; not a Decain thanks.
The point is; in this we are looking forward into a time where we can use the 64-bit to full use. It doesn't matter whether we can or cannot now - but in the time that we are discussing, we theorise that Intel will wallop AMDs arse in the matter.
But by all means, lets move on from that theoretical subject to which we cannot agree until the time when the stats will prove either of us right or wrong.
Point is; this is an ignorant (no offense to Barrett, I quite like him) thread flaming Intel and I think from such a title you can expect the opposite to counter it. Would you prefer or expect 'cheer's and 'yey's and 'down with Intel's? Not even is the main body of the original post correct; "AMD 64 3200 whoops up on it in most benchmarks" is not a correct statement - as in a majority, however close, the Intel beats the AMD. And when Intel is beaten - it is in no way by such a degree to classify as 'whoops up'. The only major stumbling point in the Prescott; which is the reason I did not buy it - is because AMD64s are, well, 64-bit. I needed this for Longhorn-Beta-2 and othersuch 64-bit Applications I may get between now and 2006 when I can get an Intel 64-bit instead.
If you want to battle out over the pros and cons of Intel versus AMD - come with an Army; not a Decain thanks.
E
entity512
Guest
3400+ could be good but the 3.4 intel would be better. But.. 3400+ may be future proof a but more.
Lord Kalthorn
Guru
- Messages
- 13,293
- Location
- Britain
Yeah; AMD64 3400 will be more future proof in the sense of 64-bit. However, for gaming; unless you plan on going a little more out for a FX-53 then the Intel 3.4Ghz has a huge cache and will be far better in games because of it.
Really depends on whether you specifically want AMD or Intel; as most people will only buy one and not the other (myself included at one point). If you don't care eitherway and don't mind not having 64-bit - then the Intel 3.4Ghz will be better for gaming than the AMD64 3400+
Really depends on whether you specifically want AMD or Intel; as most people will only buy one and not the other (myself included at one point). If you don't care eitherway and don't mind not having 64-bit - then the Intel 3.4Ghz will be better for gaming than the AMD64 3400+
