AMD or Intel?

Status
Not open for further replies.
gibant1 said:
by the end of 2006 there maybe a reasonably stable O/S for 64 bit although it will prbably be a little longer judging by past windows releases.

By the end of 2006, what machines will be around. Think back to what you had 12 months ago, then 2 years ago. By the time 64-bit windows is stable your 64bit machine will look like the machine you had 2 years ago. Not too pretty is it.

This has been one of the arguments against the AMD64, your paying for something that isn't being used, and when it does have the chance to shine, newer machines will still make it look average at best.

Still going to put one together after that. :D
Well yeah; but I'm not after a 64-bit OS before 2006; maybe not even until the end of 2006. I was thinking more in the lines of Beta Release Testing when I pondered the idea of getting it. It only needs to last 2 Years - and its only ever graphics which gets very annoying which I'm fine with. And I needed a New Computer - an Intel would not have been able to be used for any Beta Releases of 64-bit stuff.
 
Lord K

If you want a machine that is fast, multitasks well and is reliable. Intel all the way. I use it for my own work and wouldn't have an AMD for that.

For testing and general messing about, playing games, an AMD is great.
 
I just have to say that, me being a owner of a pentium 4 3.2 ghz, and also, a amd fx53 system, i have a better judgement than most of you here, i have had many different processors in the last 3 years, why are any of you comparing barton to presscott, thats just stupid, even tho my old athlon 3200 cud beat almost all prescott 3.2ghz , and theyre alot cheaper, and in GAMES THEY ARE THE BEST, pentium arent even fun with games, long loading times, but anyway, my 3.2ghz, its nice, i do my multitasking and photoshop editing on it, but if i want to play games, i think i choose the amd anyday, any 64bit amd, destroys literally all pentiums out, and are so much cheaper, all of you are <fiddlesticks> stupid <black person>, all have 5200 graphics, and dell pc's and thats why you think intel are good, YOU GOTTA REALISE, INTEL = GOOD PHOTOSHOP EDDITING ETC ETC AMD = AMAZING GAMEPLAY FASTER MORE RELIABLE, LAST LONGER, ROFL CELERON LMAO, INTEL FANBOY <homosexual>
 
Weldone, put some of these guys straight lol. But watch your language ;)
 
Schutz said:
I just have to say that, me being a owner of a pentium 4 3.2 ghz, and also, a amd fx53 system, i have a better judgement than most of you here, i have had many different processors in the last 3 years, why are any of you comparing barton to presscott, thats just stupid, even tho my old athlon 3200 cud beat almost all prescott 3.2ghz , and theyre alot cheaper, and in GAMES THEY ARE THE BEST, pentium arent even fun with games, long loading times, but anyway, my 3.2ghz, its nice, i do my multitasking and photoshop editing on it, but if i want to play games, i think i choose the amd anyday, any 64bit amd, destroys literally all pentiums out, and are so much cheaper, all of you are <fiddlesticks> stupid <black person>, all have 5200 graphics, and dell pc's and thats why you think intel are good, YOU GOTTA REALISE, INTEL = GOOD PHOTOSHOP EDDITING ETC ETC AMD = AMAZING GAMEPLAY FASTER MORE RELIABLE, LAST LONGER, ROFL CELERON LMAO, INTEL FANBOY <homosexual>
I don't think that proves anything :D It just proves that too many people care about games and are misinformed by the power, the lifespan, and the sheer power of the Intel. I didn't see any specifications that we were talking about Gaming ability? Not only that - but even in the Gaming Specs an Intel 3.2 HT EE 3.4 will only loose by a few points - and that will always be with Hyperthreading; which limits game power, and without 64-bitting, which is advantagous to game power. Not only that - but in many process the 64-bitting is a slowing agent; and the Hyperthreading is a serious speeding agent - allowing for far superior: Power, Encoding, Information Spreading, General Multitasking, Imaging and Video Editting. Not faster - we all know that :D Certainly doesn't last longer though - Intels are the hardiest bloody Processors out there! :D
 
Schutz said:
I just have to say that, me being a owner of a pentium 4 3.2 ghz, and also, a amd fx53 system, i have a better judgement than most of you here, i have had many different processors in the last 3 years, why are any of you comparing barton to presscott, thats just stupid, even tho my old athlon 3200 cud beat almost all prescott 3.2ghz , and theyre alot cheaper, and in GAMES THEY ARE THE BEST, pentium arent even fun with games, long loading times, but anyway, my 3.2ghz, its nice, i do my multitasking and photoshop editing on it, but if i want to play games, i think i choose the amd anyday, any 64bit amd, destroys literally all pentiums out, and are so much cheaper, all of you are <fiddlesticks> stupid <black person>, all have 5200 graphics, and dell pc's and thats why you think intel are good, YOU GOTTA REALISE, INTEL = GOOD PHOTOSHOP EDDITING ETC ETC AMD = AMAZING GAMEPLAY FASTER MORE RELIABLE, LAST LONGER, ROFL CELERON LMAO, INTEL FANBOY <homosexual>


Well that's a load of SH+T!

Longer load times, you are full of it. you MUST have dreamed about having those processors. I HAVE had both AMD's And Intel. The first thing I noticed when moving to the Intel platform was a disk throughput increase of 50%.

I could go on, but you are probably a AMD loser, who is just trying to bash the intel, Which you cant afford.

p.s. As for games Farcry 1280 x 1024 everything on max 117fps
Doom3 on ultra 1280 x 1024 87fps

Your a loser.
 
Its kind of proved the athlon 64's whoops. And for the prices they suceed in beating intel in a very good way. End of story! Stop bitchin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom