Computer Build

[Giancarlo]

And if you're so pro-Intel why do you have an AMD?

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Again this is a clear lie. If you want to do unfair comparsions of an overclocked EE at 4.2 to 4.4GHz against a 2.6GHz machine, then you have problems. These CPUs may have overclocking. Again you are acting like a moron. It is said that the AMD has taken the crown again in sheer strength, and power. You again wrong. We all know MHz doesn't mean much anymore. Furthermore, with the encore of 64-bit computing, the AMD will have a much longer shelf life and has a lot of undiscovered potential. I think the AMD is underperforming in a few tests because its 64-bit code has not been realized to its fullest potential. The EE is a piece of crap and avoid it all costs. It has a short shelf life and will die out when the 64-bit operating systems get released. If you want to be prepared for the future, and want a CPU that clearly beats the EE in 75-80% of tests right now, stick with the AMD. You again LK, are on prozac or some kind of other drug that inhibits you from thinking properly. I would simply say you're a liar. You are just like G5 fan boys... you say to people to blow a bunch of money on a product that isn't worth a damn.

Edit: They were slightly overclocked, but not by much.

Slightly? A slight change on an AMD Clockage often corresponds to a large jump in AMD-Numerals. I did not say self-life either - I said life. I pointed out that it will not last long theoretically in the future with the 64-bit PCs. But then of course - Intel will have a 64-bitted EE. The Itanium2s are already blowing the socks of the Opterons again anyway! Intel know a good deal about 64-bitting.

I suppose only time will say who will be the superior Chip maker. From experience with my AMD over the last 10 months; I personally would never buy one again. My Intel was powerful, my AMD always seems behind. And of course - the PCMarks don't lie; however you write them, and its obvious the Intel EE pastes the AMD FX in those from both those Benchmarks - every other benchmark with PCMark in it, and even Futuremark's Site.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

You again are being stupid. The FX-53 works at 2.4GHz. To say it being overclocked to 2.6GHz is huge clearly shows you know nothing about computers. I'm comparing the two high end CPUs. Now it would be unfair to compare different market intended CPUs with the upper range CPU. You're what I call a selective idiot.

The FX-53 wins in 75-80% of tests.

Ah yes - but the FX-53 is the highest and most powerful AMD has to offer in the Desktop Chip range - the Intel EE 3.2 is not by far the highest Intel has in the range. If you don't want to be selective - put them on?

As for my AMD - as I said I regret it a lot I may not when there are 64 bit programs out and it becomes useful.

 

[Giancarlo]

Slightly? A slight change on an AMD Clockage often corresponds to a large jump in AMD-Numerals. I did not say self-life either - I said life. I pointed out that it will not last long theoretically in the future with the 64-bit PCs. But then of course - Intel will have a 64-bitted EE. The Itanium2s are already blowing the socks of the Opterons again anyway! Intel know a good deal about 64-bitting.

200MHz? Now I'm waiting for you to regain your damn senses. You don't know anything about you are talking about. Why is Intel losing ground? Why did Intel have to cancel a chip project? Because it is losing its market. Intel may have even cancelled its future 64-bit processor.

I suppose only time will say who will be the superior Chip maker. From experience with my AMD over the last 10 months; I personally would never buy one again. My Intel was powerful, my AMD always seems behind. And of course - the PCMarks don't lie; however you write them, and its obvious the Intel EE pastes the AMD FX in those from both those Benchmarks - every other benchmark with PCMark in it, and even Futuremark's Site.

You are very stupid then. My AMD is way faster then my friend's P4 2.6GHz machine. AMD FX clearly takes the victory. You again are being what I call.. a selective idiot.

 

[athlon64fx]

woah calm down peoople,

now, intel might be better for gaming, but on some regular everyday applications it does hang.

amds are better for day to day use based ON MY EXPERIENCES.

I used two leading "custom high end" companies liek alienware and another I dotn remember the name of but similar in design and website and build as the alienware with EE overclocked.

than I used my amd machine and one with 512 megs of dual channel ram from a freind who built thier own.

out of those the intel was slightly better with gaming but was very slow and getting hotter with everyday applicattions

photoshop, MS Office 2003/XP windows media 10 beta and final mp9 and 8(not used the same time but when I had those), sony vegas video, GIMP (Gnu Image Manipulation Program) BearShare, Limewire, IE6, Firefox1.0PR etc.... alot fo teh time I use allt hese apps at once!!!and I only have 256 megs of ram and I find it performs smoother runnign all these apps at once then an intel HT non EE did and mabye soemthimes I would occasioally burn cds with roxio or tweak my windowblinds skins.

 

[Giancarlo]

Intel isn't better for gaming. I just proved it with the benchmarks I posted. Damn the hell.. you people are something else...

 

[athlon64fx]

I dont game muc tho... just soemtimes.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

200MHz? Now I'm waiting for you to regain your damn senses. You don't know anything about you are talking about. Why is Intel losing ground? Why did Intel have to cancel a chip project? Because it is losing its market. Intel may have even cancelled its future 64-bit processor.

Intel is loosing ground, as you so competently said; because of its Business Model. Processors can beat this though - and morale at Intel can beat this. They cancelled a TV Chip Project - what a Major problem? Intel haven't chancelled their 64-bit Processors. We have already seen a low-end 64-bit extended Intel Chip on Overclockers.co.uk. Vrey low end of course; but it would be stupid to stop when its the future. As I said - they're good with 64-bitting fully, they can make cheap imitations of 64-bit.

You are very stupid then. My AMD is way faster then my friend's P4 2.6GHz machine. AMD FX clearly takes the victory. You again are being what I call.. a selective idiot.

Your AMD 64 3000+ is clearly faster than your friends P4 non-HT 2.6 machine? There's a surprise there, I'm sure

Lol; that's quite a mess Dell You should talk to the people who sold you that Intel PC! Even I think they're worse at games overall.

Nice Sig Giancarlo!

 

[Giancarlo]

Intel is loosing ground, as you so competently said; because of its Business Model. Processors can beat this though - and morale at Intel can beat this. They cancelled a TV Chip Project - what a Major problem? Intel haven't chancelled their 64-bit Processors. We have already seen a low-end 64-bit extended Intel Chip on Overclockers.co.uk. Vrey low end of course; but it would be stupid to stop when its the future. As I said - they're good with 64-bitting fully, they can make cheap imitations of 64-bit.

They have cancelled several major projects. Morale at intel is at an all time low. The 64-bit AMD is the better CPU and is better at gaining the upper ground. We all know I can't go out and spend $999 on the EE, and that AMD takes the crown for value. Intel's business value is poor and improper. Intel is in serious trouble. Its profits are being sliced and diced. I really doubt Intel will be able to churn out a good 64-bit CPU because you say they are good at it? Seriously? They don't have much experience with it. They are still using 32-bit.

Your AMD 64 3000+ is clearly faster than your friends P4 non-HT 2.6 machine? There's a surprise there, I'm sure

No it was HT. In about 80-90% of the cases when we did a benchmark and shared the results.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

They have cancelled several major projects. Morale at intel is at an all time low. The 64-bit AMD is the better CPU and is better at gaining the upper ground. We all know I can't go out and spend $999 on the EE, and that AMD takes the crown for value. Intel's business value is poor and improper. Intel is in serious trouble. Its profits are being sliced and diced. I really doubt Intel will be able to churn out a good 64-bit CPU because you say they are good at it? Seriously? They don't have much experience with it. They are still using 32-bit.

No it was HT. In about 80-90% of the cases when we did a benchmark and shared the results.

Not really, not really, can't doubt that - they have a lot of people happy with the price, value depends on the power of the processor too, not only the price. As the EE is faster in most senses - especially Performance - it does regulate the higher price. And again - its built better.

Intel's Business Value? Intel's Business Value means what? We both know that if you mean the Value of Intel; Poor and Improper are far from the truth. Serious trouble is obviously wrong; we both know that. If Intel were winning the public opinion battle; then AMD would be in serious trouble, but even with AMD winning that battle by far - lowering profits hardly constitute a serious problem. It constitutes and higher requirement to push public love for Intel. Sliced and Diced to you obviously means something vastly different to you as it does to me.

You're quite fast aren't you? I said they're good at it because they are; they have made 64-bit Processors for longer than AMD, and a bad decision for what to do next cannot change their knowledge of the territory. They are just waiting for Windows 64-bit to come out to make any large scale push into the market. Intel, as I said, make the best 64-bit Processor available.

Still... its hardly fair is it?