FX-55 or P4

[TibsBeatAll]

P4 intel extreme edition. hehe. I like it a lot.

I like to think of the Pentiu 4's as a Jack of all Trades. Good at everything.

I like to think of the Amd64's as an idiot savant. Games at a most excellent ability, but multitasks as a 3rd grader on weed.

I am actually getting more and more in love with the P4's ability to multitask.

And i thiink it's in part to my Pentium M, that my love of Intel is growing. I think Lord Kalthorn would agree with me.

 

[DarkBlade1]

Ughh,,, Great, join the Darkside. P4s are OK. My AMD64s multitask beautifully, what drugs are you on? my 3500+ is excellent, and it burns through P4 3.2GHz HT multitasking ability. Now, P4s are better, no arguements there, but AMD64s are not bad either, and they are way better in efficiency, heat conservation, and the next line of AMD64 will use HyperTransport+, which is just like HT tech on P4s, so Intel will die this time in all catagories... MUAHAH!! BTW, FX-55 sucks... 4000+ is way better, since it isnt overpriced, and FX-55 is WAY OVERPRICED. FX series right now is a joke... 4000+ is the way to go.

 

[alvino]

LOL Both the 4000+ and FX-55 are way too overpriced for my budget.

 

[TRDCorolla1]

same here. I'm just going with the 3500+. My motherboard is in my living room now and looking pretty. All I can do is look at it and read the manual

Have to wait for my next paycheck to get the CPU and dual memory sticks.

 

[alvino]

Lol

 

[Giancarlo]

Someone who knows nothing about computers say Intels are better for business. In reality, the opposite is true as AMD repeatably beats Intel in various business benchmarks. Multitasking is just fine for even my processer (I have even heard it surpasses the P4 3.0 HT by quite a fair margin). LK usually doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to processors. For him, it is like he is suck in the time when AMD only had K6-2s out. This is a different year. Since the AMD 64 surpasses the Intel P4 HT in about 80-85% of the tests, and ties it in about the rest.. I would recommend you just get an 64-bit AMD processor. And one big difference between the two: AMD is 64-bit and the P4 HT is NOT!

 

[DarkBlade1]

Well said Gian, well said!!

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Get the FX-55, or as AMD Zen said; the 4000+

Unless you plan on getting a Pentium 4 HT EE and overclock it then you're going to have much extra power over a FX-55 and, in games, its going to be seriously lacking... which I imagine you will do more than anything an Intel excels at.

Hypertransport+, merely though the analogy or 'transport' insinuates nothing like the Hyperthreading in Intel Chips. I imagine it is merely a new faster Bussing System. It is most certainly not Hyperthreading or anything like it.

When Dual Processors come out, and Intel release the 64-bit Processors, Hyperthreading will be where Intel beats AMD. As once you program games for two processors; four falls into place almost automatically. AMD will have two processors; Intel will have four virutally in context - that plus hopefully the masses of Cache on Intels inherently will show the end of AMD64's (AMD being the Processor in the Abyss' destructive arsenal) rule of evil and destruction over - and us all back to the happy days of the K6-2.

 

[Giancarlo]

Get the FX-55, or as AMD Zen said; the 4000+

One thing me, AMD zen and LK all agree on, which is so rare, it is more rare to get struck by a bolt of lightening.

Unless you plan on getting a Pentium 4 HT EE and overclock it then you're going to have much extra power over a FX-55 and, in games, its going to be seriously lacking... which I imagine you will do more than anything an Intel excels at.

The EE sucks. Even in its regards of overclocking. You're a fool for saying Intel does better in games, when it clearly does not. Intel sucks. The P4 HT EE is a joke and is crap. It falls behind in every game including Doom 3. You must be fair. Compare an overclocked Athlon 64 with the P4 HT EE. The 64 has more overclocking capability, by the way.

When Dual Processors come out, and Intel release the 64-bit Processors, Hyperthreading will be where Intel beats AMD. As once you program games for two processors; four falls into place almost automatically. AMD will have two processors; Intel will have four virutally in context - that plus hopefully the masses of Cache on Intels inherently will show the end of AMD64's (AMD being the Processor in the Abyss' destructive arsenal) rule of evil and destruction over - and us all back to the happy days of the K6-2.

Utter B.S. You again don't know what you are talking about. The AMD 64-bit wil defeat every 64-bit Intel tries to put out. Afterall, Intel is perhaps two years away from doing so. Intel is shit for games, for business applications, and this is clearly shown by benchmarks. AMD has more then two processors. You need to understand the facts, not your delusions. Intel is crap, besides AMD64's have far more cache then they do. Plus AMDs use less operating integers (8), instead of 20. And AMDs are far more efficient. Intel has a very long way to go in the catch up game. YOu're an idiot. The days of the K6-2, was a time where Intel marketed over-priced crap and it continues to do so. The time of a continual downfall for Intel is in the future. IT is going the same way as Nutscrape and Crapple.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

One thing me, AMD zen and LK all agree on, which is so rare, it is more rare to get struck by a bolt of lightening.

We can pray

The EE sucks. Even in its regards of overclocking. You're a fool for saying Intel does better in games, when it clearly does not. Intel sucks. The P4 HT EE is a joke and is crap. It falls behind in every game including Doom 3. You must be fair. Compare an overclocked Athlon 64 with the P4 HT EE. The 64 has more overclocking capability, by the way.

I didn't say it is better for games. '...and, in games, its going to be seriously lacking...' the subject of the sentance - however many subclauses - was Pentium 4 HT EE. For the general use Overclocker perhaps but the EE has been proven in the hands of the only honourable Overclockers that it is the best Overclocking Processor available.

Utter B.S. You again don't know what you are talking about. The AMD 64-bit wil defeat every 64-bit Intel tries to put out. Afterall, Intel is perhaps two years away from doing so. Intel is shit for games, for business applications, and this is clearly shown by benchmarks. AMD has more then two processors. You need to understand the facts, not your delusions. Intel is crap, besides AMD64's have far more cache then they do. Plus AMDs use less operating integers (8), instead of 20. And AMDs are far more efficient. Intel has a very long way to go in the catch up game. YOu're an idiot. The days of the K6-2, was a time where Intel marketed over-priced crap and it continues to do so. The time of a continual downfall for Intel is in the future. IT is going the same way as Nutscrape and Crapple.

Intel is half a year, a year max from bringing out 64-Bit Processors. Considering the EMTs are exactly the same as the AMD64s in theory and design - they have not been tested against AMDs. So if they are the same; what is Intel cooking up for an actual serious release 64-bit Processor? Bets are, it will do what you said; except inversely.

Business Applications... haha, the business application tester; whatever it is - is complete crap. It tests for nothing anybody does, and cannot stand up on its own. AMD64s have 512Meg Cache, if that - the 4000+ and FX-55s, the high end expensive AMDs have 1Meg. Pentium 4 HTs have 1 Meg - full stop - they don't have less anymore. Itanium2s have 8Meg! AMDs, even when they have the same amount - most certainly dont have 'far more'.

AMD has more than two processors?... You'll have to go on about that I can't remmember refering to anything but the AMD Processors for Desktops? Of those I can think of 2 in the reasonable End range, FX and Athlon. That goes without saying really so I don't know what you're talking about.

Netscape was brought down by a vastly superior application - Intel has only suffered minor market losses, no serious growth loss, and has yet to compare to the difference between Netscape and Internet Explorer. Intel has fight - and as I am on a roll with offering drinks in bets - if Intel looses and becomes a Netscape - I will owe you a Drink. Apple - however much we wish it would, has not gone the way of Netscape yet however.