Intel Pentium 6xx or AMD Athlon 64 skt 939 Winchester?
- Thread starter connchri
- Start date
OP
OP
connchri
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 1,025
- Location
- Scotland, UK
QUOTE]What a pile of dung... I'm tired of you intel fanboys. You make up these numbers and you defy benchmarks. The Athlon 64 defeats the Pentium 6xx in 70-80% of the tests. I'm not going to check out the 6xx because it is false advertisement and a waste of time. It is not 64-bit. The 6xx is an expensive joke. Additionally overclocking potential amongst these new Pentiums is limited because of the high level of heat they generate. I would recommend you steer clear from this false advertisement ploy. Intel has no personal 64-bit processors out. Itanium are server CPUs. These aren't 64-bit. They support some 64-bit applications but that is very limited.[/QUOTE]
-?
Sorry, but I'm afraid I know that the P4 6xx series is fully 64bit (AMD 64_x86) compatible with the exact same benifits as the Athlon 64. This, however is not the focus of this thread. The 64bit instruction set was orignally installed into the 1st Prescott cores, but never enabled until now - hence why the new 6xx series are still based on the Prescott. I have to concur with Jack on this one, you need to go and research. How can you comment on something that "I'm (You're) not going to check out the 6xx because it is false advertisement and a waste of time"? - Sorry, I'm not either a AMD fanboy nor a Intel fan boy. As stated, the only Intel CPU I have personaly laid hands on is a Coppermine Celeron. You are obviously an AMD fanboy, simply by the fact that you ain't going to check the new P4's out and still argue the point with useless and inarcurate information, i.e. "These aren't 64bit". Oh, and they will support ALL the 64 bit applications that the Athlon 64 support.
Check out http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/asmo-na/eng/171850.htm?page=2. Although aimed at the buisness segment, this page outlines the EM64 extensions supported in the Xeons. It also includes the Prescott cores, see title.
-?
Sorry, but I'm afraid I know that the P4 6xx series is fully 64bit (AMD 64_x86) compatible with the exact same benifits as the Athlon 64. This, however is not the focus of this thread. The 64bit instruction set was orignally installed into the 1st Prescott cores, but never enabled until now - hence why the new 6xx series are still based on the Prescott. I have to concur with Jack on this one, you need to go and research. How can you comment on something that "I'm (You're) not going to check out the 6xx because it is false advertisement and a waste of time"? - Sorry, I'm not either a AMD fanboy nor a Intel fan boy. As stated, the only Intel CPU I have personaly laid hands on is a Coppermine Celeron. You are obviously an AMD fanboy, simply by the fact that you ain't going to check the new P4's out and still argue the point with useless and inarcurate information, i.e. "These aren't 64bit". Oh, and they will support ALL the 64 bit applications that the Athlon 64 support.
Check out http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/asmo-na/eng/171850.htm?page=2. Although aimed at the buisness segment, this page outlines the EM64 extensions supported in the Xeons. It also includes the Prescott cores, see title.
Actually not quite, the P4 6xx is not fully 64-bit and DOES NOT provide the same benefits of the Athlon 64. You are the one who should do your research.. like Jack. I'm not an AMD fanboy. i just look at the facts and examine the facts. The new P4s are false advertisement and aren't real 64-bit processors. They will support only a limited amount. I don't argue with useless and inaccurate information.
And you are directing me to an Intel page? That's real smart.
And you are directing me to an Intel page? That's real smart.
OP
OP
connchri
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 1,025
- Location
- Scotland, UK
Ok, then instead of getting at us, could you help me and discuss exactly what the differences are - on a technical level, so I can make my own mind up? I said they were fully compatible, not fully 64 bit. (read after the brackets).
Anyway, what "(I'm tired of you) intel fanboys" are you refering to?
Perhaps you would appricaite a THG link more.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050221/index.html
(I just came accross it the now, so i'm reading through, perhaps this can be you're research since you were declined in doing so initially)
Anyway, what "(I'm tired of you) intel fanboys" are you refering to?
Perhaps you would appricaite a THG link more.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050221/index.html
(I just came accross it the now, so i'm reading through, perhaps this can be you're research since you were declined in doing so initially)
OP
OP
connchri
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 1,025
- Location
- Scotland, UK
Y has this thread like, dissapered?
I took ages finding it again, and only getting it from my favourites. Anyway, it ain't trolling, so please put it back on
C
I took ages finding it again, and only getting it from my favourites. Anyway, it ain't trolling, so please put it back on
C
The Prophet
In Runtime
- Messages
- 368
Intel = poo
AMD = not poo and much better.
The only thing Intel has are the blue men on their commercials. And I haven't seen them in a while. They probably realize how stupid Intel is and went to AMD. Those blue guys really freaked me out. But all I can say is we will just see who the leader in 64 bit leader is when 64 bit PCs come into full swing. My bets on AMD but until then.
AMD = not poo and much better.
The only thing Intel has are the blue men on their commercials. And I haven't seen them in a while. They probably realize how stupid Intel is and went to AMD. Those blue guys really freaked me out. But all I can say is we will just see who the leader in 64 bit leader is when 64 bit PCs come into full swing. My bets on AMD but until then.
The Prophet
In Runtime
- Messages
- 368
:d
Similar threads
