New Extreme Edition - WTF!!!

[jack22]

Yea, my Intel got a 5100 PCmark score...better then a AMD.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Haha. Well there's an hour of my life gone... Well worth it though. I think it proves my signiture beyond doubt. With Intel you get time you can feel; with AMD you get frames per second you can't see.

 

[jack22]

lol. You sure do occupy your time.

 

[Giancarlo]

You know that PCMark is not practical right? Not a useful indicator of anything?

Oh by the way, AMD is noticeably faster in both applications and gaming then Intel. You can feel that.

 

[alvino]

PCMark, 3DMark and Aquamark are all synthetic tests, so it's not real. To really test your system's capabilities, you have to do a FPS test or something.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Well the Synthetic Tests will always be the most effective way of testing a PC; if not the most thorough - if we want to bring this to the technical edge benchmarkers would write a program that opened and closed an application a thousand times to see the average. That would be a little excessive.

PCMark Tests do do a reasonable level of Testing; What it does is here, they're all useful tests whether synthetic or not.

As Intel now apparently beats AMD in PCMark 04, it has become superfluous, I'm sure Giancarlo meant to say its a useless set of tests when he said AMD beat Intel in PCMark 04

The Beyond 3D Benchmarks though aren't PCMark 04; they're a vast number of powerful tests, other than the PCMark 04 none synthetic: here, here, here, here we get the natural AMD beating Intel through Audio Benchmarks, here back to the usual, here we see more 3DMark 05 Intel woppings of AMD along with the SPEC woppings of Intel, on page twelve we see Intel beat AMD 2 to 1 on Gaming Benchmarks, and page 13.

Its still obvious though without PCMark or SysMark that Intel thoroughly beats the AMD in Applications; where extra power matters unlike in games where you can't see the difference between a 2800+ and an FX-55 in anything but a few high power games, even then you won't see the difference most of the time.

 

[alvino]

Whatever, computers are computers.

 

[Giancarlo]

Well what is important, is AMD is still the king of the crown here. It leads overall and that is the most important thing.

 

[alvino]

Eh...CPU's are CPU's!

 

[prosser13]

Look, let's even things out here a bit. I know I'm an AMD fanboy, but you have to give some credit to Intel. Intel have been getting big suppliers, even if they are as rubbish as Dell, who ship hundreds of thousands of computers, and have got them to stock Intel CPUs. There must be over four times more computer companies who sell Intels in their pre-built systems than there are those who sell AMDs. And the ones who sell AMDs are usually the enthusiast companies who either also sell Intel computers or who are more into the enthusiasts market, so they aren't marketed apart from in Custom PC and magazines like that. I mean, come on, nearly everyone in the UK must know the word 'Dell' by now.

Its still obvious though without PCMark or SysMark that Intel thoroughly beats the AMD in Applications; where extra power matters unlike in games where you can't see the difference between a 2800+ and an FX-55 in anything but a few high power games, even then you won't see the difference most of the time.

That is not true, Lord K. Two of my mates just bought new PCs. One bought a 3000+ with a 6600GT, the other an FX-55 with a 6600GT. The difference the FX-55 begins is pretty big, usually over 20fps in games which run at over 80fps on each system. The other thing is, AMD are better at mp3 encoding, gaming, and quite a few other tests on the net. There are hundreds of different tests, Lord K, each which ask different things of the CPU. If I wanted, I could go find a couple of hundred and post all the links here. The problem with you posting loads of links to benchmarks is that there are benchmarks I could find that would show AMD is better than Intel in this, this and this. So please, just don't post hundreds of links, it doens't show anything.

Giancarlo, SSE4 does have a good point. As Intel have their CPUs in hundreds of companies pre-built systems, they will obviously own much more of the market. I would say that Intel would have at least 65% of the market, 55% thanks to pre-built systems. Maybe if my beloved AMD bucked up their ideas and got some more big name companies using their chips, then the market would slide back in our favour. Most probably in fact. One idea I've heard a lot is to get Dell to make an AMD section, get it advertised on the TV, and then sales will shoot up, just because Dell is a recognised name. But if that doesn't happen, many people will not be enlightened in the way of AMD!

One more thing, look at this test : http://www.linuxhardware.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/24/1747228&mode=nocomment
Yes, SSE4, it is just another benchmark test, but this one is done in
Linux. Here, apart from in video encoding, where you would expect
Intel to win, and in a few other tests which were very close, AMDs
FX-55 won. The EE didn't. See SSE4, there are hundreds of different tests out there, but as this one was run in Linux, and done by linuxhardware, I'd expect it to be pretty fair. Wouldn't you?