Intel's 64-bit narrows the gap with Athlon 64

Status
Not open for further replies.
What do you want me to do?! Search up every single damn post you've put up?! I'm just asking for a few simple links! If you don't want to then just say so! Not that hard!

EDIT>>> Got carried away there...whatever. If you don't want to post a few link, then fine.
 
Dude Gian, I'm not on anyone's sides here, but honestly, I can remember quite clearly most of the posts you made about Intel not being completely 64-bit, etc. and how people always requested links, yet you never gave any. I'm not denying your claim about Intel's falsehood, I have an AMD myself and would really liek to know if this was true and since you seem to be the only one who knows about Intel's lie, I wanted to see proof. All were saying is that you shouldn't just be posting stuff like that without any evidence, were not taking sides.
 
LOL, anyway... OK.

I was very sceptical about that 4.7GHz, and F*CK! thats some speed! I don't care what anyone says, but that would kill any AMD Athlon 64 at stock speeds. Never mind his friends 5.2GHz. Are they all 6xx series? also what models at stock speeds are they?

Another question, If your so rich, can I get your hand-downs?????

Seeya!
 
It doesn't kill the AMD. Not even. Again AMD brings up the fact that MHz doesn't matter anymore. It matters how the chip is designed.
 
Gaincarlo, I ain't gonna argue, but at 5.2GHz, thats almost 43% faster than Intels top-of-the-line 3.7GHz P4. I'm sure that the Athlon FX 57 is not as much as 43% faster than the 3.7GHz P4 6xx EE. Perhaps about 10-15% but not 43%

Remember I said Intels overclock v AMD stock speeds. Not a fair comparison, but that was not my point. My point was the extreamly high overclock and the increase in speed that would have been acheivable. Other than that, I am not denying anything else.
 
I don't think so. I will continue to argue against such points. AMD overclocks too. And you aren't comparing fair points. Again AMD proves MHz doesn't matter.
 
Giancarlo said:
Another huge post... of flames. You do not have unbiased opinions. Nobody really can. Intel has made a Pentium that runs really cool? Where exactly? They all run very hot. The AMD may not OC as good, but it performs a whole lot better (thus invalidating the more MHZ is better argument). Don't go insulting me. You got embarrassed in the Logitech/Klipsch thread, and I'll do it again. :) The 6xx isn't that ruthless. They aren't that good either. No matter how much Intel tries it can't take the hill where AMD has its flag up. It appears a smaller company has outdid a bigger company. Not to mention Intel just issued a profit warning recently. I would be very concerned if you were pro-Intel.

So what about your dumb claim that the Pentium 6XX is not full 64bit? What do you mean, feel free to explain that... :) And you are right, being that Intel still uses 20 PPLs as opposed to AMDs 8, they are less efficient, meaning higher clock speeds. However, when you have a P4 running at 4.5GHz and 61Celcius FULL LOAD with good air cooling, that is PRETTY GOOD. (this was before OCing more with Liquid modded cooling BTW) The 6xx have high clock speeds, are much more efficient, use less power (IN THE LONG RUN) and can throttle themselves just as the AMD Cool and Quiet can. Intel is almost done with their 90nm perfection. I am not an Intel fan, I am an AMD fan. The new 840EE dual core Pentium SUCKS compared to the new AMD X2, however, you claim that the new 6XX sucks is HEAVILY FLAWED. Go look at processor wafer architechture and then come back and say that. The HT technology along with the enhanced broad PPLs allows for much larger data transfer. The 2MB L2 also allows for increased power in gaming and audio/video decode and recode/compile. AMD is the better company for GAMING right now, but for photoshop, video editting, audio editting, and LARGE tasks of that nature, AMD doesn't make the bar, Intel does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom