Go Back   Computer Forums > General Computing > Hardware
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-08-2004, 03:59 PM   #1
Fully Optimized
 
airiox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,692
Question AMD proves it's simple better.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17727

This article explains how AMD is much better than Intel. AMD gives you more protection than Intel.

This guy compares using intel to driving in a car without airbags.
__________________

__________________
Check out my Counter Strike:Source servers:
***THE DYNASTY***: 74.52.232.130:27015
*** GUNGAME ***: 74.52.232.131:27015
*** SOCCER ***: 74.52.232.133:27015
airiox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2004, 04:01 PM   #2
Fully Optimized
 
Dynamix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,463
Default

Man i 100% agree with you and besides Amd is 15% cheaper than Intel.
__________________

Dynamix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2004, 06:05 PM   #3
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: AMD proves it's simple better.

AMD is more cost effective, faster, and better then Intel. It provides you more for the money. Intel is just raw speed and no seat belt.
Giancarlo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2004, 08:04 PM   #4
Guru
 
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 13,293
Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn
Default

Intel is more powerful. The car description is good and all - but why by air bags when the car, although not as sports car like the AMD has the sheer muscle. Its not cool, its not sleek and it doesn't play games like the Sport Card but its pumped - it has a 3 Litre Engine it goes offroad and by god does it last like a tank.

Give me the Kia anyday over the Ferrari. The Ferrari may have 'airbags' as such - but the Kia will collidide and will save you and work afterwards, the Ferrari will crush and crumple with a hit and it will never move again even if you are alive to see it do such.

People seem to want games - AMD does this. But SP2 has only contacted AMD because of the 64-bits. It will only matter if you buy a 64-bit PC. Not an Athlon XP. Intels are powerful, they're big and by god will you get such an Application speed out of them. they'll last longer and they're build stronger.

Give me Raw Speed and no Seatbelt anyday over something that is for show. its down to a Graphics Card for that - not the Processor which is for Applications.
__________________
A Knight is sworn to Honour. His heart knows only Virtue. His blade defends the helpless. His might upholds the Weak. His word speaks only truth. His wrath undoes the Wicked.
Lord Kalthorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2004, 08:11 PM   #5
Fully Optimized
 
CoMpUtaFrEek's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,765
Default Re: AMD proves it's simple better.

To be fair, how much more security do you need than a firewall and virusscan (in the case of a desktop pc). Although this may be more of an issue in servers, etc.

Even I, an AMD user, believe from benchmarks and hearing first hand experiences, that pentium are quicker. But the prices, don't make me cry lol.
__________________
Asus A7N8X Deluxe - Rev 2.0 - Bios Ver. 1007
AMD Athlon XP-M 2200+ - @ 11x188 = 2Ghz (1.75Vcore)
ATi Radeon 9700 Pro (Almost as good as my old 5950U!)
Corsair 512MB XMS TwinX Low Latency DDR 400 - @ 188Mhz
3dmark03 Score: 5086
CoMpUtaFrEek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2004, 08:15 PM   #6
Guru
 
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 13,293
Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn
Default

Its not just quicker - its more Powerful! Encryption, Compression, Writing, Openning Programs.

I'm sure you can pull out all variety of Game Benchmarks where a Pentium has been equalled by an AMD, sometimes even beaten. But you show me a non-Game Benchmark to which the AMD has even come close to beating the Intel....

In all fairness - you can't.
__________________
A Knight is sworn to Honour. His heart knows only Virtue. His blade defends the helpless. His might upholds the Weak. His word speaks only truth. His wrath undoes the Wicked.
Lord Kalthorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2004, 08:42 PM   #7
Fully Optimized
 
CoMpUtaFrEek's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,765
Default Re: AMD proves it's simple better.

I'm going to take a new angle on things and I think it's quite an important one.

Value for money...

Lets look at things from a price view. (Prices exact taken from overclockers.com inc. VAT)

First comparison:
Intel Pentium 4 "Prescott" 2.8GHz = 135.13
AMD Athlon "Barton" XP3200+ = 135.07


Second comparison:
Intel Pentium 4 "Prescott" 3.6GHz = 468.82
AMD Athlon 64 3800 (Socket 939) = 467.06

Which is best value for money?
__________________
Asus A7N8X Deluxe - Rev 2.0 - Bios Ver. 1007
AMD Athlon XP-M 2200+ - @ 11x188 = 2Ghz (1.75Vcore)
ATi Radeon 9700 Pro (Almost as good as my old 5950U!)
Corsair 512MB XMS TwinX Low Latency DDR 400 - @ 188Mhz
3dmark03 Score: 5086
CoMpUtaFrEek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2004, 08:50 PM   #8
Guru
 
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 13,293
Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn
Default Re: AMD proves it's simple better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoMpUtaFrEek
I'm going to take a new angle on things and I think it's quite an important one.

Value for money...

Lets look at things from a price view. (Prices exact taken from overclockers.com inc. VAT)

First comparison:
Intel Pentium 4 "Prescott" 2.8GHz = 135.13
AMD Athlon "Barton" XP3200+ = 135.07


Second comparison:
Intel Pentium 4 "Prescott" 3.6GHz = 468.82
AMD Athlon 64 3800 (Socket 939) = 467.06

Which is best value for money?
Is that an important angle? When you're buying a PC - seriously you should have saved up for it and get only what you want - what you want is power and if you've saved up you should have the money to choose Power over Price.

The Prescott (3.6) has a Meg Cache! The Athlon 64 has 0.5? maybe less even. Not only that but the Prescott 3.6 is faster than the Athlon 3800 in most Application Tests anyway. AMD stress that Ghz aren't everything - then people backing them try and take that same attack on Intel? Bit weird eh?

The Prescott (2.8) is a powerful Prcoessor - the Athlon Barton is a dead processor - the line is dead. There are no more. The Prescott is newer will have twice the cache again and will be more powerful - the same argument applies as before - except saying the Athlon XP 3200 is better than the Intel Prescott 2.8 is completely stupid because the Prescott is a base-3.2 Processor - the technology started at 3.2 and the 2.8 is merely a back down of it for cheaper users. It is years newer than the technology the Athlon XP is based on.
__________________
A Knight is sworn to Honour. His heart knows only Virtue. His blade defends the helpless. His might upholds the Weak. His word speaks only truth. His wrath undoes the Wicked.
Lord Kalthorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2004, 09:01 PM   #9
Fully Optimized
 
CoMpUtaFrEek's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,765
Default Re: AMD proves it's simple better.

Lord K you say the Prescotts are better than the athlon 64 range yet.. You use a 64 yourself? Why when..

AMD Athlon 64 3200: 166.85
Intel Pentium 4 "Prescott" 3.0GHz: 162.15

The Prescott is cheaper aswell lol. I'm not attacking or backing up AMD or Intel, I am keeping an open mind.
__________________
Asus A7N8X Deluxe - Rev 2.0 - Bios Ver. 1007
AMD Athlon XP-M 2200+ - @ 11x188 = 2Ghz (1.75Vcore)
ATi Radeon 9700 Pro (Almost as good as my old 5950U!)
Corsair 512MB XMS TwinX Low Latency DDR 400 - @ 188Mhz
3dmark03 Score: 5086
CoMpUtaFrEek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2004, 09:06 PM   #10
Guru
 
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 13,293
Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn
Default

Because its 64-bit. I intend to use it for Longhorn Betas late next year and I wanted to be sure I could run it even if its 64-bit based originally. If they had not had 64-bits I would have got a Prescott 3.2 for less than the price of my current Athlon 64 at the time. Hence why I have it.

I realise you were not casting judgement now. I just felt that it needed to be backed up with opinion instead of being viewed at face value like you showed it for weak minds who think only of money view it and cast their own judgements.

What is the most powerful Processor on this Forum? Including for Applications and Programs? Its Gibants isn't it? What is Gibant's Processor?
__________________

__________________
A Knight is sworn to Honour. His heart knows only Virtue. His blade defends the helpless. His might upholds the Weak. His word speaks only truth. His wrath undoes the Wicked.
Lord Kalthorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0