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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Its not just quicker - its more Powerful! :D 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.
 
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?
 
CoMpUtaFrEek said:
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? :D

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 :D 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.
 
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.
 
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. :D

What is the most powerful Processor on this Forum? Including for Applications and Programs? :D Its Gibants isn't it? What is Gibant's Processor? ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom