AMD proves it's simple better.

[CoMpUtaFrEek]

Ahhh, makes sense.

Yes Gibant has had experience with both the top-of-the-range Athlons and Pentiums and he says the Pentiums performance DESTROYS the Athlon. If I could really be bothered I'd buy a Pentium but it would mean:
New HSF
New Mobo
New Case

I really can't be bothered with all of that at the moment.

 

[airiox]

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.

Fine here are the benchmarks:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040601/socket_939-22.html
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040601/socket_939-20.html

Just look through that whole article. There are plenty of occassions that the intel processor gets beat in encoding and other such things.

 

[CoMpUtaFrEek]

They say the Athlon 64's come out on top. Read and weep Lordy!

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Fine here are the benchmarks:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040601/socket_939-22.html
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040601/socket_939-20.html

Just look through that whole article. There are plenty of occassions that the intel processor gets beat in encoding and other such things.

Basically - you're comparing a 64-bit with a 32-bit in encoding. I may have said it was better but in all basicness I'm quite drunk now so I'm not thinking straight.

Ok, we all know what a 64-bit chip consists of and the difference between it and a 32-bit Processor. Most programs cannot do anything with the 64-bit but Encoding is different. The 64-bit can handle Millions of Numbers More, I think its about a Billion times more numbers. Encoding uses numbers entirely and if a Processor can handle more numbers no matter how much less powerful it is it is going to be able to do that better.

Now - for a 32-bit Processor to be only a fraction of a second less than a 64-bit if completely brilliant. Its an insane thing to be able to do. Even seconds behind is damn good going. The AMD-FX-53 without the 64-bit extensions would take 10 to 20 seconds more time to do any of these encoding Programs. I'm amazed the Intel Beat it once. You can see the difference with the non-64-bit AMD Processors at the bottom, 20 seconds behind even its price alternative, let alone its basic alternative.

If you want encoding - the 64-bit is in there I must admit. At the moment that means AMD but to see a 32-bit practically equal a 64-bit in handling Numbers. Respect must be shown do you not agree? And the price difference between the Fx-53 and the HT EE is not actually that much

 

[CoMpUtaFrEek]

He's good. He's very good. Even when he's pissed.

 

[airiox]

Well unfortunately most programs dont use 64 bit technology so in these benchmarks the AMD 64 has to operate at a 32 bit level.

If you did use a windows xp 64 and a 64 bit compatiable program the intel p4 would get completely wasted.

And it does beat it more than just one time. I didn't want to run through all the benchmarks becaus their site is running slow, so I just gave you two.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Yeah - I saw the benchmarks. But again - most are simply because its 64-bit and in that case its still amazing Intel catches up at all in the numbers game.

But still - the Intels are more powerful for your money and will last a lot longer.

 

[Giancarlo]

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.

Intel is not. I'm sorry but I don't know if you ever heard of 64-bit.

 

[Dynamix]

Amd all the way for me.

 

[CoMpUtaFrEek]

Are 64 bit games a possibility? I'm really not sure of the complicated side of 64 bit technology.