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


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-23-2004, 01:54 PM   #31
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Computer Build

Again LK you are wrong. I only posted that source to prove on thing. Everyone knows Tomshardware's particular slants. I can't stand a moron. Especially when he does moronic things.
__________________

Giancarlo is offline  
Old 10-23-2004, 01:54 PM   #32
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Computer Build

Quote:
Originally Posted by TibsBeatAll
ohhhhh.... SHOT DOWN.. lol. u guys gotta stop bitching at each other and just leave it at that, unless of course there is one of you out there that actually has both processors and can compare fairly.

oh and to airiox, of course ur bloody x800 pro beats a 6800 non-u. over 100 dollar difference. A fair comparison would be to compare it to a 6800 GT.

or even better. compare it to the evga limited edition one i mentioned before. Now we will see which card is better. and u had an XFX 6800?? I hear a LOT of complains about the xfx's. They just don't make them with quality parts.

oh by the way, how's the x800 pro performing compared to ur card. any benchies, tests, etc. i'm curious as to how much the x800 beats it.


and LK, airiox, or whoever the hell is moderating this, take the argument to another thread please, what you are arguing about has very little, or no relevance to what the thread starter wanted to know.

pc out mi chicos.
Get off the drugs.
__________________

Giancarlo is offline  
Old 10-23-2004, 01:57 PM   #33
Guru
 
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 13,293
Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn
Default

Lol; erm... lets blame Giancarlo!

Nah; we did go a little off the subject - not that the Thread Starter seems to mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
Again LK you are wrong. I only posted that source to prove on thing. Everyone knows Tomshardware's particular slants. I can't stand a moron. Especially when he does moronic things.
So I suppose they chose the tests Intel win? If they did that - why not make it so Intel wins outright? And why put in some Intel only just wins? It would be a waste of time. I suppose you can find benchmarks where AMD Win Performance Tests outright? because I can't, seriously. Even on the Futuremark PCMark 04 Test Results Page - the top 6 are all Intels!

I wouldn't mind an actual answer to the benchmarks though - they were pretty thorough and to the point. I think secretly you like Intel; otherwise why would you have said Intel is crap - and posted proof its brilliant?
__________________
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  
Old 10-23-2004, 01:58 PM   #34
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Computer Build

I'll give you some of it.. but the price again... I clearly label this my victory.

I think secretly you are a moron but it clearly shows. Your stupidity is shining.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004...n-fx53-31.html

"The Athlon64 FX clearly beats its archrival's processors in most of our benchmarks. The Intel processors all collect points, in some cases dramatically, in speed-sensitive applications such as rendering or audio and video compression, and with applications optimized for HyperThreading. However, as soon as 3D applications and games are run, FX steamrolls ahead. That must be annoying for Intel, since the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition is targeted for these applications.

Compared to $999 for the 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, the $733 price tag for the Athlon64 FX-53, represents a great value, especially in consideration of the performance differences between the two processors. Indeed, the FX is a whopping 35% cheaper than the P4 Extreme Edition. The processor supports the AMD-backed Cool & Quiet to reduce dissipation and fan noise during idle or partial-load phases, and, together with the Service Pack 2 for WindowsXP, offers more security. Overclocking is built-in. "
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 10-23-2004, 02:02 PM   #35
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Computer Build

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn
So I suppose they chose the tests Intel win? If they did that - why not make it so Intel wins outright? And why put in some Intel only just wins? It would be a waste of time. I suppose you can find benchmarks where AMD Win Performance Tests outright? because I can't, seriously. Even on the Futuremark PCMark 04 Test Results Page - the top 6 are all Intels!

I wouldn't mind an actual answer to the benchmarks though - they were pretty thorough and to the point. I think secretly you like Intel; otherwise why would you have said Intel is crap - and posted proof its brilliant?
A source from Tomshardware concedes that AMD beats Intel in most of their benchmarks. I don't know why they were choosing benchmarks where the Intel beats AMD outright. It is like what Apple does with its G5. We all know it does very well in a few multimedia tests and you can make it look like Apple is the fastest in the world. But in reality if you look at everything it isn't. Now get off the drugs, and read all the tests especially on my second source which clearly shows that AMD is the victor in 75-80% of the tests.

Intel is crap. I think you're a moron.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 10-23-2004, 02:07 PM   #36
Guru
 
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 13,293
Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn
Default Re: Computer Build

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
I'll give you some of it.. but the price again... I clearly label this my victory.

I think secretly you are a moron but it clearly shows. Your stupidity is shining.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004...n-fx53-31.html

"The Athlon64 FX clearly beats its archrival's processors in most of our benchmarks. The Intel processors all collect points, in some cases dramatically, in speed-sensitive applications such as rendering or audio and video compression, and with applications optimized for HyperThreading. However, as soon as 3D applications and games are run, FX steamrolls ahead. That must be annoying for Intel, since the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition is targeted for these applications.

Compared to $999 for the 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, the $733 price tag for the Athlon64 FX-53, represents a great value, especially in consideration of the performance differences between the two processors. Indeed, the FX is a whopping 35% cheaper than the P4 Extreme Edition. The processor supports the AMD-backed Cool & Quiet to reduce dissipation and fan noise during idle or partial-load phases, and, together with the Service Pack 2 for WindowsXP, offers more security. Overclocking is built-in. "
You are putting up benchmarks to support AMD with Overclocked Processors against normal Processors! Thats crazy! How can you possibly think that is a fair comparison. You can overclock Intels - as Gibant and Geforceboy will tell you if you don't believe me - far better and higher than you can AMDs. An Extreme Edition will go even higher than most because of huge power, Cache, and its Brute Strength! To make it fair you'd have to compare that FX 2.6Ghz to an EE at 4.2 or 4.4! Which do you think would win in that situation?

I didn't think we were talking about Price - but the simple fact the EE will last for 5 years more - yes at 32-bit but it will - than the AMD; is available for Overclocking to 4-5Ghz with new and cheaper Cooling Methods that will popup in the future; and is simply faster and more powerful as your benchmarks state. I would say its worth $200 more.
__________________
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  
Old 10-23-2004, 02:10 PM   #37
Golden Master
 
athlon64fx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,153
Send a message via MSN to athlon64fx
Default Re: Computer Build

just let people decide on their own which processor to get. benchmarks are better than bitching. there!!!!
athlon64fx is offline  
Old 10-23-2004, 02:11 PM   #38
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Computer Build

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn
You are putting up benchmarks to support AMD with Overclocked Processors against normal Processors! Thats crazy! How can you possibly think that is a fair comparison. You can overclock Intels - as Gibant and Geforceboy will tell you if you don't believe me - far better and higher than you can AMDs. An Extreme Edition will go even higher than most because of huge power, Cache, and its Brute Strength! To make it fair you'd have to compare that FX 2.6Ghz to an EE at 4.2 or 4.4! Which do you think would win in that situation?

I didn't think we were talking about Price - but the simple fact the EE will last for 5 years more - yes at 32-bit but it will - than the AMD; is available for Overclocking to 4-5Ghz with new and cheaper Cooling Methods that will popup in the future; and is simply faster and more powerful as your benchmarks state. I would say its worth $200 more.
Again this is a clear lie. If you want to do unfair comparsions of an overclocked EE at 4.2 to 4.4GHz against a 2.6GHz machine, then you have problems. These CPUs may have overclocking. Again you are acting like a moron. It is said that the AMD has taken the crown again in sheer strength, and power. You again wrong. We all know MHz doesn't mean much anymore. Furthermore, with the encore of 64-bit computing, the AMD will have a much longer shelf life and has a lot of undiscovered potential. I think the AMD is underperforming in a few tests because its 64-bit code has not been realized to its fullest potential. The EE is a piece of crap and avoid it all costs. It has a short shelf life and will die out when the 64-bit operating systems get released. If you want to be prepared for the future, and want a CPU that clearly beats the EE in 75-80% of tests right now, stick with the AMD. You again LK, are on prozac or some kind of other drug that inhibits you from thinking properly. I would simply say you're a liar. You are just like G5 fan boys... you say to people to blow a bunch of money on a product that isn't worth a damn.

Edit: They were slightly overclocked, but not by much.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 10-23-2004, 02:13 PM   #39
Guru
 
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 13,293
Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn
Default Re: Computer Build

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
A source from Tomshardware concedes that AMD beats Intel in most of their benchmarks. I don't know why they were choosing benchmarks where the Intel beats AMD outright. It is like what Apple does with its G5. We all know it does very well in a few multimedia tests and you can make it look like Apple is the fastest in the world. But in reality if you look at everything it isn't. Now get off the drugs, and read all the tests especially on my second source which clearly shows that AMD is the victor in 75-80% of the tests.

Intel is crap. I think you're a moron.
Your second benchmark load is just as crazy. Even if we count out the Overclocked AMD (which is still beaten in a suprising even to me number of tests); the only AMD beating the EE is the bloody FX-53! An FX-53 working at 2.4 Ghz. That is what in AMD Numerals? At least 4000+ if not more - and still on a surprising number of tests it is beaten.
__________________
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  
Old 10-23-2004, 02:15 PM   #40
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Computer Build

You again are being stupid. The FX-53 works at 2.4GHz. To say it being overclocked to 2.6GHz is huge clearly shows you know nothing about computers. I'm comparing the two high end CPUs. Now it would be unfair to compare different market intended CPUs with the upper range CPU. You're what I call a selective idiot.

The FX-53 wins in 75-80% of tests.
__________________

Giancarlo is offline  
Closed Thread

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 09:23 PM.


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