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 01-16-2005, 02:07 PM   #71
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: FX-55 or P4

I love it here. It is a beautiful country... I'm hoping the new PSU will be of good service to me and never will I underestimate the power I need like I did once.. and regretted the consquences.
__________________

Giancarlo is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 02:13 PM   #72
BSOD
 
DarkBlade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,355
Send a message via MSN to DarkBlade
Default Re: FX-55 or P4

Yeah, I did that once also... Sucks... I always get more then I need. I could be using a 350watt for my current setup, but I have a 500 instead... LMAO!!
__________________

DarkBlade is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 02:19 PM   #73
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: FX-55 or P4

I'm probably overestimating the power requirements.. 580 watts for my setup.. hahah... I was not satisified with 420 watts...
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 02:25 PM   #74
Guru
 
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 13,293
Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn
Default Re: FX-55 or P4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
This is utter bullshit. YOu need to learn the facts before you speak. Intel is garbage. The best thing intel users can do is dump their crap in the garbage can.

YOu're a moron for making these anti-american, anti-western statements. Go join al qaeda. you're a fool.

No, got it won't again wrong. Idiot.

Again you don't know what you are talking about. As AMD is better. L1 cache in an intel is shit. It is below and crap. 32-bit sucks. And you suck. You don't know what you are talking about.

NO they aren't. The massive moron speaks wrongly again. Intel market share losses date back to the XP series. Again you are wrong and dumb. You just don't know what you are talking about. AMD 64s are making huge progress, and Intel will not be able to recover. again you should recover from your stupidities and delusions.
This was.. well... a bit lacking You're supposed to be trying to make a point - not throw down insults. What would you politics teacher say?

I can only say that Intel Processors have been overclocked to 5Ghz, 6Ghz and higher from what I have been told. Certainly 5Ghz; that, in no uncertain terms is better than any AMD has got to even with the difference in Ghz. If you don't think that constitutes as better for Overclocking then you obviously have a different definition of what is better for Overclocking.

Al Qaeda have different views from mine. The Anti-Capitalist standpoint is one many different groups take up - and Al Qaeda are Religious Right Wing Extremists - I am a Democratic Extremist.

'The will be a great year for Intel is not the point of the point - the point was that it refered to the release of the Dual Processor Cores in 2005. They would have to be a good deal behind; which they won't, to not release this year. I suppose we shall see though...'
There is nothing wrong in that at all? They will have to be a good deal behind, is right whether you like Intel or not. The roundup of the point I was directing to in the statement was right whether you like Intel or not. The only bit that was opinion was the which they won't bit - which was right whether you like Intel or not becuase I put we shall see. I will happily agree they were late - if they don't release in 2005 - but they will.

Haha, there was a lot of sucking in that. L1 Cache in Intel is Crap; I have only looking into Cache Levels in these few days so beforehand I did not know beyond the stats I have been told. 32-bit is most of the stuff you are using - in fact everything you are doing now I am quite sure is 32-bit.

Intel not being able to recover is an opinion - I thought you were against opinions or is this one of those brilliant opinions of Giancarlo which is always correct and factual?
__________________
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 01-16-2005, 02:30 PM   #75
BSOD
 
DarkBlade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,355
Send a message via MSN to DarkBlade
Default Re: FX-55 or P4

Um, LK, sure they have been clocked a 5GHz, but they only operate and mark in the BIOS. That speed doesn't start Windows, I can tell you that... As far as operating speeds go, I think 4.2 is the highest OPERATIONAL speed anyone has ever reached, so 5-6 doesnt even count, that is just so the processor can post, that is all...
DarkBlade is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 02:39 PM   #76
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: FX-55 or P4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn
This was.. well... a bit lacking You're supposed to be trying to make a point - not throw down insults. What would you politics teacher say?
I don't have a politics teacher. Nice try really. You should come to reality for a change instead of being a complete fool. Thanks.

Quote:
I can only say that Intel Processors have been overclocked to 5Ghz, 6Ghz and higher from what I have been told. Certainly 5Ghz; that, in no uncertain terms is better than any AMD has got to even with the difference in Ghz. If you don't think that constitutes as better for Overclocking then you obviously have a different definition of what is better for Overclocking.
Overstatements. Intel has never been overclocked that high from what I know. AMD is faster because it is based on 64-bit architecture and newer technology, unique to AMD. You are just acting stupid and playing stupid. And since my AMD Athlon 3000+ (OCed to 3200+ levels) can perform better then a 3.2GHz P4 there should be some reason of concern for you deluded intel users.

Quote:
Al Qaeda have different views from mine. The Anti-Capitalist standpoint is one many different groups take up - and Al Qaeda are Religious Right Wing Extremists - I am a Democratic Extremist.
Anti-capitalist? How can anybody anti-capitalist? Get off the damn computer if you are a anti-capitalist and go live in a cave. If not, you're a plain @$$ hypocrite. And you aren't a democratic extremist. You don't believe in capitalism, therefore you don't believe in democracy.

Quote:
There is nothing wrong in that at all? They will have to be a good deal behind, is right whether you like Intel or not. The roundup of the point I was directing to in the statement was right whether you like Intel or not. The only bit that was opinion was the which they won't bit - which was right whether you like Intel or not becuase I put we shall see. I will happily agree they were late - if they don't release in 2005 - but they will.
Intel is behind in market terms and most investors and market speculators such as myself take it as that. I do not see great potential in Intel in this year and do not see any recovery in the immediate future. As far as I'm concerned, you will continue making deluded statements and Intel will continue to follow a highly ill-informed market strategy. What is at stake here is this: Who is better? AMD is definitely better and will retain that title in 2005 and beyond.

Quote:
Haha, there was a lot of sucking in that. L1 Cache in Intel is Crap; I have only looking into Cache Levels in these few days so beforehand I did not know beyond the stats I have been told. 32-bit is most of the stuff you are using - in fact everything you are doing now I am quite sure is 32-bit.
Yes most of the stuff is 32-bit. However since AMD 64s can perform better at typical operations including integers, Intel is quite screwed.

Quote:
Intel not being able to recover is an opinion - I thought you were against opinions or is this one of those brilliant opinions of Giancarlo which is always correct and factual?
It isn't an opinion, it is fact. You're a moron as usual.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 02:41 PM   #77
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: FX-55 or P4

And how an anti-capitalist can be so pro-microsoft is beyond me.. seriously, LK you are screwed up and so are your beliefs.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 02:43 PM   #78
BSOD
 
DarkBlade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,355
Send a message via MSN to DarkBlade
Default Re: FX-55 or P4

Gian, P4s have been pushed that high (6.3GHz) but they only post in the BIOS, meaning that is a completely useless OC (it won't run any programs or OS's)
DarkBlade is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 02:47 PM   #79
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: FX-55 or P4

Okay correction noted. But that must put a lot of strain on the P4 EE as it is based on antiquated technology. And afterall, MHz doesn't mean much (as shown with my example of my own machine defeating a P4 3.2GHz).
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 02:55 PM   #80
Guru
 
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 13,293
Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn
Default Re: FX-55 or P4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
I don't have a politics teacher. Nice try really. You should come to reality for a change instead of being a complete fool. Thanks.
Haha; you're doing Politics at University? How don't you have a Politics Teacher to teach you University Politics?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
Overstatements. Intel has never been overclocked that high from what I know. AMD is faster because it is based on 64-bit architecture and newer technology, unique to AMD. You are just acting stupid and playing stupid. And since my AMD Athlon 3000+ (OCed to 3200+ levels) can perform better then a 3.2GHz P4 there should be some reason of concern for you deluded intel users.
Not really, an Overclocked AMD 3000+ to 3200+ levels is a 3200+, and as your performance levels are quite possibly based on Gaming Performace, I could have told you it would beat it. An real 3000+ however would not beat a 3.2 if that is the insinuation you are trying to make.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
Anti-capitalist? How can anybody anti-capitalist? Get off the damn computer if you are a anti-capitalist and go live in a cave. If not, you're a plain @$$ hypocrite. And you aren't a democratic extremist. You don't believe in capitalism, therefore you don't believe in democracy.
Why is Capitalism any part of Democracy? Democracy is simple freedoms to do things, speach, protest, education, that sort of stuff. Capitalism does not have to be there for people to have Democracy. In fact - it inhibits Democracy because it locks people into a Money grabbing deceit circle or corruption and evil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
Intel is behind in market terms and most investors and market speculators such as myself take it as that. I do not see great potential in Intel in this year and do not see any recovery in the immediate future. As far as I'm concerned, you will continue making deluded statements and Intel will continue to follow a highly ill-informed market strategy. What is at stake here is this: Who is better? AMD is definitely better and will retain that title in 2005 and beyond.
Its something that neither of us will agree on until this time 2006; then we will know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
Yes most of the stuff is 32-bit. However since AMD 64s can perform better at typical operations including integers, Intel is quite screwed.
Better, but not as good as it could with a 64-bit Operating System, a 64-bit Browser, a 64-bit Game, and so on. When Intel 64-bits are out; the Market will be ready for it and it will work better for the extra time they have had thinking about it. AMD jumped into 64-bit before it was worth it merely to get into a new market because they wanted to begin beating Intel. Whatever you say basically, before about September, maybe August 2003 there was no discussion largely about which Processor was superior. It was a commonly held knowledge - the only discourse about AMD was the better price. The AMD decision for 64-bits was stupid, I think, because it has put their Research two years behind what Intel will have in 64-bits; especially from the Itanium knowledge they've grown up with HP. Whether or whether not the Cache is below par; the 64-bit architecture helped greatly by HP's involvement in the design process will make the final Intel 64-bit Processors great.

You can say AMD64s are better than Intel P4 HTs; but for 32-bit chips the P4 HTs do brilliantly well. That isn't consilation in the amrket today - but if Intel 32-bit Chips still beat AMD 64-bit chips in 20, 30% of tests; the EE more; then how is there any doubt it your mind when Intel have 64-bit Processors that they could possibily be as bad against them? It is a technical impossibility for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
It isn't an opinion, it is fact. You're a moron as usual.
It is actually opinion - it cannot be fact until it has happened. Until you have a time machine stuck into one of the funky little sportscars you like and go forward to see the release then you will not know the fact.
__________________

__________________
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  
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 01:05 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