hey guys, stop fighting. i have the solution for you all. Buy a Mac and then go shoot yourself
look @ didou's video......things have changed. and, alex, go ahead and buy a mac,..... and i'll shoot you.
No, you all just have to stop fighting it!
You will feel so much better when you have given in. I did.
To anyone who thinks an AMD 3333 is the same as an Intel 3.3 GHz machine - think again! Its not.
Hey Phant, how much did they pay you for that preachery ?
i'm getting that warm and fuzzy feeling.
No one said it was.
Even Intel is moving away from the Ghz naming scheme. It's not an issue.
Oh man, I love this site. Its great fun!
As I said... To anyone who thinks an AMD 3333 is the same as an Intel 3.3 GHz machine - think again! Its not.
Anyone got any contrary evidence?
If you pick out two chips, one from AMD and one from Intel, and they are supposed to be on par with each other, then I guarantee that the Intel one will serve you better.
how about that.
I'd just like to point out that AnandTech don't know what they are doing when it comes to testing heat dissapation. Temperature is not the best thing to measure as it doesn't give accurate results as to how much heat is generated. We all know you can burn your fingers on a lighted match, but it won't heat up your home as well as a radiator. The only thing that matters is power consumption, as that will all eventually end up as heat (basic physics). It's true that P4s are better than Athlon XPs (though not when comparing same priced components). The Athlon 64 is an entirely different beast and is currently the one to beat.
Besides I suppose you drive a BMW instead of a Ford, do you P66? Fact is what some regard as the best might not always suit your needs, and doesn't always perform the best. I would certainly consider buying Intel again, when they offer me the best bang for my buck. Price does matter, otherwise we'd all be buying high-end PCs everytime we were shopping for a new toy.
I run my AMD machines (all overclocked to 2.3GHz from 1.9GHz default) 24/7 and never had any problems whatsoever (2 years now). PCs are disposable. When they are no longer able to run the latest software, then its time to retire them. Why waste money on them believing that the quality is any better because of the cost? It does not compute :=).
Besides, we know you are just trying to get some heated discussion going, as you are already familiar with the ins and outs of Intel vs AMD. Buy whatever makes you feel good, as that is what really matters at the end of the day.
Pick up an AMD and an Intel chip at the same price range. I guarantee that you can't make such a blanket statement then.
fun discussion, though, you have to have an open mind.
Yes, yes.. I'm sure we all know that a heated discussion is what phant wanted. I am an AMD fan, mostly because of cost. I am not trying to prove that AMD is better, just that Intel is not. There is a difference.
Of course you buy based on your needs. And for a disposable machine - a cheap computer for the kids or a cheap linux box, I might think about an AMD there to keep costs down.
Intel chips don't just offer better performance - they offer better stability. And that IS worth paying more. Its got nothing to do with the BMW vs Ford argument about thinking something is better because its more expensive. Its better because its better. That is what I am saying and no one has convinced me otherwise so far. No one has even really tried.
True, if you compare Intel vs AMD based on price, then you probably do get a faster AMD chip. But those chips are cheaper for a reason. They are cheaper because they are of inferior quality. I defy anyone to buy and use a new Intel platform and a new AMD platform properly and then disagree.
For all of you saying I am wrong... Do you actually own a new AMD, AS WELL AS a new Intel? I do and the Intel kicks seriously more ***. Apart from that, the rest of the system specs are fairly identical.
an apple and an orange
you'll get no proof from me. faith is a funny thing. lemmings are unique creatures, some people are contrarians, all facts of life.
I don't know why you were having stability problems w/ AMD, but my computer is quite stable. I believe that most of the early AMD stability problems were caused form the motherboards. With Asus, Abit and the other big names making AMD boards, it isn't a problem anymore. Yes explorer crashes, but that is Microsoft's problem, not AMD's.
I pass prime95 and that is stable enough for me.
You see!? That's all the evidence you people have against what I am saying... The words of half-wits and fools
No one can disprove that I am saying... Intel is better and I bet you are dreaming about that next Intel based system now. I don't expect you to admit it, but its true.
I use a 2400+ at home and a 2.6 Intel P4 at work. I absolutely see no difference whatsoever.
But, do you use that work machine and home machine FOR EXACTLY THE SAME TASKS?
You do put every same test to that Intel at work that you put that AMD to at home? I doubt it.
I tell you, I have 2 machines, one is AMD and one is Intel. As far as technological advances go, they came out at the same time (both bought 6 months ago.)
I have retired the AMD box as a multimedia server for video captue and playback to TV, the Intel machine is where everything happens. The Intel just beats it in a way you just can't deny.
My main development machine at work is a 2.8GHz Intel, but I run Athlon XP at home. I certtainly haven't noticed the Intel machine being better. Are you comparing like with like (i.e. similar spec chipsets, memory, hard drives and other components? If you are saying that your brand new Intel computer is faster/better than your old AMD computer then that isn't any surprise. Personally, if you go AMD, then you need to get an nForce chipset, because the old via chipsets were budget components, and those buying AMD on price, would often end up with other budget components thrown in. Its no surprise that things aren't as smooth running as you'd like them to be.
Quality does cost money, and there is only so much you can save when putting together a new computer. You'll always end up paying for it later. If I had to choose between a new Athlon XP and a new P4 (for same money) then I'd choose Intel. If I had to choose between a new P4 and a new AMD64, then I'd choose AMD64. I'd also buy the best mainboard and other components available, and eat your Intel system for breakfast.
You only have to look at the way Intel is now trying to copy AMD to realise that they made some seriously bad choices in the last couple of years and are now playing catch-up.
But you can't prove what you are saying either! Just because there are less crashes... that could be any number of things.
P.S. for proof about the motherboard thing my friend can vouch for that. He bought the cheapest mobo for his 1700 he could find and was very unstable. he then got a shuttle mobo (still cheap, but a great improvement) and now has it overclocket to 2600 speeds and much more stable besides.
what i really like
is how phant phans the phlames. if we had eons to diffuse each other's claims, it might not be enough. i see this thread as simply "my house will still be standing in a forest fire and yours won't" *didou, could you rustle up a full documentary for phant?
As I said in my above post, both machines I have (one Intel, one AMD) had their mainboards, memory, chips and graphics cards replaced at roughly the same time.
The Intel one is superior.
from your two machines
the intel one is better. now, i see.
I am just, as a computer enthusiast, giving evidence to my claims, backed up with practical experience.
This is not the sole point of my argument. Far from it.
and, i, for one
appreciate that. thank you for you comments and experience regarding this issue.