BringinHeat
Posts: 139 +0
Oh for the record i dont promote cursing and i like jimshady's article's content minus the below the belt comment.
AMD or Intel
- Thread starter Secondgunman
- Start date
- Status
zephead
Posts: 1,554 +0
i agree. it depends on the application. intel has generally better performance, but perhaps it doesn't make a difference to the user. when i make new builds i recommend intels because they generally please and satisfy customers. amd systems often displease customers or fail.Vigilante said:
it is difficult to use benchmarks as a valid performance indicator because of the many variables involved. the last time i put some real stock into benchmarks is when everything ran off a socket 7 (pen-mmx, k-series, cyrix, idt). in said case you're looking at the exact same hardware, software, and settings for each cpu. and the pentium MMX was best in every area, btw.
hey i think what you are mostly overlooking is amd's strength,amd has a much better architecture than intels which untill recntly focused only on increasing clock speeds higher and higher as an answer, making there processor hotter and hotter leading up to presscott which is one of the hottest running processor on the market.they signifacantly increased the transistor count from the northwood and clocked the fsb even higher while adding 64 bit instruction to its 32 bit process calling it emt64.amd on the other hand had been an underdog it might have not had it huge advertising budget or the marketing campaign that intel did but it was a winner in the enthusiast circles and grew fast.with amd64 outon the market months before intel could wake from its slumber to notice that amd has already jumped to 64 bit so the little guy made haste while the giant slept.now with there new campaign of adding 64 bit instruction and pushing presscott core further seems late it atleast got them on there feet.
so what i am trying to say is forget the clock speeds,the bus speed and 64 bit performance and just compare the two equally matched intel and amd,amd will come out on top of intel in most of the applications except a few like video encoding which require better clock speeds to achieve higher rates.amd architecture is designed with better usage in mind overall instead of intels higher and higher clock speeds or recently bigger L2 caches(2 mb),so if you compare there price to power to uasge and features(amd with cool n quiet,3dnow,edb,64 bit ready and overall cooler operation than intels brute force high clock speeds,hyperthreading,800/1000mhz fsb,sse2/3)amd's future seems brighter.
so what i am trying to say is forget the clock speeds,the bus speed and 64 bit performance and just compare the two equally matched intel and amd,amd will come out on top of intel in most of the applications except a few like video encoding which require better clock speeds to achieve higher rates.amd architecture is designed with better usage in mind overall instead of intels higher and higher clock speeds or recently bigger L2 caches(2 mb),so if you compare there price to power to uasge and features(amd with cool n quiet,3dnow,edb,64 bit ready and overall cooler operation than intels brute force high clock speeds,hyperthreading,800/1000mhz fsb,sse2/3)amd's future seems brighter.
pizzada
Posts: 65 +0
Forgive me if I find this all a little amusing....First off, some of us may not be aware that Intel actually used AMD to make some of their very early 8086 chips, which ran at a whopping 8Mhz.
I had one of those, and it still runs. (my dad has it) It's over 20 years old. My brother had an Intel 8088, and it still runs. It, too, is over 20 years old.
And, believe it or not, both the AMD aaaand Intel name appeared on the very same processor; take a look: http://www.ox.compsoc.net/~swhite/history/8086.html
OK, so they both sell bazillions of chips, and neither one sells any chip that runs infinitely fast. (THAT would be a true advantage).
I would that there were 50 different chip manufacturers; obviously the competition (barring any pricing conspiracy), would keep cost down for all of us, and encourage better performace and quality all the way around. Wouldn't that be nice
?I would suppose that the actual engineers of either company don't become 'fanboys', holding some deep seeded grudge against the other. What would be the point?
They both sell millions of chips that usually last longer than the 'technology curve' would alow. In English, your CPU will be outdated looooong before it dies a natural death.
Pray God, find the best value for you, and get out of the house a little on sunny days....I think I'll go walk the dogs now,
Peace...
JimShady23
Posts: 360 +4
Between my post and pizzada's not much more to say....
Perfectly clear with that last post pizzada.....I dont have and machines as old as what you described but i do have a couple DX2 66 mhz machines laying around.....They work fine.....I also have a few k6 233 machines laying around also....The DX2 close to 15 years old and the k6 close to 10....They all work without a hitch.....caked up woth dust......not much you can do with them beides big word processors or maybe a decent mp3 station.
Yeah you said it all despite what you have now, no matter what it is its not going to be worth a snot in two years when you look at the big picture. At the rate of and quality games and programs are comming out at these days your 3.8 Intel Extreme or FX-55 in the long run maybe will give you a 5-6 month edge on an upgrade but you still got to do it.
Perfectly clear with that last post pizzada.....I dont have and machines as old as what you described but i do have a couple DX2 66 mhz machines laying around.....They work fine.....I also have a few k6 233 machines laying around also....The DX2 close to 15 years old and the k6 close to 10....They all work without a hitch.....caked up woth dust......not much you can do with them beides big word processors or maybe a decent mp3 station.
Yeah you said it all despite what you have now, no matter what it is its not going to be worth a snot in two years when you look at the big picture. At the rate of and quality games and programs are comming out at these days your 3.8 Intel Extreme or FX-55 in the long run maybe will give you a 5-6 month edge on an upgrade but you still got to do it.
Vigilante
Posts: 1,634 +0
Seems to me AMD spends a lot of time with innovation and creating new ways to get more performance out of a chip. While Intel can snap its fingers and give umpteen more MHz added to the same old chip.
Seems like, and I haven't followed the AMD/Intel race that closely, AMD comes out with something really cool that people like, Intel just quickly releases a new chip with higher MHz. Then totally goes after the marketing ploy "our numbers are bigger then your numbers." Such as the 800fsb which I don't really think makes any real difference compared with AMDs 400fsb. Not to say that they don't eventually release chips with major core changes, but at least, to answer AMDs call, that is all they can do. And it's only fair to say that AMD probably does the same thing too on occasion.
This raises the question of what CPU should I buy? Is the chip you get just a factory overclocked predecessor? Or a new chip?
I am under the impression that AMDs 3000+ Barton 400fsb is not a real release. As a retail package of it is scarce, and the 3000+ never started with a 400fsb OR being a true Barton. But started as a Sempron maybe? And AMD just factory overclocked it to 400fsb and sold it OEM? And this is how Newegg sells it, with 30 day warranty.
This would make me very cautious of buying an OEM 3000+ "Barton" versus spending the extra bucks to get a "true" Barton 400fsb in the 3200+ which was made for it. Thus I would NOT buy the 3000+ Barton. Though the 333fsb version is the true one, and would safe to get if your mobo doesn't have 400fsb.
I'm sure this kind of thing is done not only by chip makers, but video card makers as well. You just have to wonder which of Nvidia's cards and which of ATI's cards are just repackaged, overclocked versions of the previous chip?
It just goes to show you, do your research and be careful buying a product that was quickly released in answer to a competitors release.
Stick with the true-blue, tried and true.
Seems like, and I haven't followed the AMD/Intel race that closely, AMD comes out with something really cool that people like, Intel just quickly releases a new chip with higher MHz. Then totally goes after the marketing ploy "our numbers are bigger then your numbers." Such as the 800fsb which I don't really think makes any real difference compared with AMDs 400fsb. Not to say that they don't eventually release chips with major core changes, but at least, to answer AMDs call, that is all they can do. And it's only fair to say that AMD probably does the same thing too on occasion.
This raises the question of what CPU should I buy? Is the chip you get just a factory overclocked predecessor? Or a new chip?
I am under the impression that AMDs 3000+ Barton 400fsb is not a real release. As a retail package of it is scarce, and the 3000+ never started with a 400fsb OR being a true Barton. But started as a Sempron maybe? And AMD just factory overclocked it to 400fsb and sold it OEM? And this is how Newegg sells it, with 30 day warranty.
This would make me very cautious of buying an OEM 3000+ "Barton" versus spending the extra bucks to get a "true" Barton 400fsb in the 3200+ which was made for it. Thus I would NOT buy the 3000+ Barton. Though the 333fsb version is the true one, and would safe to get if your mobo doesn't have 400fsb.
I'm sure this kind of thing is done not only by chip makers, but video card makers as well. You just have to wonder which of Nvidia's cards and which of ATI's cards are just repackaged, overclocked versions of the previous chip?
It just goes to show you, do your research and be careful buying a product that was quickly released in answer to a competitors release.
Stick with the true-blue, tried and true.
zephead
Posts: 1,554 +0
if amd made a better product i'd have bought it.
not compared to intel. for example, intel had out of order execution and advanced branch prediction when amd was trying to figure out why thier k-5's burned up. (this goes back a while) intel has brought far more innovation, technological advancements, and performance to the x86 architecture than amd.Vigilante said:
BringinHeat
Posts: 139 +0
Not to be biased or anything this is just a link to support zephead's argument:
http://www.intel.com/standards/case/index.htm
Some of these things intel invented and some of these things intel contributed on inventing. For people that are lazy to click on the link PCI, USB, ETHERNET, IEEE 802.11 are some of the things listed on there. These are not processor related innovations but industry standards when it comes to computing. :wave:
http://www.intel.com/standards/case/index.htm
Some of these things intel invented and some of these things intel contributed on inventing. For people that are lazy to click on the link PCI, USB, ETHERNET, IEEE 802.11 are some of the things listed on there. These are not processor related innovations but industry standards when it comes to computing. :wave:
Vigilante
Posts: 1,634 +0
Yes, of course Intel has "contributed" and has been "involved" in creating standards. And they only succeed because there are dozens of other companies "contributing" and being "involved" in the process as well.
I remember when Intel thought they were cool and decided to invent things that were all their own, they bombed. It's only when you get a LOT of companies together and create OPEN standards that this stuff succeeds.
None of that matters anyway, it has little to do with processors.
I'm not saying Intel doesn't innovate THEIR OWN chips. But when was the last time they created something great that they freely let other companies use? And I'm sure there are a few cases where they have. In the PC world, there is NO rule that doesn't have an exception.
Intel is just a strong-arm, big and pushy company just like MS.
To be quite honest, I don't care to bash Intel, I've built a lot of both machines. But it's just one of those biased things, I simply don't like them.
"intel has brought far more innovation, technological advancements, and performance to the x86 architecture than amd."
Lol, not for lack of trying. With Intel's strong-arm tactics and bazillion copywrites, it's a wonder AMD was able to even MAKE a chip. Let alone make it compatible with all the crap Intel was putting out, and changing sockets practically for each new chip.
Just look at Socket 7, when other chip makers could actually make chips for them, AMD stuck with it until it was uterly not possible to get faster. While Intel abandoned it and tried to create new stuff other chip makers wouldn't be allowed to use, forcing AMD to create it's OWN socket.
There isn't a single Intel chip out there that doesn't have an AMD counter-part of the same core speed that can out-perform it on some things. Same goes true in reverse. So it's really a silly argument. I just plain don't like Intel. Same reason I don't like MS. Not because MS hasn't innovated a lot of crap. But what they do innovate is locked down and nobody else can use it or else your dead. Basically, strong-arm monopolizing.
But who cares. I think I've already said, get a CPU based on what you plan to do with it. Simple as that.
I remember when Intel thought they were cool and decided to invent things that were all their own, they bombed. It's only when you get a LOT of companies together and create OPEN standards that this stuff succeeds.
None of that matters anyway, it has little to do with processors.
I'm not saying Intel doesn't innovate THEIR OWN chips. But when was the last time they created something great that they freely let other companies use? And I'm sure there are a few cases where they have. In the PC world, there is NO rule that doesn't have an exception.
Intel is just a strong-arm, big and pushy company just like MS.
To be quite honest, I don't care to bash Intel, I've built a lot of both machines. But it's just one of those biased things, I simply don't like them.
"intel has brought far more innovation, technological advancements, and performance to the x86 architecture than amd."
Lol, not for lack of trying. With Intel's strong-arm tactics and bazillion copywrites, it's a wonder AMD was able to even MAKE a chip. Let alone make it compatible with all the crap Intel was putting out, and changing sockets practically for each new chip.
Just look at Socket 7, when other chip makers could actually make chips for them, AMD stuck with it until it was uterly not possible to get faster. While Intel abandoned it and tried to create new stuff other chip makers wouldn't be allowed to use, forcing AMD to create it's OWN socket.
There isn't a single Intel chip out there that doesn't have an AMD counter-part of the same core speed that can out-perform it on some things. Same goes true in reverse. So it's really a silly argument. I just plain don't like Intel. Same reason I don't like MS. Not because MS hasn't innovated a lot of crap. But what they do innovate is locked down and nobody else can use it or else your dead. Basically, strong-arm monopolizing.
But who cares. I think I've already said, get a CPU based on what you plan to do with it. Simple as that.
Vigilante
Posts: 1,634 +0
Good example zep, and no I'm not kidding! Don't be so naive. MMX was an Intel-only deal which AMD answered with it's 3DNow! instruction set. Intel didn't create that for the masses. Though I have no problems saying it was a cool technology.
ATX , though I haven't looked into it deeply, wasn't an Intel only thing anyway. That WAS created as a standard, which Microsoft had a hand in as well. Plus that form factor was simply adopted. There are a bunch other form factors out there, some still in use.
Anyways, again it's a silly topic and a silly argument. I can hate Intel, you can hate AMD, big deal.
I hate stupid flame war topics, some people thrive on them! Though this wasn't started as that, it'll become that if we're not careful! So I'm outta here, I won't be visiting this topic again.
Feel free to PM me if you have some cool technology history lessons you'd like me to read, I'd be glad to.
ciao
ATX , though I haven't looked into it deeply, wasn't an Intel only thing anyway. That WAS created as a standard, which Microsoft had a hand in as well. Plus that form factor was simply adopted. There are a bunch other form factors out there, some still in use.
Anyways, again it's a silly topic and a silly argument. I can hate Intel, you can hate AMD, big deal.
I hate stupid flame war topics, some people thrive on them! Though this wasn't started as that, it'll become that if we're not careful! So I'm outta here, I won't be visiting this topic again.
Feel free to PM me if you have some cool technology history lessons you'd like me to read, I'd be glad to.
ciao
HP and all oem computers dont use performance parts, they use basic boards and they are not made to be upgraded....
see these computer companies like hp and dell etc.....they dont want you to have high performance and they definately dont want you to be able to open your pc and just put a faster part in it...because then you have no reason to buy a new computer. so you cant compare a home built system to an oem system.
We have about 7 pc's running in my home right now and everyone built by us with the majority of them being performance parts except for my laptop.
Each AMD system we have out perform the intel systems we have, also they run much cooler even when over clocked, besides being easier to over clock.
as far as a good 939 pin board out right now for the amd 64's Look into MSI's K8N neo4 platinum if your interested in PCI-e, if you need AGp slot. the Neo2 is kicking some #%$ among the competition.
The top three boards right now for the 939 pin is msi, abit and asus in that order. with DFI coming in somewhere.....
I personally would never own an asus, no matter how many people swear by their performance. I know of many computer stores that have waited six months or longer for replacement boards from asus, and their customer service just isnt their.
see these computer companies like hp and dell etc.....they dont want you to have high performance and they definately dont want you to be able to open your pc and just put a faster part in it...because then you have no reason to buy a new computer. so you cant compare a home built system to an oem system.
We have about 7 pc's running in my home right now and everyone built by us with the majority of them being performance parts except for my laptop.
Each AMD system we have out perform the intel systems we have, also they run much cooler even when over clocked, besides being easier to over clock.
as far as a good 939 pin board out right now for the amd 64's Look into MSI's K8N neo4 platinum if your interested in PCI-e, if you need AGp slot. the Neo2 is kicking some #%$ among the competition.
The top three boards right now for the 939 pin is msi, abit and asus in that order. with DFI coming in somewhere.....
I personally would never own an asus, no matter how many people swear by their performance. I know of many computer stores that have waited six months or longer for replacement boards from asus, and their customer service just isnt their.
JimShady23
Posts: 360 +4
Again Pride......
Like I said in my previous posts "what you have is always going to be better than the next guy" just like ford vs chevy, peanut butter vs jelly, freddy vs jason....somone is always going to have a side......Know what I reccomend ? If you have the extra cash (wich most of you buying P4 3.8's And FX-55 chips do)
Build 2 systems, one of each......same specs same exstimated performance, same memory similar motherboard video ect....Dont have to be nothing lavish just somthing to get a feel for each type of CPU. Use each for a month then make a statment on either or, then ebay the lesser machine or sell it somone always needs a PC.....Basically these people bitching on here about amd and intel have probably have had only one or the other. Or maybe had a bad experience with one years ago and are now swear by the other. I think that maybe you should take advice from the people on here that have multiple systems in their home based off both platforms....Almost always they agree AMD out performs their intel systems....Atleast they are open enough to give both platforms a try and I can garuntee their opinions arnt bios because of that. Try it for yourself before saying your brand is better just cause its what you have !!!! And again like I said in previous posts, maybe your needs are not the next guys needs. Just to let you know I dabble in both feilds I prefer AmD because I game and time and time again guys with similar intel systems just dont get the frame rates that I do with my AMD system plain and simple.....But I just ordered a Intel P4 3.2 because I do a lot of video converting and I know Intel is better for that. If you want me to post some benchmarks against my AmD system when I get the Intel put togeather I will gladly do so..........
Like I said in my previous posts "what you have is always going to be better than the next guy" just like ford vs chevy, peanut butter vs jelly, freddy vs jason....somone is always going to have a side......Know what I reccomend ? If you have the extra cash (wich most of you buying P4 3.8's And FX-55 chips do)
Build 2 systems, one of each......same specs same exstimated performance, same memory similar motherboard video ect....Dont have to be nothing lavish just somthing to get a feel for each type of CPU. Use each for a month then make a statment on either or, then ebay the lesser machine or sell it somone always needs a PC.....Basically these people bitching on here about amd and intel have probably have had only one or the other. Or maybe had a bad experience with one years ago and are now swear by the other. I think that maybe you should take advice from the people on here that have multiple systems in their home based off both platforms....Almost always they agree AMD out performs their intel systems....Atleast they are open enough to give both platforms a try and I can garuntee their opinions arnt bios because of that. Try it for yourself before saying your brand is better just cause its what you have !!!! And again like I said in previous posts, maybe your needs are not the next guys needs. Just to let you know I dabble in both feilds I prefer AmD because I game and time and time again guys with similar intel systems just dont get the frame rates that I do with my AMD system plain and simple.....But I just ordered a Intel P4 3.2 because I do a lot of video converting and I know Intel is better for that. If you want me to post some benchmarks against my AmD system when I get the Intel put togeather I will gladly do so..........
Secondgunman
Posts: 90 +0
AMD all the way and the reason
I say AMD all the way and here is the reasons: People are that look at the "P rating" of a chip are fooled. This is why: this is a "rating of preformance in relation to what a chip can do" eg. a 3500 is a "P rating" of 3.5 Ghz the chip only runs at 2.2 Ghz but will do the aproimate job as a 3.5, in most cases it does more in some cases a little less. Intels overall are better for top end media coding but on less you are going to be coding a high end million dallor blockbuster movie or mastering Lord forbid Elton John's new CD there is no need for the added cost of the Intel based CPU for even coding.
If you get VM ware and run Mac O/S X video and sound apps on an AMD built Rig you will have better product then using anything Intel builds, rember Macs Use RISC CPUs. I have done this on my 3500 and it smokes my P4 for this kind of coding. Draw back you will need alot more Ram then with a P4 in the end you still pay less on the system to go AMD.
The new AMDs seem to run cooler then Intel and anyone that says the speed is the only thing that counts in the preformance of a computer I invite them to bring it on, I will go head to head with any CPU that works at or around 2.2 Ghz to prove that wrong.
Though I do own Intel at this time the cost to the benifit they give is not justifable to the cost in anyway. I am not Slamming Intel in anyway I am just saying at this time the need to realy thing about their role in life and the way they will get their. On-top of that If every one did buy Intel they the world may just blow-up...or at least the the computer world. :hotbounce :dead:
I say AMD all the way and here is the reasons: People are that look at the "P rating" of a chip are fooled. This is why: this is a "rating of preformance in relation to what a chip can do" eg. a 3500 is a "P rating" of 3.5 Ghz the chip only runs at 2.2 Ghz but will do the aproimate job as a 3.5, in most cases it does more in some cases a little less. Intels overall are better for top end media coding but on less you are going to be coding a high end million dallor blockbuster movie or mastering Lord forbid Elton John's new CD there is no need for the added cost of the Intel based CPU for even coding.
If you get VM ware and run Mac O/S X video and sound apps on an AMD built Rig you will have better product then using anything Intel builds, rember Macs Use RISC CPUs. I have done this on my 3500 and it smokes my P4 for this kind of coding. Draw back you will need alot more Ram then with a P4 in the end you still pay less on the system to go AMD.
The new AMDs seem to run cooler then Intel and anyone that says the speed is the only thing that counts in the preformance of a computer I invite them to bring it on, I will go head to head with any CPU that works at or around 2.2 Ghz to prove that wrong.
Though I do own Intel at this time the cost to the benifit they give is not justifable to the cost in anyway. I am not Slamming Intel in anyway I am just saying at this time the need to realy thing about their role in life and the way they will get their. On-top of that If every one did buy Intel they the world may just blow-up...or at least the the computer world. :hotbounce :dead:
Secondgunman
Posts: 90 +0
Yes there is something a mist.
I have beeen told by a tech at Compaq/HP that AMD gives flat rate discounts on large unit sales eg. 10% off 1000 12% off 2000 and so-on they don't care if you also sell Intel; Intel will give smaller discounts if you sale AMD and in some cases make you pay retail even from them, unless you use only their chips. Now I have run my own company for a few years and if my supliers pulled something like that on me I would never even think about using their products, well aside for Coke, but they have even changed that.
I have beeen told by a tech at Compaq/HP that AMD gives flat rate discounts on large unit sales eg. 10% off 1000 12% off 2000 and so-on they don't care if you also sell Intel; Intel will give smaller discounts if you sale AMD and in some cases make you pay retail even from them, unless you use only their chips. Now I have run my own company for a few years and if my supliers pulled something like that on me I would never even think about using their products, well aside for Coke, but they have even changed that.
EvilFallenAngel
Posts: 12 +0
couple years ago when P4 has just came out I decided to get it, I think it was a 1.7 or so, well it was good for games I used to play back then, but with current games and applications it doesnt match to my amd2600 barton core it may be slower FSB333 vs 400 but it works great, much better than my P4, I got lucky my mother in law got a laptop and gave me the barton I had build for her. I used to like Intel, but I dont know anymore.
AMD=4=LIFE
Evil
:evil:
:darth:
AMD=4=LIFE
Evil
:evil:
:darth:
Secondgunman
Posts: 90 +0
Home built / OEMs
Unless you use the lowest grade part there is out there a home built system will always kick an oem hands down and to compare a tower to a laptop even if the laptop has a tower based cpu is like a 20 year old scrapping a 9 year old it should never be done and if AMD are so poor compared to Intel why are more and more computer companies building with AMD. Aser is almost all AMD; HP and EVEN DELL are using them now. 63% of China, Japan, Korea, Germany and Russia's computer sold this past year are now AMD. I works like this; with more demand needed out of a computer the real industry wants a CPU that will do more work per clock rate at a lower temp, using less power supply wattage. Intel has fallen behind in this and their feable attempt to fix this AKA is the BTX form factor case that has been out for about 3 1/2 years now and has made Intel, the point of meny jokes. such as "How does Intel save power?" A: "They use more." If you worked in top-end security ( that I have been for about 8 years or a real computer sepecialist you would LOL at it). Intel is a Joke in my comunity they build a CPU that needs more and more power changing their sockets everytime costing more and more money, never thinking about the fact that soon you will need a 550 watt outlet to run their systems with God knows what for a power supply. I can build an AMD top-end sever for about 2/3s of a mid range Intel and it will hold it's own with the Intell top-end severs. You as an I.T. tech owe your employer the lower cost server, and it is up to you to tell them not to toss their money away on the Intel. and this is the very reason the worlds best servers are AMD not Intel.
I do thing Intel has thier place but thay realy need to shape up.
Unless you use the lowest grade part there is out there a home built system will always kick an oem hands down and to compare a tower to a laptop even if the laptop has a tower based cpu is like a 20 year old scrapping a 9 year old it should never be done and if AMD are so poor compared to Intel why are more and more computer companies building with AMD. Aser is almost all AMD; HP and EVEN DELL are using them now. 63% of China, Japan, Korea, Germany and Russia's computer sold this past year are now AMD. I works like this; with more demand needed out of a computer the real industry wants a CPU that will do more work per clock rate at a lower temp, using less power supply wattage. Intel has fallen behind in this and their feable attempt to fix this AKA is the BTX form factor case that has been out for about 3 1/2 years now and has made Intel, the point of meny jokes. such as "How does Intel save power?" A: "They use more." If you worked in top-end security ( that I have been for about 8 years or a real computer sepecialist you would LOL at it). Intel is a Joke in my comunity they build a CPU that needs more and more power changing their sockets everytime costing more and more money, never thinking about the fact that soon you will need a 550 watt outlet to run their systems with God knows what for a power supply. I can build an AMD top-end sever for about 2/3s of a mid range Intel and it will hold it's own with the Intell top-end severs. You as an I.T. tech owe your employer the lower cost server, and it is up to you to tell them not to toss their money away on the Intel. and this is the very reason the worlds best servers are AMD not Intel.
I do thing Intel has thier place but thay realy need to shape up.
BringinHeat
Posts: 139 +0
Secondgunman said:
I agree with everything you put in except the DELL part that you put in capitals. They dont sell AMD!! And i am not aware of an aser company that you put but if you are talking about acer they are practically non existent in the retail markets here in america they might be a dominant force outside of the US ( i am not sure if they sell those in retail markets in canada either). Here is the info for the dell:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050224-4652.html
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/chips/0,39020354,39189071,00.htm
http://news.com.com/Dells+stance+on+AMD+Look+but+dont+touch/2100-1006_3-5587566.html?tag=nefd.top
This is a chart of the fastest computers in the world broken down to manufacturers for 2004, the 2005 results will be released this june:
http://www.top500.org/lists/2004/11/charts.php?c=9
As far as intel being a joke in the tech world yea sure that mite be true but a good business is based on marketing to the mainstream and this is why intel is the monopoly that it is.
I dont care which way anyone goes just making sure we have the right info on the threads. Please back stats and numbers with a link. :wave:
44 Magnum Stainless Steel very cheap for Sale.
Thats what you get if you buy the $380.00 Athlon 64 3800+ and no need for extra super fancy cooling or OC. This is the king of the Amd 64 bargain wise . This thing with out any OC is only A hair below the FX and the fastest intel costing $600.00 more. For games the 3800+ is spliting hairs with both Intel and AMD king and Queen. sure you can OC a 3500 to 3800+ speed but thats extreme oc there. and not just cruising like the 3800+ would be.
Thats what you get if you buy the $380.00 Athlon 64 3800+ and no need for extra super fancy cooling or OC. This is the king of the Amd 64 bargain wise . This thing with out any OC is only A hair below the FX and the fastest intel costing $600.00 more. For games the 3800+ is spliting hairs with both Intel and AMD king and Queen. sure you can OC a 3500 to 3800+ speed but thats extreme oc there. and not just cruising like the 3800+ would be.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT Revisit: How Does It Compare Against the 7700 XT?- dirtyferret replied
