Thank You there. :)
Printable View
Thank You there. :)
Here is what I think of them both, I may be wrong, but this is my opinion:
If you want a business or programming type computer get Intel
If you want a Gaming computer get Amd
Every cpu has its own advantages and disadvantages
What I think cid means, this may or may not be my opinion:Quote:
Originally posted by janemanno1
Wrong again. I work as a programmer and every company I have seen which does programming work has Intel so if just by using AMD if you think that other programmers who uses Intel are not real programmer then you need to get out more my friend.
He thinks if someone can see through Intel's marketing bull**** and buys an AMD, they are most likely building the system (more OEM computers come with Intel than AMD, AMD makes more sales on custom built systems) so they would naturally know more about how a computer works than someone who goes into Best Buy and buys an e-machine which will probably have an Intel chip in it. Therefore they would probably use a lower language since they know more about the computer, like C or C++ where as the Intel buyer will probably use VB or a higher level language.
Since a VB programmer isn't a 'real' programmer, he would be correct.
Um no, they can perform the same. Have you EVER looked at benchmarks? Or do you just see "ooo AMD says on TV gaming is awesome on the Athlon64, so that must be for gaming and Intel must be for business"?Quote:
Originally posted by Narfy
Every cpu has its own advantages and disadvantages
AMD and Intel are pretty much same in games and yes I have seen the benchmarks and they are up and down in different games and different sections. So there is no way someone can define that AMD is for game and Intel for business.
A64 is the biggest crap on this earth. It supports native 32bit apps and a native 64bit processor cannot support 32 bit apps. It's totally different how bits are handled. AMD were so desperate with Intel's head to head with their speed race and Itanium and Xeon so they launched A64 thinking that it will give them much market. If you look at the benchmark closely then you will find that A64 is not the horse I would look for running server.
If you think that VB programmer are not real then I work on Delphi5, 6 and shortly will work on Delphi.NET and it's true OOP language hence same as C and C++ bcos it's language pascal. I and as a matter of fact whole bunch of programmer who have been doing developing from 27 years prefer Intel over AMD.
So you decide.
Cheers.
You know nothing of the Athlon64. It is a beast and Intel cannot even come CLOSE to it. I am not sure why you're saying a 64bit cpu cannot handle 32bit applications, when it can and does in millions of computers RIGHT NOW. Even Intel's 64bit CPU can handle 32bit applications, however it runs them in an emulation mode, AMD's Athlon64 runs them natively.Quote:
Originally posted by janemanno1
A64 is the biggest crap on this earth. It supports native 32bit apps and a native 64bit processor cannot support 32 bit apps. It's totally different how bits are handled. AMD were so desperate with Intel's head to head with their speed race and Itanium and Xeon so they launched A64 thinking that it will give them much market. If you look at the benchmark closely then you will find that A64 is not the horse I would look for running server.
If you do not believe me, www.amd.com read the specification. If you still do not believe it, then you really need to stop arguing and see the truth in things.
You also mention AMD being desperate to releasing this CPU, but that is also a LIE. Do you even know what CPUs AMD makes? The Athlon MP is a Xeon killer/competition CPU. The Xeon CPUs are not 64bit. The Itanium is, however it has been out for about 5 years. If AMD was soo desperate to release the Athlon64, why was it released so much longer than Inte's 64bit cpu? EXACTLY, AMD isn't desperate and their shares were CLIMBING way before the Athlon64 was announced. They were doing great without it, I'd hardly call them desperate. Actually, I would consider Intel desperate since they pulled the P4: EE out of their ass and announced it at the same time the Athlon64 was released.
Every Benchmark I have seen shows the Athlon64 FX beating all current Intel CPUs. Perhaps you were looking at the Athlon64 and not the Athlon64 FX.
Also, choosing an Athlon64 FX would be prime to run a server. it would perform as good, and even better than all previous AMD chips and Intel chips currently out. However, if a single CPU is in your sight when you're looking for a server, then you got problems. I would much rather have dual, or even quad CPUs to run on a server than one single CPU, despite whichever company it comes from. Once you use dual or even quad CPUs to run a server on, you will never understand how you got along with a single CPU setup. Unless you're only serving up html pages, then you could get a celeron or a duron and you'd be fine.
I already said that is what I think his message was that he was trying to convery, not my beliefs.Quote:
Originally posted by janemanno1
If you think that VB programmer are not real then I work on Delphi5, 6 and shortly will work on Delphi.NET and it's true OOP language hence same as C and C++ bcos it's language pascal. I and as a matter of fact whole bunch of programmer who have been doing developing from 27 years prefer Intel over AMD.
However, Delphi.NET is NOT the same as C or C++. C lacks any OOP model and C++ using managed extensions isn't a good idea. Microsoft actually suggests it only being used for converting Apps and libraries over to .NET. If you use/used C++ /w managed extensions, you'd understand.
Also, if you provide a fact saying " whole bunch of programmer who have been doing developing from 27 years prefer Intel over AMD", actually give some linkage. No one is going to just go out on a wim and believe that, especially since the sentence is an eye-sore to even read.
Kasracer I take it you voted AMD. Also you summed it up pretty well about the custom built pc's I should have been clearer. So the facts clearly show that AMD is the better proccessor so if you guys still want to go "popular" proccessor go ahead. you know...That makes me wonder...It's like pants you buy at the mall(Intel) that cost 55$ and they have holes and are faded when Mervyns has a pair of pants(AMD) that have no holes and are made out of a better fabrick. So in conclusion buying Intel is like going with the crowd just to be cool and fit in. When all the intelectual non-conformist are wearing jeans that are cheaper and higher quality. I feel really terrible for those lost souls who think Intel is the only way and that E-machines are the best out there. I cant stand when people who buy a 600$ Dell and think they are the sh*t because they have a P4 with intergrated 64 meg intel graphics. Alls I have to say is that if you are a true Geek you will buy the better underdog proccessor to avoid the crowd and know that you have the better machine.
haha....its funny cid how we think exactly alike...I wonder why?
What can I say? All the computers I have bought have used AMD chip. The first two were Durons though. The newest I'm running now is Athlon XP.
In the end... this is just a fight over images. Intel and AMD have used different technologies and the end result is only about the image these companies make. Of course AMD's style is more likable, Intel seems to use a cheater's way to make faster processors.
So in the end... Intel's CPUs go to general users computers and AMD's to those computers who happen to know more about computers and appreciate the way they use to create faster CPUs.
AMD proves to be the better proccessor again.
AMD: 19Quote:
Originally posted by cid
AMD proves to be the better proccessor again.
Intel: 20
Nah, not at the moment.
AMD is better because the sticker didn't fall of this machine. My Intel sticker has fallen off though. I guess it's because I kept tearing at it with my neighbor's stolen toothbrush.
And that's not quite what I meant with my post... the main point was with the image. Most users don't care about their processor, if it works properly. I wouldn't care if I had a Crusoe, if it just works fine.
I am all with it. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Memnoch1207
Okay, here is my .02....
AMD SUCKS
Before I bash you, why the crap do you say that?
Yeah I think this little kid has saw too many Intel commercials.
Quote by Intel
Quote by INtelQuote:
Now with the useless Hyper Threading Technology and also if you pay 100$ more well give you the Extreme Edition of hyper threading that does absolutely nothing. SO basically we are screwing you out of a quick bill so you can have"ED"
Note that benchmarks have proven The AMD 64 proccessor to be supperior to the P4, P4 HT, P4 HT ED, and the Intel 64bit. Toms hardware guide will prove that.Quote:
Intel now has a 64 bit proccessor that emulates 32 bit apps. And since it emulates it really sucks and doesnt work so waste your money on the crap version of the AMD 64 bit proccessor which out preforms the intel p4 HT ED
I love facts! Dont you Cid?
*sigh*
So many people disillusioned to thinking AMD is actually better than intel :D
In actuality I run a Intel 1.8 Ghz and an AMD 1900+ side by side. So I can tell you the pros and cons of each. The systems are almost identical except for the motherboard and processor because I built both of them from the ground up.
The Intel woops the AMDs ass in games. Sorry AMD goers but the same game running on both computers just looks and feels better on the intel computer. Both computers have a TI 4600 card in them with an Audigy 2 sound card as well so its not an issue on those areas. MMORPGs for those that play the AMD will lag first in heavily cogested areas.
Heat- Well lets put it this way the amd computer is on the right the intel on the left.. my right foot is always at least 5 degress warmer than my left .. and thats through cases hehe.
My onboard temp monitors shows the intel cpu running around 60 c and the AMD around 110 c. Thats with 3 80mm fans in each case. Its not as some guy put it that the AMD is just working harder. Its just that AMDs actually run hotter than an intel chip.
Programming- to be honest I can't tell a difference on either computer in this area nor any basic windows application. They all seem to run about the same.
Music editing I can't comment on because I havn't really done any real music editing.
Graphic editing, intel wins at this one hands down. If I use Jasc Paint Shop Pro and creat a floating graphic and start dropping objects in it I can get about 100 objects before the intel starts to lag a bit and create some ghost images as I move an object. The AMD handles far less around 60.
Hmmm thats all the issues I can think of offhand.. if anyone wants me to test something on each one I'd be happy to :)
But I'm going to build a new system soon.. it'll be another intel and It'll blow my AMD out the water when I build it.. of course it will be twice as fast with twice as much higher speed memory and all the new fancy cards like the FX geforce cards :)
Theres another debate we can open though Geforce or ATI.. I obviously would vote Geforce but for those looking for as much bang for their buck as they can get ATI might be more to their liking.
Very true StevenHickerson.
At consumer level, you cannot compare a AMD64 with a Intel Itanium 64.
Yet, it is more likely that consumers at getting Intel Pentium 4 processors and/or AMD Athlon XP processors.
I guess this review has at least something to tell about.
Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz vs. AMD Athlon XP 3200+
That is not freaking true at all, the fudging Itanium is a pos because it has to freaking emulate 32-bit applications because it isnt compatible....but its funny how the amd-64 fx runs 32-bit applications natively. You need to do a little studying!Quote:
Originally posted by ~*McoreD*~
Very true StevenHickerson.
At consumer level, you cannot compare a AMD64 with a Intel Itanium 64.
Yet, it is more likely that consumers at getting Intel Pentium 4 processors and/or AMD Athlon XP processors.
I guess this review has at least something to tell about.
Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz vs. AMD Athlon XP 3200+
Quote:
Originally posted by StevenHickerson
*sigh*
So many people disillusioned to thinking AMD is actually better than intel :D
In actuality I run a Intel 1.8 Ghz and an AMD 1900+ side by side. So I can tell you the pros and cons of each. The systems are almost identical except for the motherboard and processor because I built both of them from the ground up.
The Intel woops the AMDs ass in games. Sorry AMD goers but the same game running on both computers just looks and feels better on the intel computer. Both computers have a TI 4600 card in them with an Audigy 2 sound card as well so its not an issue on those areas. MMORPGs for those that play the AMD will lag first in heavily cogested areas.
Heat- Well lets put it this way the amd computer is on the right the intel on the left.. my right foot is always at least 5 degress warmer than my left .. and thats through cases hehe.
My onboard temp monitors shows the intel cpu running around 60 c and the AMD around 110 c. Thats with 3 80mm fans in each case. Its not as some guy put it that the AMD is just working harder. Its just that AMDs actually run hotter than an intel chip.
Programming- to be honest I can't tell a difference on either computer in this area nor any basic windows application. They all seem to run about the same.
Music editing I can't comment on because I havn't really done any real music editing.
Graphic editing, intel wins at this one hands down. If I use Jasc Paint Shop Pro and creat a floating graphic and start dropping objects in it I can get about 100 objects before the intel starts to lag a bit and create some ghost images as I move an object. The AMD handles far less around 60.
Hmmm thats all the issues I can think of offhand.. if anyone wants me to test something on each one I'd be happy to :)
But I'm going to build a new system soon.. it'll be another intel and It'll blow my AMD out the water when I build it.. of course it will be twice as fast with twice as much higher speed memory and all the new fancy cards like the FX geforce cards :)
Theres another debate we can open though Geforce or ATI.. I obviously would vote Geforce but for those looking for as much bang for their buck as they can get ATI might be more to their liking.
hahahahhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahah ahahah! I love how your AMD is freaking melted to you mobo...do you have it sitting in an oven...there is no way it is still running at that temp.
And when was the last time you ran benchmarks on the 2 because we cant go by your irreliable "facts."
I would apreciate it if you guys would give me a more detailed explanation of why you think Intel looks better on games...Personally I dont think either of you know what the hell you are talking about and are just trying act cool. I mean what the hell kind of answer is "it looks better". Plus your processor is running at about 220 degrees Farenheight which means the entire system is melted by now so that proves you are an idiot. So in the future I would appreciate some common sense on this form. This poll isnt for amusement.
My AMD processor is running at about 60 degrees Celsius... I only have a thermometer measuring the heatsink temperature (which reads 44 degress Celsius) but the last time I looked in the BIOS menu thing it said the CPU was 61 degrees Celsius.
It's an AMD Thunderbird 1.4 GHz
He (stevenhickerson) was saying that his was at about 225 F...which is impossibe....I think that he was making all that up.
I have a AMD Athlon XP 2500+ Barton and it stays at about 82 F or around 40 C.
The majority of people do not know anything about computers (I believe it was said to be well above 90%). Obviously, majority would not prove which is better or not and based on some of the comments I'm seeing, alot of these people are very mis-informed.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
AMD: 19
Intel: 20
Nah, not at the moment.
Like I already mkentioned, I have 2 Intel CPUs, the P4 is actually faster than my Athlon in theory, but it takes longer to do everything on it.Quote:
Originally posted by StevenHickerson
In actuality I run a Intel 1.8 Ghz and an AMD 1900+ side by side. So I can tell you the pros and cons of each.
Something is wrong with that. They should perform about the same. You are probably having problems with the graphics card, or you bought a piece of **** chipset (VIA).Quote:
Originally posted by StevenHickerson
The Intel woops the AMDs ass in games. Sorry AMD goers but the same game running on both computers just looks and feels better on the intel computer. Both computers have a TI 4600 card in them with an Audigy 2 sound card as well so its not an issue on those areas. MMORPGs for those that play the AMD will lag first in heavily cogested areas.
This is the BIGGEST load of bullcrap I have EVER seen on the internet. The AMD can just barely survive at 90c and that isn't for long periods of time. At 110c, your CPU would, LITERALLY melt. There is no way this is actually true. Your software is buggy.Quote:
Originally posted by StevenHickerson
Heat- Well lets put it this way the amd computer is on the right the intel on the left.. my right foot is always at least 5 degress warmer than my left .. and thats through cases hehe.
My onboard temp monitors shows the intel cpu running around 60 c and the AMD around 110 c. Thats with 3 80mm fans in each case. Its not as some guy put it that the AMD is just working harder. Its just that AMDs actually run hotter than an intel chip.
This is another out right lie. Comparing my P4 2.2 GHz CPU to my Athlon XP 2100+, I would have to say they perform about the same, possibly better on my AMD. I took a graphics course for several years at a votech school, so I use graphic editing software ALOT on my computer.Quote:
Originally posted by StevenHickerson
Graphic editing, intel wins at this one hands down. If I use Jasc Paint Shop Pro and creat a floating graphic and start dropping objects in it I can get about 100 objects before the intel starts to lag a bit and create some ghost images as I move an object. The AMD handles far less around 60.
Honestly, you will possibly see improvement with an AMD compared to an Intel chip. I personally think you're just making all of this up (your entire post is just....... well unpossible).
nVidia is a horrible company, I guess you've missed the ENTIRE scandle. First off, they were caught cheating on SEVERAL different versions of their drivers to lower the graphics quality to give the user better FPS. EVERY review I have read about ATi's new cards, they are ALL better than their equivelant nVidia cards. In all truthfullness, unless nVidia does something soon, I can't seem them lasting much longer. Savage is coming out with a KILLER Graphics Card that can compete with ATi's top of the line and destroy nVidia's cards.Quote:
Originally posted by StevenHickerson
But I'm going to build a new system soon.. it'll be another intel and It'll blow my AMD out the water when I build it.. of course it will be twice as fast with twice as much higher speed memory and all the new fancy cards like the FX geforce cards :)
Theres another debate we can open though Geforce or ATI.. I obviously would vote Geforce but for those looking for as much bang for their buck as they can get ATI might be more to their liking.
This is semi true. The Itanium was not ment for consumer use and only for corporate environments. However, with the coming of the Athlon 64 FX, there is no reason to get an Itanium now since the Athlon 64 FX will out perform it AND will allow you to run your 32bit applications efficiently compared to the Itanium.Quote:
Originally posted by ~*McoreD*~
At consumer level, you cannot compare a AMD64 with a Intel Itanium 64.
That review really sucks. Hell, once I saw the graphs I left that site.Quote:
Originally posted by ~*McoreD*~
I guess this review has at least something to tell about.
Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz vs. AMD Athlon XP 3200+
[more time passes] [some more time passes] [a little more time passes]
Come the hell on now. Check out more reputable review sites that actually have graphs that show exact time instead of "time passes a little more" bull.
AMD CPU's are made to withstand MUCH higer temperatures than Intel's CPUs. This is actually well documented.Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamlax
My AMD processor is running at about 60 degrees Celsius... I only have a thermometer measuring the heatsink temperature (which reads 44 degress Celsius) but the last time I looked in the BIOS menu thing it said the CPU was 61 degrees Celsius.
It's an AMD Thunderbird 1.4 GHz
With standard cooling, my Athlon XP 2100+ is running somewhere between 35-52C, depending on ambient temperature.
He is making it up. If he told that to an AMD engineer, he would get laughed at because that CPU would literally melt at that temperature. At 90c, some AMD CPUs have been known to melt. Intel has been known to melt at about the same temperature, but usually slightly lower.Quote:
Originally posted by IntelSucks
I think that he was making all that up.
Yeah I know I was telling him that there is no way that his processor could be that hot. And your right about all of the ATI and nvidia things.
I would like to add that Intel is about to start quietly developing a 64bit CPU, modeled off of the Athlon64. It is, in fact, a copy of the chip.
So for anyone that said the Athlon64 was a horrible CPU, tell me why Intel is copying it? Because it is better and Intel admits the Itanium does NOT run all x86 software.
http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache...earn/itech.asp
Even though IBM's new G5 chip was not on the poll i think it should be. Light years better than the G4 chip produced by motorola.
But still not up to par with Intel or AMDQuote:
Originally posted by Dilenger4
Even though IBM's new G5 chip was not on the poll i think it should be. Light years better than the G4 chip produced by motorola.
Maybe not at the moment but by the end of 2004 the speed of the G5 processors is supposed increase dramatically.Quote:
Posted by kasracer
But still not up to par with Intel or AMD
No they won't, they'll increase by like 100-200MHz if that.Quote:
Originally posted by Dilenger4
Maybe not at the moment but by the end of 2004 the speed of the G5 processors is supposed increase dramatically.
Besides, you can't compare the G5 CPU with AMD and Intel, they are 2 different platforms.
Thats true.
Steve jobs has been quoted as saying in the next twelve months
the fastest G5 chip powering a Mac will run at 3Ghz. 50% faster then todays top model.
Steve Jobs is fudgin idiot who hire disney cartoon artis to model his OS. And I would never by a MAc even if they had a G12 Running at 10Gigahertz. I love how mac has gay dumb cool bars. And fade when your clikc the red circle.
The only good thing about he MAc OS is it is based off Unix but besides that Steve jobs can go jump off a cliff.
So i take it your not a Mac fan. :rolleyes:
Even I go for Intel :wave:.
OK AMD guys, lets say you are right !!! and then why AMD is not able to make it to the FIRST place ????? ;)
Hi guys....let's just say that I'm proud to be the 22-22 tie breaker....:D
We are right but you should know the answer to your second question, that's just common sense.Quote:
Originally posted by akki
OK AMD guys, lets say you are right !!! and then why AMD is not able to make it to the FIRST place ????? ;)
You say that as if you were a God or something.Quote:
Originally posted by akki
Even I go for Intel :wave:.
Reinacted Quote:
Sarcasm**Even I go for Intel, I rock listen to what I say because if I do it then you know it has to be right!**Sarcasm
Don't roll your eyes. Even though he is blatenly making fun of Apple computers, every Mac fan boy I have EVER meet is 100 times worse than any PC, AMD, Intel fanboy could possibly be.Quote:
Originally posted by Dilenger4
So i take it your not a Mac fan. :rolleyes:
If we had some of those in this forum, it would make it quite interesting ;)
AMD did have some issues with AGP 1.1/2.0, but they are resolved now.
It's a little early to say if the AGP problem exists in the new opteron/64 solutions.
:wave:
I suppose it's a bit like arguing between two types of fruit. Some will always believe a banana is better than an apple, and some will always believe an apple is better than a banana, when in fact, they are both good.
Actually, it's more like arguing over two types of the same fruit, say a brown pear and a ya pear (Chinese pear). If the Motorola/IBM CPUs were in the poll, then we'd have apples and bananas (or epples and benenes if you watch Barney the Dinosaur).
I'm only trying to stir some stuff up.