Quote:
Originally posted by CORONA BEER
***, is this even a question?
AMD > Intel
ATI > Nvidia
Delphi > VB :p
Thats what I have been trying to say on this thread for the last year, I swear it, but no one will listen.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally posted by CORONA BEER
***, is this even a question?
AMD > Intel
ATI > Nvidia
Delphi > VB :p
Thats what I have been trying to say on this thread for the last year, I swear it, but no one will listen.
I could give a hoot what processor is running my computer....
All I care is that it doesn't burn up if the fan fails.
HAIL KING NEMAROLLER!!!!
-The ignorant shall inherit the earth.-
You should care what proccessor is in your box man, dont be ignorant and pick a side:)
Intel date raped me. And AMD ate my children.
Intel is the most powerful processor on earth.
their commercials are also better than AMD.
AMD > IntelSucks
Intel > Intelsucks
Why was the poll closed? I'd vote for intel several times....just to yank a few chains.
What kind of loon gets worked up about stuff like this...oh yeah, the young ones.
When I was in HS, we had an Apple IIc, and IBM TRS-80, and a DEC ...I forget. We ROCKED!!
I remember when the 486 came out. 7-8k for a 25mhz (chip only, the computer cost several k more), but the trade journals all said that nobody would ever need that kind of power except for high-end servers and the like. That was when I graduated from college! I realize Cid hadn't figured out how to pee standing up back then, but it's just a matter of perspective.
Who cares whether Intel or AMD is better. The next one coming out will be far better than the one here today, and the one after that will be better still.
Does IntelSucks remember the Zilog Z-80, or why it was such a hot item (hint: the bus did more than one thing)? If you are young today, you may think it has always been thus, but it hasn't, and it won't. The hot new thing today will be garbage by next year. I have a drawer full of 486 chips. They were worth tens of thousands in their time, but I have yet to find a use for them now. Decoration I suppose.
AMD will disappear, and Intel will be bought by McDonalds. Time will continue. For now, use what you have.
And since I'm being a fuddy-duddy:
"It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools."
Intel is not the most powerful processor on earth. Intel just produces processors. It isn't a processor :DQuote:
Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Intel is the most powerful processor on earth.
Anyways, the speed doesn't matter anymore. A 2 GHz processor is far enough for now. In the old days I were always yelling at the lack of processing power, but since getting my current machine I haven't had a need for that.
If you need to know, all the processors in this house are AMD. Because of the price vs. speed/quality. Two Durons, one Athlon XP, one Athlon XP-M and one old 120 MHz clone-486 on an old machine which isn't in the shape you could use it.
Duron really was a lifesaver when I were short of money, I could buy a near-highend computer for a relatively low price (the fastest were at 1200 MHz when I got my first 700 MHz Duron). A jump from 200 MHz to 700 MHz was very noticeable, even though I had a crappy display adapter at first (S3 Trio 3D/2X 4MB - if you ever encounter it, don't touch it!).
I was being sarcastic :wave: i have an AMD.Quote:
Originally posted by Merri
Intel is not the most powerful processor on earth. Intel just produces processors. It isn't a processor :D
And the stuff after first paragraph wasn't directly meant to you :)
Hmm, one other thing that made me prefer AMD over Intel was that some people who prefer Intel are far too fanatic about it. Overfanatic people are the worst... because they claim things that are untrue too easily. Or base knowledge on stuff that was accurate back in 1995, when Intel was clearly the only good choice :D
But nothing more on that. I'm more telling my experience here than telling which one is better, as in the end it doesn't matter too much :)
Have you read some of the posts in this thread? I never realized that anybody cared that much about processors before. I always liked AMD, but I didn't actually care which I had. Some of the posts in here make it sound like a moral choice. Sounds like the old Apple vs. PC debate....which ought to terrify the AMD fanatics.
Macs were better than PC's, but they never picked up any market share when they had a technological advantage, then they stagnated into obscurity.
With processors, it all comes down to innovate or die. Video cards are even worse. Back when I was a poor grad student, I put out the big bucks on a Diamond Speedstar (even then it wasn't big bucks like todays top video cards, but they were big bucks to me at the time). I researched the hell out of that card before buying. It was the top of the line at the time. Top rated on all lists. Six months later it was so obsolete that it was off the market:(
Nah, I knew what some of the messages were like, even though I haven't read it through lately. I might have an earlier reply there somewhere.
I'm happy that I didn't happen to have no chance of buying a new computer in the 90's, because of that I don't feel I would've wasted a lot of money for nothing. I've made some poor buys, but none of high value.
Some new things feel a bit weird though. We are getting multichannel audio with quality almost nobody's ears can distinguish from the traditional cd quality. I can understand the multichannel though. Actually, this is one of the things that makes me like Nintendo's attitude (heh, jump to game console world): they're concentrating on good games, not superb hardware like Microsoft and Sony do. And they really make great games.
Anyways, as long as they're making superb video cards, the older video cards come out for a relatively low price. I now have a Radeon 9600 and I'm very happy with it: I don't need a better one.
Heh, I guess my way of thinking works well when buying stuff: get the best you can as cheap as you can :D The same logic works when I do programming: make code do the best it can as fast as it can! (when it makes sense to do so)
Just so!
I used to build computers in the early 90's because you could build one far cheaper than you could buy one. Now it looks like a pre-built system is cheaper than the components.
My ears aren't very good, so sound quality is very minor for me. However, my eyes are excellent. I understand that 32 bit graphics allows for 8 bits of red, green, and blue. That means that the number of colors that can be displayed on the screen is far higher than the human eye is able to distinguish. And yet there are even larger graphics formats with 16 bits of each color and so on.
What's the point? We can't see them! Of course, with that much color, we could encode entire books into images and display them on the screen. The pictures, along with the narration could be packed into a jpeg. An odd idea.
Actually, you can see difference between 16-bit and 32-bit graphics :) Though, 32-bit is there only because of the easiness of programming: 24-bit would be just as good. 32-bits happen to be easier with 32-bit processors. 32-bit has alpha channel, which I don't understand as I've never seen any use for it (= done nothing related to it). Anyways, smooth transitions are MUCH better in 32-bit than what they are in 16-bit. 16-bit is also harder to program (atleast with the experience I've had: 5 bits Red, 6 bits Green, 5 bits Blue). And yes, I have very good eyes too and I have a quality monitor because of that.
Surprisingly, I've been able to build my computers for a relatively cheap price. Of course I haven't got the software, but in the end I haven't had a need for that either: most of the programs I have are free. Also, I could've been very sure the computer works as I want :) Laptop, of course, was a different case. But I only had Windows preinstalled in it and so it has been: didn't install the additional software, except MS Word. Though AbiWord appears to be a very good replacement for it, so I might uninstall it.
Motorola used to be the king of processors. Greatest processor of all time was probably the 680x series microprocessor from Motorola... that baby started the entire home computing revolution in my mind. It existed in Apples, Tandys, Commodores... phew...
They lost big time to Intel somehow though, I'm not entirely sure when that happened or even how Mot dropped the ball on that.
nemaroller, are you sure you're not confusing Motorola 6800 to MOS 6502? Of course 6502 was a clone of 6800, but it was the one that did the success :D
I guess I was confused all this time... I thought it was the 6809 that was in Ataris and Apples... ah well...
You're all wrong. Marlboros are better than all your Intels and AMDs and other dumb sounding processor names.
Smoking is bad for you frog man.
Smoking causes cancer:eek: