Amd
Intel
Printable View
Amd
Intel
come on you guys...vote
Does it really matters, which one wins!! Its only matter of opinion.
I have always used Intel but have started using AMD because of the value for money.
Well i can see a big debate coming up. So I declare the debate as open.....
I dont want your life story. I just wanted to start a poll...if you don't think that there is a point to the poll then don't vote or state your opinion.
No need to get so touchy !Quote:
Originally posted by IntelSucks
I dont want your life story. I just wanted to start a poll...if you don't think that there is a point to the poll then don't vote or state your opinion.
As you are apparantly unaware, creating a poll on a topic will always generate discussion on that topic itself.Quote:
Originally posted by IntelSucks
I dont want your life story. I just wanted to start a poll...if you don't think that there is a point to the poll then don't vote or state your opinion.
No, I am aware. He is telling me that it doesnt matter who wins, and there is no reason to tell me that because it isnt going to make me stop the poll. If he was going to say something about the processors or which one that he likes/dislikes then I wouldnt have taken it wrong.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
As you are apparantly unaware, creating a poll on a topic will always generate discussion on that topic itself.
Come on guys AMD is only up by 2.
It isn't a matter of opinion. Look at the benchmarks and technical documents on the processors.Quote:
Originally posted by Danial
Does it really matters, which one wins!! Its only matter of opinion.
I have always used Intel but have started using AMD because of the value for money.
I meant the result of the poll NOT the fact which is a better processor AMD or Intel.Quote:
Originally posted by kasracer
It isn't a matter of opinion. Look at the benchmarks and technical documents on the processors.
I started the poll out of my interest
Jesus christ just learn to relax. The "!" marks indicated that it was not a serious comment. I was just trying to say that the result of the poll wouldnt really determine anything. Wouldnt really prove Intel is better then AMD or vice versa. Just prove that one is more popular then other. Ovbiously it might mean something to you.Quote:
Originally posted by IntelSucks
No, I am aware. He is telling me that it doesnt matter who wins, and there is no reason to tell me that because it isnt going to make me stop the poll. If he was going to say something about the processors or which one that he likes/dislikes then I wouldnt have taken it wrong.
Anyway forget about it. I will try to avoid making any more comment on this thread.
AMD is better!
intelsucks!
Douche!Quote:
Originally posted by Danial
The "!" marks indicated that it was not a serious comment.
Fart Licker!
GET OVER HERE BEFORE CHARLEY GETS YOU!
:rolleyes:!
dont say "Jesus Christ" it offends me.
I am being serious.
! = serious
You know, perhaps we should start a debate on whether the exclamation point indicates sarcasm or not. I've always used it in the serious manner.
Voted AMD, because I use one, and because I've had no problems with it.
I tell ya IntelSucks, them AMD processors really blow your skit up, you are always pissed off, maybe it's because they suck.
There is no debate, exclamation points always depict seriousness or shouting. Definatly not sarcasmQuote:
Originally posted by Dreamlax
You know, perhaps we should start a debate on whether the exclamation point indicates sarcasm or not.
Yet again another thread descends into fatuous bickering.
Ok guys Ill lay down the facts:
Gigahertz Intel
Price AMD
Quality AMD
Pipelines AMD
FSB Intel
Multitasking AMD
64 Bit Compatability AMD
Heat Factor Intel
Ability to overclock: AMD
Gaming AMD
Programming AMD
Compiling AMD
Music Editing AMD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reasoning: Ok as we all know INTEl does have more "power" aka gigahertz. But as far as price goes AMD knocks intel out of the park. Now lets address the pipelines issue. Intel proccessors are crammed with pipelines thus making them slower at multitasking where as in AMD the pipelines are spread making multitasking and easy task for the AMD. Front Side Bus- we already established intels power factor(moving on). 64 Bit Proccessing The new AMD 64 bit proccessor running at about 2.8 gigahertz will domolish an 3.5 gigahertz intel cpu. So with the new windows 64 bit edition. Not to mention that most unix based OS's run at 64bits instead of 32. So as far as general use AMD is alot more compatible and a better proccessor and also running about 150$ less than the leading intel. Intel cpu's keep cooler but only because they dont work as hard as AMD's. And as far as the other items go since AMD multitasks a lot better than Intel AMD clears the screen on all the other test. Oh and by the way look at some benchmarks at toms hardware guide and youll see the Amd 64 bit come out on top.
And as for me I will always be a AMD user for life.
I hope you feel stupid Ideas man
Any of you guys want to dispute facts?
intel is better for graphical applications. Mainly because AMD mother boards have some AGP issues.
Yeah like what? Non-onboard video?
Like what? How about you support your claim. That would be equivalent to me saying Intel has some motherboard incompatibility issues. How about you explain. Like with what boards and what are the issues and if you dont have an answer than just say you dont know what your talking about and you just wanted to sound cool.
cid, dont make him cry...
Okay, here is my .02....
AMD SUCKS
Hmm.. Uh huh.Quote:
Originally posted by IntelSucks
cid, dont make him cry...
How about this. Buy a Quadro XGL. Use a 3D design application. Then read the manual as to why it runs kind of sluggish.
And drop the shill attitude.
AMD issues with AGP
Quote:
a recent "errata" of the Athlon includes a "cache coherency" issue where the Athlon's L1 and L2 caches may not be away of memory pages modified by AGP DME operations _if_ the Athlon processor is using 4MB pages. Normally i386 compatible processors use 4KB paging, but some of the latest software enables Pentium compatible processors to use 4MB paging for a significant performance boost. When AMD designed the Athlon, it designed it to perform just as well under 4KB and 4MB paging, so it has no real performance effect. Unfortunately, it seems the 4MB paging, Pentium compatible option of the Athlon was not as well tested as the standard 4KB paging, and a cache coherency issue can result.
Looks like you copy, pasted that
Cander, have you tested that yourself?
I did...from hardwarecentral.comQuote:
Originally posted by IntelSucks
Looks like you copy, pasted that
If you would like to read the whole article I will be glad to post a link to it.
you actually tested it? Or you read a review on it?
I can show you stuff that other people have tested just as well...http://www.vbforums.com/attachment.p...postid=1587434
I'm not pitching benchmarks...I am providing information about a known issue with AMD processors with regards to AGP.
I have never had any agp problems.
Yes.Quote:
Originally posted by IntelSucks
Cander, have you tested that yourself?
And BTW I use AMD primarily. Im just stating a fact about a problem AMD has with 3D applications (not games). Yes I got the latest AGP drivers which helped to some extent. But there is still viewport sluggishness problems compared to how it runs on a comaprable Intel based machine.
Im not going to argue with that anymore because obviously havent had to deal with it...but thats only one thing, its not like the pentium processors are perfect.
Fine. But just because the problems of AMD are not apparent for what you do, doesnt mean the problems dont exist.Quote:
Originally posted by IntelSucks
Im not going to argue with that anymore because obviously havent had to deal with it...but thats only one thing, its not like the pentium processors are perfect.
Jeez...You guys take stuff to seriously.
AMD and Intel are the most known CPU manufacturers, but there are more out there.
VIA make motherboards with their own "x86 compatible" CPUs don't they?
Most of the other ones got put out of business a long time ago...but im sure there are some small time companys that are making some.
I think there are some via processors....do you remember cyrix?
Now you are saying everyone else is touchy (IntelSucks). The way this thread has gone is exactly what Danial was talking about in the first couple posts until you got on his ass about it.Quote:
Originally posted by Danial
No need to get so touchy !
I think you should take your lips off of AMD's ass and just realize that there are only minimal differences between AMD and Intel and everyone who thinks Intel is better isn't wrong. I think you are just compensating for a small schlong. Myself personally I prefer AMD but that doesn't mean I think Intel makes a ****ty processor. I also don't feel the need to attack anyone that feels differently although I think you have been rude to many people answering your post and if you ***** about my post then just read your own words "its funny to start threads like this because everyone starts to get mad and thats what this forum needs." - Glad to oblige.
I believe IBM and Sun make their own processors too but mainly for LARGE super computer type operations. IBM also made the CPU for the PS2 (I think?) and will probably make the one for the next XBOX. Which even though they are consoles they still run on CPUs.
cyrix\via doesnt make processors anymore as far as I know
I think they started back up again sometime this year or so: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020605/index.html
Via used to make those cyrix cpus and quit but came back with the c3 (i think thats the name).
Hey Edneeis, stop crying before I buy you a bottle.
thats hilarious
Where TF did you pull them results from, your mum? They couldn't be more wrong then they are. The hyper-threading does not slow the processor down dumb ass.
cid, you been living under a rock or something or you biased too. a lot of that stuff is crap, intel win a lot more of those factors than you seem to think.
My Mum? And I do belive that those results came from the Intel website.
Please send the bottle to:Quote:
Originally posted by cid
Hey Edneeis, stop crying before I buy you a bottle.
1234 UpYours Ln.
SitAndSpin, CA 92530
;)
lame
That is a common mis-conseption (I just butchered that, lol) just like people say Apple is better for video editing or like a studio. AMD can perform, on par, with Intel in graphical applications. Sometimes, depending on what chips are being compared, AMD does even better.Quote:
Originally posted by Cander
intel is better for graphical applications. Mainly because AMD mother boards have some AGP issues.
Never had any issues with AGP. However, I have had some issues with the VIA chipset I bought.Quote:
Originally posted by Memnoch1207
AMD issues with AGP
It is probably because you insist on insulting them. While I realize this is the internet and I, at times, act like an ass but god damn man, you make me look like a perfect christian or something online.Quote:
Originally posted by IntelSucks
Jeez...You guys take stuff to seriously.
VIA is a horrible company. I wish I never bought a VIA chipset with my Athlon XP.Quote:
Originally posted by IntelSucks
I think there are some via processors....do you remember cyrix?
I wish they'd die already, it has been over due
That isn't entirely true. Take a look at Intel's 64bit CPU and the Athlon 64. They are severly different and if a consumer tried comparing Intel's 64bit chip to AMD's, they'd be very disappointed.Quote:
Originally posted by Edneeis
only minimal differences between AMD and Intel
Intel's 64bit CPU only supports most 32bit software, but in an emulation mode. So a 3GHz 64bit CPU form Intel (I don't know how fast they currently are) would run a 32bit application like my 533MHz Celeron. It is very very bad at that but does a decent job on 64bit applications. The Athlon 64, however, has native support for both 64 and 32bit applications. There is zero slow down using 32 bit software or 64bit software with the chip.
This is true, I currently own 3 computers and 2 have Intel CPUs. They are not bad, but I still prefer AMD chips.Quote:
Originally posted by Edneeis
Myself personally I prefer AMD but that doesn't mean I think Intel makes a ****ty processor.
IBM makes the PowerPC CPUs for Apple's computers. Motorola used to make them, but IBM took over. Not sure if they use only IBM now or if Motorola still makes some chips for the smaller devices.Quote:
Originally posted by Edneeis
I believe IBM and Sun make their own processors too but mainly for LARGE super computer type operations. IBM also made the CPU for the PS2 (I think?) and will probably make the one for the next XBOX. Which even though they are consoles they still run on CPUs.
Not true. Please tell me how you can make a 3.06GHz CPU. Then tell me how to make it act like 2 CPUs without slowing its speed down.Quote:
Originally posted by Ideas Man
Where TF did you pull them results from, your mum? They couldn't be more wrong then they are. The hyper-threading does not slow the processor down dumb ass.
Hyperthreading is nice for multitasking (I can run a dedicated server off 1 virtual CPU, and play a game on another. Neither will affect the other directly since they're seperate, but you can't expect both to run at the full possible speed).
I like your reply
Of course they do, what else would do all the processing? Perhaps... a non-central processing unit? Hehehe just kidding around, I know what you mean.Quote:
Originally posted by Edneeis
Which even though they are consoles they still run on CPUs.
Though, the Megadrive (a.k.a. Sega Genesis) apparently used a Nintendo graphics processor, a Sony sound processor and a Motorola central processor. I could be wrong but I know for a fact that Nintendo, Sega and Sony all had something to do with each other.
Right. A common misconception that I have seen myself and is my video cards trouble shooting guide. You guys are not in a position to argue this point as I have the actual setup that this effects and KNOW for absolute fact the problem.Quote:
Originally posted by kasracer
That is a common mis-conseption (I just butchered that, lol) just like people say Apple is better for video editing or like a studio. AMD can perform, on par, with Intel in graphical applications. Sometimes, depending on what chips are being compared, AMD does even better.
Arguing with product shills is wearing thin!
Right. Like I said, you dont have the scenario where it is noticable. Just because you dont have the problem, doesnt mean it exists. Sure is easy for people to turn a blind eye.Quote:
Never had any issues with AGP. However
Then don't buy bad motherboardsQuote:
Originally posted by Cander
Right. A common misconception that I have seen myself and is my video cards trouble shooting guide. You guys are not in a position to argue this point as I have the actual setup that this effects and KNOW for absolute fact the problem.
Arguing with product shills is wearing thin!
Has nothin to do with motherboard manufacturer.
Obviously kas and Intel are going to continue to shill AMD as if it isnt possible that it has faults.
Go on believing that.