|
-
October 24th, 2001, 09:10 AM
#76
My preference is AMD (when given a choice).
I remember reading some benchmark test results that basically said that an Intel chip saves a user about 8 seconds a day over AMD.
It's a cost differential from there. Is that 8 seconds worth the extra cost?
"what'dya mean I hosed the whole thing? Is that bad?"
-
October 29th, 2001, 12:39 PM
#77
Registered User
AMD...Super duper easy to overclock..and they cost much much less...
-
October 29th, 2001, 12:55 PM
#78
CAD Guru - PC Specialist
[quote]Originally posted by jeremy_tosha:
<strong>Wow....what a burning topic i started.....
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Usually when this topic of "Intel vs AMD" (It isn't the first time its been started) is brought up, its usually pretty heated. This one doesn't seem that bad compared to others....
-
October 29th, 2001, 11:28 PM
#79
Ill put my server (QUAD XEON 450's) up against your AMD Server..
OH wait a second. AMD dont make QUAD.
Amd sucks PERIOD. Why would you over clock a chip? Speed? yeah..I see that point. But with an AMD there already OVERCLOCKED !!! hence the by-product HEAT (isnt that the mother of all chip killers?)
Been in business for 4 years and have YET to sell an athlon. Fix em..yup..(charge extra for it even being in my shop.)
Why has AMD decieded to change the names of there chips?
They CANT keep up with intels speed steps, FLAT OUT. Amd figures people will be stupid and not figure out that INTEL just demo'd a 3.5 gig chip, and Amd cant in any way compete. So change the chip numbers to names and WALA.
I think the thing that pisses me off mostly is that amd claims its better at this..better at that..etc..
REAL WORLD PEOPLE. yes INTEL is more $.. but remember.. you get what you pay for.!
1.5 ghz
256 800mhz memory
32 mg video card
Win 2k
BRING IN ON BABY!!!
LETS ROCK!
AMD,NETSCAPE,NORTONS.. Why are they almost alwalys found together? Possibly the worse software and hardware made to date, (not including AOL)
-
October 30th, 2001, 02:35 PM
#80
[quote]Originally posted by cpuguys.Net:
<strong>Ill put my server (QUAD XEON 450's) up against your AMD Server..
OH wait a second. AMD dont make QUAD.
Amd sucks PERIOD. Why would you over clock a chip? Speed? yeah..I see that point. But with an AMD there already OVERCLOCKED !!! hence the by-product HEAT (isnt that the mother of all chip killers?)
Been in business for 4 years and have YET to sell an athlon. Fix em..yup..(charge extra for it even being in my shop.)
Why has AMD decieded to change the names of there chips?
They CANT keep up with intels speed steps, FLAT OUT. Amd figures people will be stupid and not figure out that INTEL just demo'd a 3.5 gig chip, and Amd cant in any way compete. So change the chip numbers to names and WALA.
I think the thing that pisses me off mostly is that amd claims its better at this..better at that..etc..
REAL WORLD PEOPLE. yes INTEL is more $.. but remember.. you get what you pay for.!
1.5 ghz
256 800mhz memory
32 mg video card
Win 2k
BRING IN ON BABY!!!
LETS ROCK!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh-huh... kinda zealotous, are we? And btw, I will put my machine up against yours any day, and it will win. Promise. The reason your don't sell AMD's is probably because you steer people away from them with youyr attitude. Or did that occur to you? And AMD's are not already overclocked. See, that was true with the old K6's. The Athlons, Tbirds and others are much more "professional". Intel has pumped up the speed of it's chips by extending the pipeline and lowering the IPC. I can tell you the engineering details if you want. What it amounts to is intel has tried to add cycles per second at the expense of IPC. Nearly a 20% reduction, for that matter. That means that a 1.5GHz P4 will do only 80% of the work of a 1.5GHz PIII, or it'll operate at about the same speed as a 1.2GHz PIII, or less. And no, heat is not the mother of all chip-killers. A silicon chip running at 50C still has a life expectancy of over 7 years (constantly running). You gonna have the chip that long? Anyway, back to topic. Please have the information before you post drivel. I don't care that you don't like AMD, but don't be a mindless zealot about what you like, and then spread that disinformation.
Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of
-
November 12th, 2001, 01:30 PM
#81
Registered User
AMD all the way. Have you all seen the Tech TV benchmark where they took a Atlon 1.2 againt a P4 1.7 the Athlon kicked its *** , 17 % faster, and its cheaper. I'll let you do the math.
-
November 13th, 2001, 09:28 AM
#82
well want speed go AMD. P4 cant touch the New AMD 1900+
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/cont...uts/athlon.gif
Do you leak any fluids, do you have any bumps on your rear, do you have any unpleasant odors?
If you answered yes to any of these then you are not qualified to own a new AMD ATHLON XP.
If someone ask you if you are running the all-new fastest AMD ATHLON XP, just turn around and reply "WHY YES, AND ITS CERTIFIED"
http://www.daemonprojects.com/
-
November 30th, 2001, 12:13 PM
#83
If I had to put my name on a system that I was building for a customer it would be an Intel hands down. They have the reliability that AMD does not have. I can't waste time fixing problems with the AMD chip. (heat...and other known problems) I have an Athlon at home with 5 other Intel systems. When the Athlon is running it runs well, however I have to deal with more stupid crap on that system than any of my Intel boxes. The Athlon came from the AMD rep with a motherboard to entice our stores to sell AMD. With that product plus the Duron that he gave another tech, we can say that we will not build AMD boxes. I don't care that AMD out performs Intel in certain apps. When you build boxes and have to support them reliability is the top consideration.
Have you every danced with the devil in the pale moon light?
-
December 14th, 2001, 03:34 PM
#84
My vote is for AMD. This is because of several reasons. I think the price itself makes the decision. Also, when it comes to representatives, AMD are much more professional, courteous and charitable. I like intel as well but they have been getting their butts kicked for quite a while now by AMD. I think last issue of Maximum PC went with AMD as well. Look also at the Rambus ram they are trying to sell. Its good memory but the price really puts me off. I would rather go with DDR. Also, AMD is now moving into the server market and more and more solutions will come out for them in the way of motherboards. In the end, AMD gets my vote for durability, performance and pricing. GOOOOOO AMD!  
Thats easy, PEZ.....Cherry flavored PEZ!
-
January 19th, 2002, 11:36 AM
#85
Registered User
I pick AMD, because i just like em.
Simple as that.
-
January 19th, 2002, 11:42 AM
#86
Registered User
-
January 19th, 2002, 06:37 PM
#87
"Badges? We don't need no stinking badges."
-
August 21st, 2004, 10:05 AM
#88
Amd Vs Intel
some of my friends tell me clocking can lead to shorter lyfe  BLOODYHELL, AMDS ARE HOT AS HELL. with my p3 no heat, with AMD plenty heat.... THEN AGIAN! (i've made sure i didn't repeat anything!). Id probably have a dual proccessor system with half AMD and half P4 there's heaps of factors. and the diff is just $16......... hardpiplined VS P4.... but! what about on hyperthreading boards?
I'M pretty much SChplit!
-
August 21st, 2004, 10:58 AM
#89
Driver Terrier
Welcome to Windrivers Micks.
Are you aware how old this thread is?
Never, ever approach a computer saying or even thinking "I will just do this quickly."
-
August 21st, 2004, 09:58 PM
#90
 Originally Posted by NooNoo
Welcome to Windrivers Micks.
Are you aware how old this thread is?
YES, 3 years old......
Im not going to rush at this but what should i use on my computer i like both speed and reliability thanx for the welcoming noonoo
Last edited by MICKS; August 21st, 2004 at 10:01 PM.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks