<pre>
(\\
.--,\\\__
`-. a`-.__
| ') AMD KICKS!
/ \ _.-'-,`;
/ | { /
..-"``~"-' ; )
;' `
;'
;'
, /;'|
,;';\ |\ |
\ || |
| )| )
| || |
| \| \
`##`##
</pre>
Printable View
<pre>
(\\
.--,\\\__
`-. a`-.__
| ') AMD KICKS!
/ \ _.-'-,`;
/ | { /
..-"``~"-' ; )
;' `
;'
;'
, /;'|
,;';\ |\ |
\ || |
| )| )
| || |
| \| \
`##`##
</pre>
man, just wait for the Cyrix III to come out.
then we'll have a serious cpu on our hands.
Cyrix - Born to Run Baby!!
Since this thread I have looked around for as much information that I could find on both chipmakers. I researched mostly news articles, and basic benchmark statements and drew this conclusion: In essence, the P4 is on a different plane than the Athlon, producing greater numbers on the mhz scale. Now, the P4 may pump out more cycles, but it cannot process as many instructions per cycle as the slower Athlon. As we all know, it is not just the instructions per clock, or the cycles per second, but a combination of both---coupled with accuracy, that will determine the final winner for this season. And of course, price will play a noteworthy part.
When comparing the 2ghz P4 to the 1.4ghz Athlon the two are very close. But the race is far from an end. Here is where the debate should get more interesting, with the new hyper pipelined technology, Intel will continue to excel in mhz, where the Atholon may soon be held back if the technology won’t comply. Will AMD find a new way around this ensuing brick “wall”, or will their current technology maintain into the future? Also, will Intel force the issue with their more controversial technology, the noticeably longer Hyper-pipeline, or are they looking for a new miracle to eliminate the “wall” as well?
I say good luck to both. Because of their efforts, we have always had systems more powerful than the software we install. I expect that in the next 10 years something will revolutionize. As with the splitting of the atom, we will stumble into a new technology that will make these debates over 1 and 2 Gigahertz pale in comparison!
I enjoyed all of the reading.
I know there working on the BIO CHIP, using human dna into CPU's. Since dna cells can calculate faster than anything we can make.
Wounder how long this will take and if later the compuetr will start running us :(
[quote]Originally posted by Daemon:
<strong><pre>
(\\
.--,\\\__
`-. a`-.__
| ') AMD KICKS!
/ \ _.-'-,`;
/ | { /
..-"``~"-' ; )
;' `
;'
;'
, /;'|
,;';\ |\ |
\ || |
| )| )
| || |
| \| \
`##`##
</pre></strong><hr></blockquote>
Your goat has claws......(Didn't want to join the debate but have been pretty entertained reading all this.)
[quote]Originally posted by AlienDyne:
<strong>Another Intel vs AMD debate. Seems like I missed it.
Here goes my opinion.
Intel Advantages:
Quality
Reliability
Compatibility
Intel Disadvantages:
Price
AMD Advantages:
Quality
Price
Speed
AMD Disadvantages:
Heat
Reliability</strong><hr></blockquote>
I must side with AlienDyne on this one.
It really depends on the use of the computer. If it is a gaming machine that needs raw power, and can afford to crash once in a while, then go with AMD all the way.
However, if it is a production server that is running a database that is bringing in $5,000 a day, I'd go with Intel.
Look at the purpose for the machine to make a choice.
[quote]Originally posted by Sowulo:
<strong>
Didn't want to join the debate but have been pretty entertained reading all this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, but you didn't tell us your opinion, Sowulo. :D :D :D
[quote]Originally posted by AlienDyne:
<strong>
Yes, but you didn't tell us your opinion, Sowulo. :D :D :D </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's because those of you who would agree with me would think I'm pretty smart and those who disagree with me would think I'm pretty stupid. Why go there if no one is going to change their opinion anyway. I could "prove" either case using "facts & figures" provided by hundreds of fans for either mfg. But the only ones who could hear my evidence would probably be again, the ones who agreed. This debate is just like religious ones....the bottom line is that the only "facts" one is able to hear are the ones which are "frequency tuned" to ones own experience and perspective--and I don't just mean technological experience: this includes socio-economic factors as well (e.g. Some will prefer AMD simply because Intel is "too big for it's britches" while others will prefer Intel because AMD is "too cheap." Neither is much of an argument based on technical merit.) Shall we next rehash the old MAC/PC debate while we're at it? Bottom line...Who cares? Buy what you want and live with it or replace it.
AMD for 100%
AMD is Cheaper (0.25 the price of an Equivalent Intel Proc.)
Faster (Hz Don't matter because Architecture diff.)
More Stable.
I have 2 of them at home.
[quote]Originally posted by Sowulo:
<strong>
That's because those of you who would agree with me would think I'm pretty smart and those who disagree with me would think I'm pretty stupid. Why go there if no one is going to change their opinion anyway. I could "prove" either case using "facts & figures" provided by hundreds of fans for either mfg. But the only ones who could hear my evidence would probably be again, the ones who agreed. This debate is just like religious ones....the bottom line is that the only "facts" one is able to hear are the ones which are "frequency tuned" to ones own experience and perspective--and I don't just mean technological experience: this includes socio-economic factors as well (e.g. Some will prefer AMD simply because Intel is "too big for it's britches" while others will prefer Intel because AMD is "too cheap." Neither is much of an argument based on technical merit.) Shall we next rehash the old MAC/PC debate while we're at it? Bottom line...Who cares? Buy what you want and live with it or replace it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Come on, Curt. I was just kidding!
I fully agree with you on that and that's why I just posted the advantages and the disadvantages of each manufacturer without saying my opinion.
[quote]Originally posted by AlienDyne:
<strong>
Come on, Curt. I was just kidding!
I fully agree with you on that and that's why I just posted the advantages and the disadvantages of each manufacturer without
saying my opinion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I know you were kidding but the perceived advantages and disadvantages are still going to be laughed at or scoffed at depending upon which side one is on. If someone wants to be a little more objective and run benches, then one still has to decide on which benches and justify one's choices. In addition, most people site price as an important factor. Would someone like to price an AMD 1.4 and an Intel 1.4 and include all the specific costs relevant to each processor such as CPU fan, certified power supply, certified RAM? If you're honest by the time these necessary components are factored into CPU cost, price isn't really a factor (AMD 1.4 CPU only = $105) (Intel P4 1.4 CPU only = $124).
AlienDyne, you were trying to be funny and you were but I think I'll stick with ironic and laugh for that reason. Price isn't relevant if you're going to build the system correctly (good enough parts to avoid constant hassles) whether you go with AMD or Intel. What can be had for what price vs. what should be done to make sure one is building a system that will properly fulfill its intended function are two very different arguments. The bottom line for my own personal use is speed and stability. For my customers I must also factor in ease of setup (how many factors are there involved in getting these parts to function together with their OS)--the more factors, the more potential for warranty visits
(I do all my work on-site). Again, each of you have your own opinions as do I and unless every computer is going to have an identical setup with identical OS and applications used in identically the same way, then there never will be a definitive better chip. One thing that many of you have stated that I will readily agree upon, competition is good for the consumer hopefully for improved features, performance and stability. If I can get those three things and I price I can live with then wonderful but otherwise price doesn't weigh that heavily--would you want your open-heart surgery performed by the lowest bidder? :D
That's why I was trying to make fun out of this question. We have had lots of similar posts in the past and I'm pretty tired of this kind of debates.
Yes. Some people think that price is an important factor but nobody has ever asked how many Intel or AMD CPUs have been RMA'd and for what reason.
FYI, I RMA'd 3 or 4 Thunderbirds last week (I don't remember the exact number and I don't have enough time to review my records right now). The damage wasn't caused by the customers.
My bottom line is speed, quality and reliability. The price is the last thing I have in mind if I want a solid system.
Some people might hate me for what I said, but this is my opinion and it's the first and the last time I said it.
It really depends on what you want it for. If you need it for compiling or creating video or audio, the P4's are the king. This is in part due to the RDRAM. For general purpose, do everything, an AMD system may be the best price for the performance. There have been compatability issues as people learn the quirks of having VIA and other companies make the chipsets. One thing to think of is that you should look at getting a good HSF if the computer is not going to be in a well air conditioned room. This will offset some of the price savings, but I've found it was needed. Other upgrades may be needed if you are upgrading an older computer. The power supply should be 300w or better. There needs to be excellent cooling so you should think of the airflow in the computer. All in all, it may be more economical to stay with Intel. Either way, both platforms have advantages and disadvantages. For servers, I'd consider P4 because of RDRAM's advantage makes it excell against T-Birds. In multiprocessor comparisons, dual AMD kicks but in so many things, that buying intel is paying more for less performance. Intel released a new P4 compiler, that brings the P4 in line with AMD's chips, or even surpass them. Problem is that most companies already made their apps and would need a massive patch to update it to use the new P4 instructions better.
AMD is a good buy, but weigh your individual needs, where it is going and what it is going in. If you are planning on buying a pre-made system, then it should have good cooling and you should worry less about cooling.
[quote]Originally posted by Sowulo:
<strong>
the perceived advantages and disadvantages are still going to be laughed at or scoffed at depending upon which side one is on\
would you want your open-heart surgery performed by the lowest bidder? :D </strong><hr></blockquote>
Watch out Sowulo, if I didn't know any better, I would say you were exposing an Opinion!
[quote]Originally posted by Ya_know:
<strong>
Watch out Sowulo, if I didn't know any better, I would say you were exposing an Opinion!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Only if you hadn't figured out my 'opinion' that there was no price difference because of the inherent added ancilliary costs associated with the AMD option.... :D :cool: ....therefore cost is not a relevant factor, only whether the chip meets the need and both AMD and Intel have strengths and weaknesses.....The only time 'one size fits all' is with really ugly clothing. :D
Im going to come out with chip Called the Daemon Chip :)
It will beat every chip out, hows that! :)
Specs -
Size: 2 feet x 2 feet
Energy: 120 watts
Speed: 7ghz
Bus: 2ghz
tell then we can argue :)
[quote]Originally posted by Daemon:
<strong>Im going to come out with chip Called the Daemon Chip :)
It will beat every chip out, hows that! :)
Specs -
Size: 2 feet x 2 feet
Energy: 120 watts
Speed: 7ghz
Bus: 2ghz
tell then we can argue :) </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not big enough! I want one large enough to double as radiant-heat flooring to cut down on my winter heating bills. On hot days in the summer it could be moved outside under the swimming pool/hot tub.
:D :D :D
hahaha that would rock, use your computer to heat your house in the winter hummm :D :D
Hmmm! Would that be passive T-Bird power? Might go a long way in solving some of power grid problems in the West! :D
hahhaha,
Ill use both Intel and AMD technologies :)
Ill put a sticker on it with "Intel inside"
And make it have the heat as the AMD with a sticker saying "Heat provided by: AMD" :D
hahhaha,
Ill use both Intel and AMD technologies :)
Ill put a sticker on it with "Intel inside"
And a sticker saying "Heat provided by: AMD" :D
I like AMD for the pricing, but one thing I've found and maybe someone out there could explain why, Intel you can run EZ CD creator 4.0, but you can't run it with AMD, why? I have found this to be true of a couple of other programs as well with AMD that run find on Intel https://forums.windrivers.com/
------------------
The day I stop learning, is the day I stop breathing!
I like AMD for the pricing, but one thing I've found and maybe someone out there could explain why, Intel you can run EZ CD creator 4.0, but you can't run it with AMD, why? I have found this to be true of a couple of other programs as well with AMD that run fine on Intel. Has anyone else had this experience? I've writen to both AMD and to Roxio (the creator of EZ CD Creator and never recieved an answer from either company. https://forums.windrivers.com/
------------------
The day I stop learning, is the day I stop breathing!
Runs fine on my AMD, it must be your system..Quote:
<font face="Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, Geneva" size="2">Originally posted by bob_moquin:
I like AMD for the pricing, but one thing I've found and maybe someone out there could explain why, Intel you can run EZ CD creator 4.0, but you can't run it with AMD, why? I have found this to be true of a couple of other programs as well with AMD that run fine on Intel. Has anyone else had this experience? I've writen to both AMD and to Roxio (the creator of EZ CD Creator and never recieved an answer from either company. https://forums.windrivers.com/
</font>
------------------
I am JungleMan.
EZ-CD Creator ran fine on my system. Stopped using it though in favor of Nero. Much better program IMHO.Quote:
<font face="Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, Geneva" size="2">Originally posted by bob_moquin:
I like AMD for the pricing, but one thing I've found and maybe someone out there could explain why, Intel you can run EZ CD creator 4.0, but you can't run it with AMD, why? I have found this to be true of a couple of other programs as well with AMD that run fine on Intel. Has anyone else had this experience? I've writen to both AMD and to Roxio (the creator of EZ CD Creator and never recieved an answer from either company. https://forums.windrivers.com/
</font>
As for the AMD vs. Intel bit, I ran Intel up until the beginning of this summer, then I got a Duron. Haven't really noticed a change in stability though there are most definetly heat issues with this chip. Look to AMD as the cause of global warming and leave CO2 alone. But in all seriousness, the Athlon outperformed the P3, so it's carrying a user base over. It's also the underdog, and everyone loves an underdog. Last, Intel screwed over consumers for a while on price and would have kept doing so except for the Athlon so when a viable option presented itself a lot of people embraced it (btw, I recommend you never phsically embrace a Tbird/Duron while it is on, them suckers smart). I have just realized that I didn't give an opinion, but I typed all this up so I'm gonna post it anyways.
------------------
I am hanging over the brink of insanity. Coffee is my rope. I need more rope.
This is the amd VS intel
Not Nero VS Roxio
oh i like fireburner https://forums.windrivers.com/
------------------
Stop bustin my chops!
Ill do it!
wow why is comming up all big????
<pre>
^
|
|
</pre>
------------------
Stop bustin my chops!
Ill do it!
Intel - reliability, reliability, reliability.
------------------
Death is lighter than a feather - duty heavier than a mountian.
http://cybertech.freehomepage.com/
Intel is only "more reliable" than AMD because most people don't know how to cool Athlon based systems. If you have an Athlon with sufficient cooling it's just as reliable as any Intel is.
what can u expect when Gay-way or Hewlett Crappard is selling 1.4 Athlons with Orbs https://forums.windrivers.com/
------------------
I am JungleMan.
I would disagree there actually, even though a small element of truth is there. The vast majority of stability issues lie with BIOS settings, PSU's, incorrect placings of PCI devices, wrong drivers used (mainly wrong sequence of installing the drivers with older files overwriting newer files which then negates the installation originally), and finally cutting costs by using cheap hardware (such as PC-Chips mobo's, no-name Geforce cards, generic RAM, etc, etc).Quote:
<font face="Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, Geneva" size="2">Originally posted by Jpbtennisman:
Intel is only "more reliable" than AMD because most people don't know how to cool Athlon based systems. If you have an Athlon with sufficient cooling it's just as reliable as any Intel is.
what can u expect when Gay-way or Hewlett Crappard is selling 1.4 Athlons with Orbs https://forums.windrivers.com/
</font>
Heating problems would be the last thing on my list with stabilities as if it was heat that causes the main problems then this system here would not be running 100% stable with an idle CPU speed of over 50C and system temp of over 40C ( and you know what cooling I have in this already )!!!!
Oh and I will agree that the Orbs are a waste of time https://forums.windrivers.com/ https://forums.windrivers.com/
------------------
Yes it is the real deal
Wow....what a burning topic i started.....
------------------
Raven
Quote:
--------
EPOR...EPOR...EPOR
Private message me if you either want to or know where that quote is from.
AMD ATHALON 1.3 is faster than P4 1.4...>=)
I love my computer class https://forums.windrivers.com/
------------------
https://forums.windrivers.com/
I've tested 4 different AMD CPU's and also 4 different MoBos with a miro DC30+, and i have seen that AMD cpu will not work wll with video, the linear disk transfer is about 1.9 MB/s.
Used NT, W98SE, and W2K.
Personaly I like AMD more than Intel, but with a 300W case and a BIG fan.
this is for the earlier comment on the using yer computer to heat yer house..
I use my computer to heat my room in the winter..
because my room is far away from the central air and the bed is over the duct not much heat comes in.. thats why my computer comes in handy when heating up my room.. so after about half an hour or so my room is all toasty warm hehe
right now I use a
Pentium - MMX 166Mhz heheh the old skool $hit
32Mb Ram
2Mb S3 Video Card
56k Modem
Sound Blaster 16
Running Win 95
so i know my computer will beat everyones in this room.. hehe
wanna drag race to prove it? =P
Peace
[quote]Originally posted by Dj_Xtasy:
<strong>this is for the earlier comment on the using yer computer to heat yer house..
I use my computer to heat my room in the winter..
because my room is far away from the central air and the bed is over the duct not much heat comes in.. thats why my computer comes in handy when heating up my room.. so after about half an hour or so my room is all toasty warm hehe
right now I use a
Pentium - MMX 166Mhz heheh the old skool $hit
32Mb Ram
2Mb S3 Video Card
56k Modem
Sound Blaster 16
Running Win 95
so i know my computer will beat everyones in this room.. hehe
wanna drag race to prove it? =P
Peace </strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure.your system will rip thru some Q3 ;)
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?
AMD...Super duper easy to overclock..and they cost much much less...
[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....
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!
[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.