Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 93

Thread: amd vs intel article




  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    No where
    Posts
    445

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shad0hawK
    wanna do a "fair test"? let's do a mhz to mhz comparision with the same vid card... for instance let's compare a p4 2.2 to my amd chip running at 2170, here is my global compare url:(with no LOD cheating BTW and ALL the tests run)

    http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6540930

    this is interesting too...

    http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=4697213
    Theres one thing wrong with that test.. any processor will look faster if you stick it in a machine with more RAM then the other. that AMD had 512MB, while the intell had 256. 256 is barely enough now a days if you want to run any sort of graphical games. So why dont you do that one again, execpt use 512 ram on both, and DX9 on both, or DX8.1 since its only 3Dmark2001.

    I am an AMD man, but lets do that test fair, if intell is better, good for them, they get my praise. If AMD is better, yay for me:D

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    Not to mention he had the vid card oc.. What a moron.. : omg:

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dyck15
    Theres one thing wrong with that test.. any processor will look faster if you stick it in a machine with more RAM then the other. that AMD had 512MB, while the intell had 256. 256 is barely enough now a days if you want to run any sort of graphical games. So why dont you do that one again, execpt use 512 ram on both, and DX9 on both, or DX8.1 since its only 3Dmark2001.

    I am an AMD man, but lets do that test fair, if intell is better, good for them, they get my praise. If AMD is better, yay for me:D


    actually the ram does not make that a tremendous difference. but let's go with it! :D i just posted the fastest p4 2.2 i could find(which is considerably slower than my AMD running at 2170) here is another with the same amount of ram.


    http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6348901

    just for kicks lets compare to a p4 2.4, again the fastest one on the search and compare i found.

    http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5693382

    still no go for intel! and he did not even run all the tests!! in fact to even come close it takes a p4 2.6 a chip running almost 500 mhz faster to ALMOST score as much as mine did here with the same approximate setup.


    that is the problem i have with this so-called "unbiased" test, the conclusion that amd xp processors will not run "today's applications and games" is inaccurate and misleading..to put it politely. to be a bit more blunt that statment at the from the article is simply biased garbage hoisted on those who do not know better, but many of us DO in fact know better.



    as an afterthgought...

    let's see i spent $80(US) on a xp2000 stepping b batch0001 running it @ 2170mhz(at defualt voltage!!!) that has the potential to run in the 2.5 ghz range with some water cooling. a decent water cooling setup will run me about $90-150US...so for 170-230 bucks i can demolish anything intel has to offer that costs 3-4 times a smuch...does the phrase "economic feasibility" mean anything? :)











    if truth is relative, then is it absolutely true that it is relative?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The__tweaker
    Not to mention he had the vid card oc.. What a moron.. : omg:


    i could not find ANY comparable intel systems that are faster..CAN YOU? :D

    many people overclock their cards, in those same tests there are overclocked intel systems. at least i was honest enough to say so in my test. and that makes me a "moron?!?! ROFL!!

    http://service.futuremark.com/servle.../projectsearch


    i find it interesting many people cannot make a point without getting personal, it is no bother to me really. i am used to it, but i do find it entertaining.

    BTW mr "whoopass" what system do you have?
    oh, and have a nice day :D
    if truth is relative, then is it absolutely true that it is relative?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    Well you asked:

    1x P4 2.26 ghz 533fsb with 256mb 1066 rdram Ti4600 = 13.150 points with everything at stock.

    1x Amd XP 2100+ 512mb ddr Ti4200 = 10.000 points with everything at stock.

    1x Amd XP used for office apps only.

    1x P2 350

    1x Server

    New fast gaming rig from hell and a better server on their way.

    I used my 4600 in the Amd rig before but it still could'nt compete with the P4. And when I compare the machines within multimedia encoding.. lol let's just say the Amd crawls..

    Try setting your comp back to it's stock speed and se how ya score before ya brag because ya ain't impressing someone with that.. I can oc to if i need to but I ain't doing it just to break some other persons score, that's just silly..

    I pity weak people who can't even read a totally fair review about two pieces of hardware without writing so mutch B.S trying to feel better afterwards..

    But go ahead do ya own review then dammit, TT has one of the best reviewers I know of but still you just can't belive the facts that shows up. Put two machines beside eatch other, run a bench like UT2003, then if one gives ya higher fps than the other one doesn't that mean you got yourself a winner..???

    Amd makes GOOD chips that's why I use them myself. But I still think Intel will CONTINUE to lead the performance war until we see the 64 bits systems. Then things can be different who knows.

    But till then, try and not brake down into a deep depression every time Intel wins some tests, jesus it's only computers we are talking bout here..

    Take care m8 and don't snap and hurt someone, we are all friends here.. :devil win

    :cheers:

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    No where
    Posts
    445

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The__tweaker

    it's only computers we are talking bout here..
    Only computers??? ONLY!!?? :confused:

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    Yeah when I come to think about it, they are my life..
    The *******s own me.. :rofl:

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    4

    Default

    I don't have a problem with the review with the exception of the conclusion. The conclusion is so far out there that I find it laughable.

    To think that AMD with it's slower FSB cannot run current games and apps is insane. That conclusion smacks of complete BIAS.

    Also the benchmarks chosen are the same drivel I find in other reviews. How about some recent game benchmarks? Q3? JK2? etc. Does it matter that you're getting 300 fps?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    No need for any other benchmarks, the tests are not run to check wether the cpu can run games as Q3 etc or not. Just to show which cpu that gives the highest possible fps. So if a test shows 40-50 fps or 290-300 doesn't matter. It still serve splendid as a cpu benchmark software.

    Btw what makes you think Amd would be given a better result with newer software? Remember that never games/benches etc are becoming more and more bandwidth hungry and would probably show this performance gap even more..

    As for the statement he made I really think he mean't the games/apps of tomorrow rather than the today ones.. And that AMD probably need to have the 64 bit processing soon if they aren't to be left behind by Intel.. Which I for one can agree to.. Remember Intel ain't staying long at the 800fsb spot before moving up to the next level, and next after that..


  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    494

    Default

    quake 3 is the most intel-biased benchmark out there. and everyone knows it too. so dont say its not. why don't they benchmark using newer games? like ones that just come out, say splinter cell. i would think people would buy faster/newer cpu's to play NEWER games, not ones that are years and years old, why wouldn't they just stick to those? benchmark enter the matrix, doom 3, and other upcoming games. this way, readers can see how much a performance difference a newer and faster cpu would give them. who cares about 3dmarks and q3 frames per second? 400 frames a second..whoopie, your monitor cant even refresh that fast, its just wasted gpu processing. amd cpus clock for clock rape p4 ass hands down. amd should hurry up and move to .09 and clock the athlon xp up to 3ghz. it would take on anything intel could throw until the athlon 64s come out. or put a heat speader on the existing barton core and clock it up. the g5 just came out today, and it rapes p4 ass:)

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •