Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 93

Thread: amd vs intel article




  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The__tweaker
    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.
    is not the reason for testing how many fps are attained is to measure performance in 3d accelerated applications such as...games!?!? ;)

    besides it is all about the video card, put an old tnt 2 in a p4 3 ghz and compare it to a xp1800 running half the clock speed and see who wins... here is a prime example of the logic that idea in action:

    http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=4871925

    Quote Originally Posted by The__tweaker
    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...
    the fact that i can "tweak" "optimize" etc. my system to run as fast as systems that cost much much more means alot! :) i am off work tomorrow so i might just unlock my multiplier, ramp that puppy up to around 2.4 or whatever it will run stable at with air cooling, and show you first hand what tweaking really means :)

    Quote Originally Posted by The__tweaker
    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...
    the future will reveal itself, until then anything is just speculation. as for now, AMD's top of the line(opteron) spanks the best intel has to offer at almost half the clock speed ROFL!!). remember the xp processor is not the "best" amd has out, the opteron is. so what is being done here is comparing AMD's low end processor(the duron is out of production) to Intel's high end.

    if you want to see high end vs high end look here:

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1818&p=7

    i highly recommend reading the entire article, the k-8 has plenty of headroom and AMD is going to be a thorn in the side of intel for a very, very long time. which is good for all of us!
    if truth is relative, then is it absolutely true that it is relative?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The__tweaker
    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.

    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....[/quote]

    LOL!! those clock speeds on my ti4400 are not much faster than a stock ti4600 speed. just set your cards speed the same as mine. since the 4600's have better ram and more memory bandwidth you should beat my ti4400's score. are you wanting to not do a CPU clock for clock comparision? after all your p4 2.26 is still faster mhz wise than my amd...this sounds like excuse making on your part, you call yourself "mr tweaker" well tweak away then!! :D should i clock my cpu the same speed as yours to do away with the 90 mhz difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by The__tweaker
    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.. .
    so do i...so do i. :D

    Quote Originally Posted by The__tweaker
    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..???.
    as i said before, i have no problem with the majority of the review but the quote i put earlier from it's conclusion is simply farcical.


    Quote Originally Posted by The__tweaker
    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..
    :cheers:
    depression? ROFL!! think that if it makes you feel better about yourself,go for it! i am all for people feeling good about themselves!! and as far us all being friends here, i am sure when you called me a "moron" you meant it in a "friendly" way! LOL!! :D

    have a nice day friend! :D
    if truth is relative, then is it absolutely true that it is relative?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    315

    Default

    the future will reveal itself, until then anything is just speculation. as for now, AMD's top of the line(opteron) spanks the best intel has to offer at almost half the clock speed ROFL!!). remember the xp processor is not the "best" amd has out, the opteron is. so what is being done here is comparing AMD's low end processor(the duron is out of production) to Intel's high end.
    I would suggest to u that the p4 is not intels highend. If u want to compare intels highend, benchmark a xeon mp v. the opteron and see how well it does. There is also the idea of 32 v. 64 bit chips which can have a bit of an influence. The p4 is intels workstation chip, the opteron was designed as a server chip, not workstation. They are aimed at 2 seperate markets.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VinnieVen
    I would suggest to u that the p4 is not intels highend. If u want to compare intels highend, benchmark a xeon mp v. the opteron and see how well it does. There is also the idea of 32 v. 64 bit chips which can have a bit of an influence. The p4 is intels workstation chip, the opteron was designed as a server chip, not workstation. They are aimed at 2 seperate markets.


    the xeon 2.8 gets spanked too, as far as 64 bit goes it does not make a diiference as it was running at 32 bit, something intels 64 bit processors can only do in emulation mode, which is slower than a reg p4 at a price comparable to a p4 3.2 it does not matter what market it is aimed at, anyone can buy one.

    the simple objective fact remains. AMD's best is better than intel's best...period. at almost half the clock speed.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1816
    if truth is relative, then is it absolutely true that it is relative?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    494

    Default

    unless you wanna get itanium2s;) though their like 4000 bucks just for the processor.

    umm if the xeon mp is for servers, then the athlon64 must be fore WORKSTATIONS, and it still rapes ass:)

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aznx
    unless you wanna get itanium2s;) though their like 4000 bucks just for the processor.

    umm if the xeon mp is for servers, then the athlon64 must be fore WORKSTATIONS, and it still rapes ass:)


    the athlon 64 is a desktop/workstation. the opteron is in fact a different processor than the athlon 64 with a different pin count. and as far as that goes the opteron is a 8 way solution ,meaning 8 processors can be run on one mobo, the opterons out now(models 240,242,244) are dual configurable quads start with model 4xx such as 440, 442 etc.
    if truth is relative, then is it absolutely true that it is relative?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    Your right guys, this sucks. Amd wins all tests ever done over the last year. Intel never had any performance lead, and the one they had was caused by cheating..

    My god man have you been living under a rock..?? Wake up and smell the coffe.. Starting comparing Opteron against P4, sorry to break it to ya but p4 isn't Intels top of the line cpu's.. So then wtf is wrong with using the XP line which is suposed to be Amd desktop cpu's..:?:

    So what Amd has a more effective clockcykle? That doesn't help them mutch ya know if their gonna keep the speeds down wile Intel make their way higher and higher in both cpu clock cyckle and bus speeds.. Amd were closer in performance when P4b were their fastest cpu but now when the P4c processors with faster fsb are released this gap has started to grow, and it will continue to grow until we see the 64 bit processing.

    You don't need to ***** about my personal comps as they are all I need, I do mutch SSE2 apps and NO Amd XP today can outrun my 2.26 cpu within those tasks..

    So the facts and only important matter of this thread still remains, P4c 3.2 ghz spanked the sass outta that Amd XP3200 in a bunch of fair tests, Q3 Intel biased? Sure I'll go for that, remove it then as that were the only test Amd lost.. :rofl:
    No, let me guess, ALL those tests are Intel biased! That's why Intel won, yeah that's right!! This is so unfair! Now I wanna cry.. :cry:

    Man you seem to have a big problem accepting true facts when ya se em'.. I'm the first to congratulate Amd when they do something good, what is your problem..:?:

    Stop posting those silly links to your silly benchmarking comparisons on ya XP@blahblah, the relevance of this thread was clear, two top notch cpu's against eatch other, one of them won some fair testing without cheating, get over it.. :shrug:


  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    I guess it is inevitable...mention AMD and Intel in the same thread and you are guranteed to have a flame war on your hands

    without saying which one is better, ... :blah: All I'll say is that the wording of the conclusion does seem a bit biased
    If you're honest with yourself, dispite which fan club you lump yourself into, you should at least be able to admit that (of course you would have to read something objectivly and not start off with blind devotion to one company or another)

    :2cents:
    I've gone too far and need to move on!

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    It was not meant like that but anyhow, yes it may seem a bit biased.

    I always liked Intel but i got my self a couple of Amd chips just to discover they are great!

    I'm just a bit tired of all the whining about cheating all the time. Some people seem to belive all the reviewers are paid of by Intel, even our own one evidently. Even though they don't have any problems trusting benchies found at sites like amd.com :laugh:

    And if it's not money, then it's most likely the software. Because everybody knows it, Intel can't beat Amd, just ain't possible.
    : omg:

    This type of militant brand addiction is so damn stupid, I for one had NEVER gone crazy like that if the tests had shown Amd is faster..

    I'm NOT a pure Intel man due to the fact that I run both types of chips and i like em' both.
    I just hate stupidity of the kind posted above..


  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rkane
    My only response is... WTF!?
    I think it's funny that it is almost impossible to find a set of benchmarks for these 2 competing processors that will accurately compare them. In this article they use mostly Intel Biased benchmarks, and in others I have read you can see that Athlon XP can beat the latest P4. I just wish someone would do a review using a comparable number of Intel Biased benches vs. AMD Biased benches.

    I agree that there is no need for over 200 fps. The average person can see no more than 70fps in the first place.

    Here's a benchmark you can use on any system to see how well it will really work doing everyday activities.

    www.caosciotocounty.org/rcable/zipcodes.zip
    I haven't put up a reporting site yet so that you can compare scores but I have a P4 1.6 here at work and it completed the test in 42:13.
    Hmmm... Interesting benchmark. Did you write it yourself?

    But anyway, here are the scores my Athlon systems got. Tomorrow I'll take the test to work and test it out on some of our P4 systems. The sad thing is the fastest P4 systems we have are 2GHz.

    And maybe I'll try it out on my dual 867MHz G4 Mac also to see how it does. :)





    ·The 2.08GHz Athlon XP 2800+ is a Barton core and the full specs can be found here.
    ·The 2.0GHz Athlon XP 2400+ is a T' Bred and the full specs are here.
    ·The 1.4GHz Athlon is a Thunderbird and the full specs are here.
    ·The 1.2GHz Athlon 4 is my laptop and is based on the Pally core. The full specs are here.
    DAS

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •