Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 93

Thread: amd vs intel article




  1. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    New England Highlands, Australia
    Posts
    21,907

    Default

    Well when it comes to "paper launches" Intel lead the way there (remember how long it took for the 1GHz PIII to hit the market after it's launch?). ;)

    But I'll keep on usin' both brands.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aznx
    the fastest clocked mm intel p4 is like what 4.2ghz? and vs the fastest clocked barton, i think which was at 3 something ghz? the barton would own;)
    What you "think" isn't important at all since it's your "opinion" and ya ain't got **** to back it up with, nothing at all.. I do though.. ;)

    And yes, desktop to desktop should be compared, which means the XP line vs the P4 line. This was done and the result were posted here in this thread remember. I really can't understand what's so HARD to understand with the result. After all you are English speaking and I'm not, you should be able to read and understand it perfectly fine.. :devil win

    Wiggo as ya may have heard I use both chips to, and as I mentioned before I'm really impressed by the performance I get with the 2100+ that i own. It actually performed better than I thought it would. At least within non SSE2 applications.

    No matter what brand I prefer I would never close my eyes to the other. (Like some persons seem to have done in this thread) I am building a new gamingsystem and I will consider all options available before deciding on some particular type, the Amd line is intresting to. But as I won't shop until a few weeks have passed I really haven't made up my mind yet.. :shrug:


  3. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    Btw what is it that everybody should do before paying hard cash for new hardware? The answer is reading reviews.

    But some people seem to thinks it's all bs and not important. For no matter what the different reviews point out theres still only one winner. AMD

    Same goes for the Ati vs Nvidia struggle, why bother reading reviews when they all just bogus anyways..:?: Everybody nows that Nvidia can't do **** cause they failed to make ONE card, the 5800 ultra a success. My good should we look back and see how things were done in the past then I can't understand how ANYONE could ever wanna touch the ATI cards with a ten feet pole.. Considering they crap drivers and all that ****. The answer my friends, are improvements! ATI now offers high end cards with great drivers and not that many has problems with em' any more.

    But even though Nvidia are the market leader it doesn't help them cause everybody knows just how worthless their new improved FX card is even though it beats everything else ATI's got on the market atm. Or is it phony reviews there to..:?:

    So everybody should stop reading reviews and just go out and buy a new fanzy AMD with a nice ATI card no matter what the different reviewers got to say on the topic. After all, they are ALL phony..

    No offence, but I do think that a few people should do like me, broaden their judgements and stop beein' so darn "one brand to death" addicted..


  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by das9092
    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.

    Here's two 2GHz P4 systems. I benched them today at work. I'm sorry I couldn't bench on a P4 system running faster than 2GHz or a P4 system with a FSB faster than 400MHz, but 2GHz systems is all we have (except a few lower models). I tested on two systems because one has a VIA P4M266 chipset and the other has an Intel 845G chipset. I wanted to see if the chipset was a factor in this kind of benchmark. It wasn't because they both got pretty much identical scores. I like the fact that my 1.4GHz Athlon "Thunderbird" did the test in just about the same anount of time. :p



    ·Both systems have 512MB of PC2100 DDR-SDRAM.
    DAS

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    Well first of all you might want to use the both cpu's to their fully potential which you can't do on those platforms.

    Using 266 mhz fsb with a cpu that can do 400 isn't comparable at all since you ain't doing the same on your Athlon. It's simple math and I think you can manage it to if ya try really hard. That 266 mhz athlon of yours must be run with a chipset/memory on 133 mhz speed, aka sdram = half the fsb speed in order to get a fair comparizon.. ;) Or rather give the P4 a platform that can support 400 fsb to give it what it needs to perfom to it's fully potential. After all this thread have had alot of whining about "unfair" testing so you for one should be intrested in doing things right..

    Another thing which I find intresting is the fact that you expect us to trust a application never ever used let alone heard of by any known site or by any other known reviewer whilst ya can't trust well known everyday apps to show the difference between platforms.. Strange don't ya think.. Anyone could have written that software for any purpose..

    But sure, I ain't claiming that a 400 fsb P4 perform that well cause they don't, but you see we doesn't run P4's at 266 mhz fsb like you do today, we run them on 800 mhz in dual channel and pretty soon 1200 so why don't ya keep drooling over that john doe test of your's and let us others show some real facts like the one given in the start of this thread.. :devil win


  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    315

    Default

    You're all wrong. The new IBM PPC 970 in the new PowerMac G5 smokes AMD and Intel. Don't believe me!? Just ask Apple.


  7. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    New England Highlands, Australia
    Posts
    21,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [size=6
    Lava Lamp Freak[/size]]
    You're all wrong. The new IBM PPC 970 in the new PowerMac G5 smokes AMD and Intel. Don't believe me!? Just ask Apple.

    SJ will certainly say so. :laugh: :rofl:

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    494

    Default

    i didnt say the g5 didnt;)

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    do you all realize that no matter if you are taking about a 400 mhz amd chip or a 800 mhz Intel chip that it all comes down to the same 200 mhz?

    with that said, will you all cease and desist on what has become another pointless flame war? This is completely ridiculous
    I've gone too far and need to move on!

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    I have disarmed myself, dropped all my weapons to the ground..

    But if they ain't stop firing at me then I'd better run..! :eek:

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •