This is the place where all heated debates shall reside. Non-tech topics allowed. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. "Enter at your own Risk".

Moderator: The Mod Squad

Postby NascarFool » Wed Jul 17, 2002 8:59 pm

Here's what my P4 Killer does without overclocking. Not bad, it beats a P4 2.66 with a 512 cache. My XP2200+ has a 256 cache.

Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 6:39 pm

amd will win

Postby Zero » Wed Jul 31, 2002 7:04 pm

if amd xp 1.6ghz vs p4 1.6ghz amd will fry intel cuz amd ues some new technolgy called quantispeed or some kinda crap. i read the story and amd said mhz cannot be the principle of calculating speeds and that xp 2000+ is eqivelent to a p4 2.0ghz go to and read the story :D
Black Belt
Black Belt
Posts: 616
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 6:44 pm
Location: vancouver bc canada

Postby Prembird1 » Thu Aug 01, 2002 5:30 pm

Well to post my .02 on this... Let me give you a little background...first puter was an northstar system (ever heard of them???).. then upgraded to a 8086 after that... So ive been around awhile and seen pretty much all of it coming...

My biggest problems i ever run into seems kinda childish after reading everything you all are posting... But here it goes...

1. Every other year it seems intel puts out a new chip.. So if you want to upgrade to it you end up not only getting the chip but also having to get a whole new mobo to go with it... Gets pricey real quick...

2. The price of intel is outragous...

3. As for being better quality then amd... I have had more problems out of intel chips going south then amd chips... So i stick with what works best for me...

What can i say good about intel.. Not a whole lot really since pretty much every intel chip ive used has destroyed itself somehow/someway...

What i like about amd is simple...

1. They keep with a current socket setup till they HAVE to change to go to the next level of performance...Letting people upgrade without having to get another Mobo to go with it...

2. Only had 1 amd chip go south on me... And that was my fault completely..

3. They seem to run a lot more stable then Intel chips...

4. Intel cant touch the price/performance aspect that AMD offers...

There are just a few things... When ever im asked about what people should get i tell them buy what they want since its there computer... If asked for my personal opnion ill tell them to buy amd and put that extra money they save into other upgrades...
Its not who you know but what you know that will really confuse someone....
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2002 2:04 pm
Location: Kanas City, Missour

Postby charibdis » Sat Aug 03, 2002 6:11 am

You know what I find funny? I ran tests on my AMD XP1800+ (in Sisoft Sandra) and it tells me that my 1800+ runs faster than a P4 2GHz! Actually the stats were if I'm not mistaken PR2254. And this is at a totally unaltered speed. My CPU is not overclocked and runs at the normal 133MHz FSB at 1.53GHz. Now if a Xp1800+ can beat a P4 2GHz then an XP2200+ should very well beat the 2.5Ghz or more.

I'll try to remember to post a screenshot of it whenever I get back home.
ABIT NF7-S | Athlon 2500XP @ 12x200 | Corsair HydroCool200 | 3DMark2K1 V330 = 15722 ~ 3DMark03 V340 = 4988
2nd pc: Dual PII 350 running Fedora Core 2
3rd pc: Dual Intel PPro 200MHz (Linux) ->decomissioned due to heat problems
Black Belt
Black Belt
Posts: 910
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 10:36 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby undying fenix » Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:01 am

nice stats nascarfool
Hold that thought.
undying fenix
Green Belt
Green Belt
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 12:36 pm
Location: Texa$$

Postby gamepyrate » Mon Aug 19, 2002 12:26 am

Yes, you can post benchmarks in SiSoft Sandra and whatever meaningless numbers you wish, the AMD will beat the nearest Intel and probably the few above it, but in gaming you can't disregard Intel's dominating AMD's because, though they get fewer operations per clock, they have so many more MHZ it makes the difference, often by over 30%. And, I believe, Intel is well ahead of AMD technology-wise, as they are already prompting their next Prescott core which will have a .09u chip -- translating to higher clock speeds, and lower temperatures -- versus the .13u Thoroughbred and the next Barton core with added Cache. AMD adds extra Cache on new chips, Intel adds more MHZ. Plus, a big caveat with current AMD chips is their mere 133mhz/266DDR FSB; once they bring out chips with 166mhz the tables may turn.
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
Posts: 1359
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 12:00 am

Postby danoaks15 » Mon Sep 30, 2002 12:44 pm

Prembird1 wrote:1. They keep with a current socket setup till they HAVE to change to go to the next level of performance...Letting people upgrade without having to get another Mobo to go with it...


That is the exact reason why i hate intel.
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 12:14 pm

quote from Tolemac's geek jokes

Postby Johnny Mnemonic » Wed Oct 02, 2002 7:57 am

Intel: We put the "um" in Pentium. :lol:
Johnny Mnemonic
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
Posts: 1903
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 1:01 am
Location: McKinney, Tx

AMD all the way

Postby ab630 » Sat Oct 05, 2002 3:09 am

AMD CPU's are far better than Intel's.
They are cheaper, easier to o/c and all together better. They have lower clock speeds but perform better. e.g. Athlon XP 2000+ against P4 2.0GHz.
Dual Boot Windows XP Pro, Linux RedHat 9.0
Intel Pentium 4 630 (3.00 GHz, 800 MHz FSB, 2MB cache)
1 GB DDR2 533 MHz RAM
160 GB 7200rpm SATA HDD 8MB Cache
ATi Radeon X300 SE 128MB PCI-E
Dual 17" TFT Monitors
Green Belt
Green Belt
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 3:20 am
Location: U.K

Postby gamepyrate » Sat Oct 05, 2002 9:40 pm

AMD fans are like Honda fans, saying they get more performance [horsepower] per megahert [liter], when it really doesn't matter: they don't have enough performance [horsepower] period. And although AMD really shouldn't be compared to Honda, it's the best I could think of, as they are also predominantly cheap and slower than competing manufacturers.

A year from now, this may be untrue. But as long as AMD pushes back its product launches, Intel will be performance king.

I'm awaiting the Hammer definitely, to see if it really can do the things they say it does; but until it comes out, I will go by what is currently known: Intel's highest is faster than AMD's highest.

Now if we could only combine Intel's brute MHZ with AMD's performance/megahert to create a Pentathlon... :D
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
Posts: 1359
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 12:00 am


Return to The Hundred Year War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AhrefsBot [Bot] and 1 guest