| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Doc Overclock
Lord Of The Realm
Joined: 25 May 2000
Posts: 3322
Location: Star Fleet Academy
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 11:32 am Post subject: AMD FX57 Versus Intel 670 Review |
 |
|
The old Intel again't AMD thingie again...
This round the 2.8GHz FX57 versus the Intel 3.8GHz 670...
read it all here
http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1528_1.html
_________________
Doc Overclock - Adventures In Electricity |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DAVE1
Mobo-fu Master
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 7699
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| finally intel realizes that the higher clock speed isnt everything |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joshvee
Black Belt 4th Degree
Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 4411
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DAVE185 wrote: | | finally intel realizes that the higher clock speed isnt everything |
Although I'm now in agreement that AMD is far superior clock for clock, your statement above is a bit unfair considering Intel beats the FX57 in exactly 6 of the 12 benchmarks and AMD only beats it in gaming and not by much. Also remember that the FX57 is AMDs top performer and as such, if it were given a name like other AMD chips it would be a 4800+ or even 5000+. According to AMD, this means (like all their other chips) that this chip should be able to keep up with a 4.8 GHz Intel, which is very doubtful considering it just beat a 3.8 GHz Intel in some of the benchmarks. Therefore the FX57 is a 3800+?? not very good really.
Lets just leave it at AMD is king of gaming and Intel is king of multitasking/video editing.
But AMD should be ashamed of their price. 
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DAVE1
Mobo-fu Master
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 7699
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
i know that amd just barley beat the intel but i was just saying that they now know that amd is the better way to go in the long run
i agree i think multi tasking is better for intel but what will happen to them with multitasking when they start going to amd way?
i thought the intel did very well and i agree with you on amds price i think there starting to get as bad as intel on there prices i dont even know why they bother to make that expensive cpus becuase who really buys them ??
i dont think there worth the price
so if the FX57 is really a 3800 what is the real the regularamd 3800 i thought was supposed to be that fast, so has amd been lieing ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robyn
Black Belt 1st Degree
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 1526
Location: Lab Rat in MN
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a question: how multitasking is multitasking?
I know I've seen stuff on how women multitask better than men. They gave individuals a list of tasks to complete and women better multitasked than men and finished sooner. One the other hand when they dropped a bunch of dollar bills men could catch more by focusing on one at a time while women couldn't see the trees for the forest and caught very few. So Men are for AMD and Women are for Intel? (kidding)
Seriously, how does one determine when a computer is multitasking per se? When I'm playing a game and I've got AIM, messenger, gmail, windows general crap, temp monitor, antivirus etc. going on, is that multitasking? What if I'm (shame on me) downloading stuff?
Or would it only be mulitasking only when I've got like 8 firefoxen open and a couple pdfs- maybe one printing and word files and then edit something in photoshop to move to encore because I'm also encoding dvds at the time while updating windows? Sadly this is only a slight stretch for me.
So my concern is: would an errant piece of adware or a virus or something be more likely to noticeably slow down an AMD-based system than an Intel one? And would the general populace (okay, not most of us on the boards) ever not be affected by that, with like 9 out of 10 infected with spyware? And, with my general background stuff running (monitors, aim, etc) am I ever truly not multitasking? Are any of us?
Would an Intel computer fold better than an AMD one if it's one you use and slower than AMD if it's dedicated?
hmmm.... 
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joshvee
Black Belt 4th Degree
Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 4411
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Robyn wrote: | I have a question: how multitasking is multitasking?
I know I've seen stuff on how women multitask better than men. They gave individuals a list of tasks to complete and women better multitasked than men and finished sooner. One the other hand when they dropped a bunch of dollar bills men could catch more by focusing on one at a time while women couldn't see the trees for the forest and caught very few. So Men are for AMD and Women are for Intel? (kidding)
Seriously, how does one determine when a computer is multitasking per se? When I'm playing a game and I've got AIM, messenger, gmail, windows general crap, temp monitor, antivirus etc. going on, is that multitasking? What if I'm (shame on me) downloading stuff?
Or would it only be mulitasking only when I've got like 8 firefoxen open and a couple pdfs- maybe one printing and word files and then edit something in photoshop to move to encore because I'm also encoding dvds at the time while updating windows? Sadly this is only a slight stretch for me.
So my concern is: would an errant piece of adware or a virus or something be more likely to noticeably slow down an AMD-based system than an Intel one? And would the general populace (okay, not most of us on the boards) ever not be affected by that, with like 9 out of 10 infected with spyware? And, with my general background stuff running (monitors, aim, etc) am I ever truly not multitasking? Are any of us?
Would an Intel computer fold better than an AMD one if it's one you use and slower than AMD if it's dedicated?
hmmm.... |
OK well first off, all the examples you gave are examples of multitasking. Now don't get me wrong, the 939 pin AMDs can multitask just fine. but when ur multitasking with a lot of CPU intensive programs like vid editing and many others Intel has a slight (SLIGHT) edge. Which is not to say AMD cannot vid edit sure it can. The fact is all these benchmarks mean jack in the real world because both only have a tiny edge over the others in their respective strengths. Hell I can still play ANY game on my Intel P4 2.8c so long as i have a decent vid card.... come on whats 5 FPS difference when ur talking about 150 FPS. These benchies are purely for bragging rights but in the real world stick to what u like....it'll be just fine.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DAVE1
Mobo-fu Master
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 7699
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
ya you cant really tell the difference when there that close
the amd FX57 and the intel are both mostly for show on whos better becuase i doubt they make that much profit off of those chips |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Overclock
Lord Of The Realm
Joined: 25 May 2000
Posts: 3322
Location: Star Fleet Academy
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is no differance in multitasking???
There is an extreme differance in the multitasking enviroment between AMD and Intel,, they are not close at all.......(IN this Arena)
The AMD platform starts lagging in the opening and clocsing of programs very fast, things like email, photo editing, even writing in word,, slows dowm after only a few instances of closing and oping programs.
The Intel system never bogs down and takes multiple houes of use befor it even shows any lagging.
AMD is only faster in games at the moment and a few single threaded applications. Things Like AutoCAD/ Phtoshop, video rendering are also handled better by the Intel platform.
AMD has come a long way for sure, but multitasking is still its weakest point on single-core CPUs.
_________________
Doc Overclock - Adventures In Electricity |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joshvee
Black Belt 4th Degree
Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 4411
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Doc Overclock wrote: | There is no differance in multitasking???
There is an extreme differance in the multitasking enviroment between AMD and Intel,, they are not close at all.......(IN this Arena)
The AMD platform starts lagging in the opening and clocsing of programs very fast, things like email, photo editing, even writing in word,, slows dowm after only a few instances of closing and oping programs.
The Intel system never bogs down and takes multiple houes of use befor it even shows any lagging.
AMD is only faster in games at the moment and a few single threaded applications. Things Like AutoCAD/ Phtoshop, video rendering are also handled better by the Intel platform.
AMD has come a long way for sure, but multitasking is still its weakest point on single-core CPUs. |
well I always thought so to when I compared my AMDs with my Intel's but every time I say what you just said Doc, I get hailed with fire and brimstone by the more ummmm AMD friendly members of this forum. So this time I was trying to be diplomatic. I do have to re-boot the AMDs more than the Intels and it's not just my imagination. In my book that boils down to, in everyday use Intel performs better than AMD in the standard running of the computer. Lets face it not many ppl ONLY use a computer JUST for games and nothing else. In my book that makes Intel on the whole the better chip to use. And as for games, you'd be hard pressed to actually see or experience the difference between a FX57 and a 670 if they both had say a 6800 or a 7800 or even 1 or 2 6600 video cards.
So sum that up, to buy an AMD is to simply buy better benchmarks. To buy an equivalent Intel is to buy an all round noticeably better processor for day to day operations. and finally Intel (well at the top end) are cheaper.
However this may all change with AMDs dual cores.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tulatin
Enlightened Master
Joined: 11 Dec 2002
Posts: 14664
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hmm, so just like the ATI/NVidia war going on right now, choose which will suit your tastes better. Granted, AMD does seem to be a much more economical and upgrade friendly solution at the moment - after all it seems that with each and every new chip that Intel decides to release comes a new chipset. There's been what - six? Since the advent of Socket 775. Not to mention the fact that if you want to use a dual core chip, it's time to cough up even more cash just to get a new mobo to run it with. The one thing that bothers me to AMD at the moment is that there is no such thing as a socket 939 sempron - for those of us who are cheap and plentiful of motherboard to fill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
