If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
intel is all for looks
ok i am seeing more and more of these people thinking that intel is better
than amd and that the raw clock speeds are what really matters most. i am the proud owner of a 2700+ that i have stably overclocked to what is considered to be a T-Bred 3200+ which runs at 2.509 Ghz. in sissoft sandra i compared to a p4 2.4 Ghz and it was more than twice as fast in all benchmarks. intel is ****ty and all you pay for is a high clock speed chip and the little blue men. amd is the way to go and for those that dont believe that then go check the benchmarks. http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=1 for all you intel lovers check out that link. puts intel to shame |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
matthew utt wrote:
ok i am seeing more and more of these people thinking that intel is better than amd and that the raw clock speeds are what really matters most. i am the proud owner of a 2700+ that i have stably overclocked to what is considered to be a T-Bred 3200+ which runs at 2.509 Ghz. in sissoft sandra i compared to a p4 2.4 Ghz and it was more than twice as fast in all benchmarks. intel is ****ty and all you pay for is a high clock speed chip and the little blue men. amd is the way to go and for those that dont believe that then go check the benchmarks. http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=1 for all you intel lovers check out that link. puts intel to shame Horses for courses, Athlon XP is better than "equivelent" P4 in many tests, but the P4 will beat it in others. You cannot advocate one over the other without taking into account the intended use. Unless you factor in price. :-P Ben -- A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups. I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ben Pope wrote:
Horses for courses, Athlon XP is better than "equivelent" P4 in many tests, but the P4 will beat it in others. You cannot advocate one over the other without taking into account the intended use. Unless you factor in price. :-P Even then the use can outweigh the price difference. I always consider the intended use and pick the platform that will perform the best for the money they want to spend. If it's an AMD (which it is much of the time) that's what they get. If it's an INTEL, that's what they get. -- Stacey |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"stacey" wrote in message ... Ben Pope wrote: Horses for courses, Athlon XP is better than "equivelent" P4 in many tests, but the P4 will beat it in others. You cannot advocate one over the other without taking into account the intended use. Unless you factor in price. :-P Even then the use can outweigh the price difference. I always consider the intended use and pick the platform that will perform the best for the money they want to spend. If it's an AMD (which it is much of the time) that's what they get. If it's an INTEL, that's what they get. -- Stacey My understanding is that AMD is the cheaper (in price and quality) chip while Intel is pricier in price and Maybe quality. The 'may be' part of Intel is that they are the largest company and thus they may make some defective products in their mass production lines. However, having said all that, I've had experience with both and will have to say that I've had more problems with AMD than Intel (Celron) and straight Intel. So, make your choice and hope for the best, as for me and my experience, I have to stay with Intel. Helen |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Helen" wrote in message ... "stacey" wrote in message ... Ben Pope wrote: Horses for courses, Athlon XP is better than "equivelent" P4 in many tests, but the P4 will beat it in others. You cannot advocate one over the other without taking into account the intended use. Unless you factor in price. :-P Even then the use can outweigh the price difference. I always consider the intended use and pick the platform that will perform the best for the money they want to spend. If it's an AMD (which it is much of the time) that's what they get. If it's an INTEL, that's what they get. -- Stacey My understanding is that AMD is the cheaper (in price and quality) chip while Intel is pricier in price and Maybe quality. The 'may be' part of Intel is that they are the largest company and thus they may make some defective products in their mass production lines. However, having said all that, I've had experience with both and will have to say that I've had more problems with AMD than Intel (Celron) and straight Intel. So, make your choice and hope for the best, as for me and my experience, I have to stay with Intel. Helen I think that IBM might come close to beating out Intel's fab productions these days. Keep in mind that many of the other larger names went to IBM when they decided that IBM would do it cheaper. I dont see how you can say that one has better "Quality" unless you go by the quality of the boxes, fans, stickers, leaflets. I cant say that I have ever had any processor go faulty on me, by any mfgr.. If you had more problems wiht AMD chips being bad then I would put that down to user error as I wouldnt expect EITHER chip to have problems. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Helen wrote:
"stacey" wrote in message ... Ben Pope wrote: Horses for courses, Athlon XP is better than "equivelent" P4 in many tests, but the P4 will beat it in others. You cannot advocate one over the other without taking into account the intended use. Unless you factor in price. :-P Even then the use can outweigh the price difference. I always consider the intended use and pick the platform that will perform the best for the money they want to spend. If it's an AMD (which it is much of the time) that's what they get. If it's an INTEL, that's what they get. -- Stacey My understanding is that AMD is the cheaper (in price and quality) chip while Intel is pricier in price and Maybe quality. The 'may be' part of Intel is that they are the largest company and thus they may make some defective products in their mass production lines. However, having said all that, I've had experience with both and will have to say that I've had more problems with AMD than Intel (Celron) and straight Intel. So, make your choice and hope for the best, as for me and my experience, I have to stay with Intel. That has not been my experience. Both have made some bad designs, currently both are pretty decent. I haven't noticed my AMD boxen crashing with any greater regularity than my Intel boxen--if either of them crashes for any reason other than a driver problem it indicates that something is broken or improperly configured. As long as the _other_ components are of good quality, the power is adequate, and there's halfway reasonable cooling AMDs don't cause any more problems than Intels. Helen -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
rstlne wrote:
I cant say that I have ever had any processor go faulty on me, by any mfgr.. If you had more problems wiht AMD chips being bad then I would put that down to user error as I wouldnt expect EITHER chip to have problems. Me either. Now I've had problems with chipsets and chipset drivers being flakey but the processors from either camp have always been fine. Well the AMD K6 wasn't that great.... :-) -- Stacey |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ghost speed differerent in AMD & Intel | Zotin Khuma | General | 7 | November 17th 04 06:56 AM |
Motherboard/Processor Qs | elziko | General | 11 | September 5th 04 03:26 PM |
intel board, fans on during standby. intel d875PBZ. | JohnJ | General | 0 | January 13th 04 05:14 PM |
AMD compared to Intel | Tod | Overclocking AMD Processors | 60 | December 4th 03 03:43 PM |
WD360 + Intel 875PBZ + XP Problem | @drian | General | 0 | November 6th 03 11:10 AM |