1  2  3  |   Order by index

Sep 29, 2003, 5:29pm

Only the 3.2 ghz p4 EE (extreme edition) is faster which isn't available for
a coupe months earliest `,'

But, intel is good in some areas, and AMD is good in some areas. Intel may
of had AMD in a couple areas, if I recall they were audio and video related
stuff, but only by a little....

But dang dude you must have deep pockets. The FX alone is like $700, and
knowing Intel, their's will prolly be at least $900 when it arrives.

[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 5:32pm

A: Can you read? Comit said AMD does 200x2, 400Mhz FSB. In fact, with some
OCing (and the 2500+ Barton and 1700+ JIUHBs are very capable of this) you
can bring the FSB up higher, provided that your memory can also run that
fast.

B: Your two AMD systems are noisy? Boo-hoo, they just have noisy fans. It's
not the processors fault, as there are many quiet fans and cheap heatsinks
that can do a great job keeping an Athlon XP cool and very quiet. The
builder of the PCs just decided to throw a peice of crap on them. Don't
blame AMD for something that they don't have a hand in.

C: Your highway example of why AMD is bad isn't very good. Explain that one
further please? Are you talking about the length of the pipline or
something? (In that case, the P4's longer pipeline takes longer to clear
than AMD's shorter ones, which means that you get more wasted clock cycles).

My suggestion is that you go do some more reading. Or post up your sources
as to where you found this "information."

-CMM

[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 6:24pm

Nah, I buy things once the price goes down. ROFL

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 6:29pm

Oh yeah, and I don't remembr where the article is (I'll have to find it, it
might have been in a magazine though) that shows that current P4s have
higher performance at 3.2GHz.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 6:35pm

Umm... well there isn't actually a clear winner:
http://www.legitreviews.com/Reviews/64fx_5.shtml

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 6:42pm

well, I guess that the athlon 64 winsout afterall

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 8:57pm

[View Quote] I was talking about the system as a whole dumbass diabete whore. Learn
to use your analytical abilities.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Yeah, it's that good.
(Maybe an AW section in the near future?)

Sep 29, 2003, 9:08pm

[View Quote] Can you think? 2x2 is 4 and not 2. Hence why 200x 4 gives you 800 and
not 200.

> B: Your two AMD systems are noisy? Boo-hoo, they just have noisy fans. It's
> not the processors fault, as there are many quiet fans and cheap heatsinks
> that can do a great job keeping an Athlon XP cool and very quiet. The
> builder of the PCs just decided to throw a peice of crap on them. Don't
> blame AMD for something that they don't have a hand in.

I'm sorry I don't have $2000 to blow on goldheatsinkshitfuck(tm) technology.

> C: Your highway example of why AMD is bad isn't very good. Explain that one
> further please? Are you talking about the length of the pipline or
> something? (In that case, the P4's longer pipeline takes longer to clear
> than AMD's shorter ones, which means that you get more wasted clock cycles).

It's the width of a bus. If you have a wider bus, no matter what the
base frequency is it's going to work faster. 200x4 = 800 yes, but
that's still much faster than a 200x2 = 400. More room, more
information, faster speeds. No matter how fast the processor can
"think" if your bus is 400 MHz you're going to fall short of a processor
that has 800.

Think of it this way: 1200 clock cycles can fit into a 200 mhz bus, but
then become easily congested by a backflow of 6. Now, let's put it on a
600 mhz bus... then it's only 3. You've halved it. Even if you waste
clock cycles here and there the bus speed makes up for it.

Now, the faux pas of not being able to compare any two chips produced by
different companies is a non-sequitor. You can only use that if you're
comparing two seperate types of processors, ie Alpha and x86,
Apple(Motorola) and x86, so on. As for comparing like processors, it's
actually very good. (especially in the FSB)

> My suggestion is that you go do some more reading. Or post up your sources
> as to where you found this "information."

I suggest you learn how to think about why the analogy is exactly the
way it is. I guess he called forth his friends from his city to help
him, yo.

I digress, I guess I'm don't know what I'm talking about when a fanboy
hobbies who build their r0x0ring WindowsXP athalon XP ATI Radeon
Probuttfucker 40234560840698 series, and then waste $1000 because they
mismatch types like agp 8x cards on an agp 2x system 4 gigs of ram when
the motherboard only supports 1 gig. I've seen it happen... and then
they only check their email.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Yeah, it's that good.
(Maybe an AW section in the near future?)

Sep 29, 2003, 9:13pm

[View Quote] Looks like on most of the tests the 32 bit CPU is fairly damn close and
in only one test it exceeds it by a long shot. So, AMD's flagship 64
bit processor falls short of "blazing fast speeds." I would still
recommend buying an intel chipset and save money (the irony).

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Yeah, it's that good.
(Maybe an AW section in the near future?)

Sep 29, 2003, 9:19pm

Save money intel's are awyyy more expensive that AMD's... specially the old
XP's converted to MP's with a lil connection on L5 Bridge

http://www.cluboverclocker.com/reviews/motherboards/iwill/mpx2/page4.htm

Sep 29, 2003, 9:22pm

My only draw back was that i have 266mhz ram so i could only up my
multiplier with out getting memory problems and blue screens of death should
be good if i both to replace it with 3x 1GB DDR chips.... or i could just
save my penny's

Sep 29, 2003, 9:24pm

Fanboy >:-P

Anyway, that's what I said, though most of the tests proved me wrong.
Anyway, the point isn't its speed at 32 bits, but the fact that it is
compatible with 64-bit applications

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 9:25pm

All the cooling issues aren't as bad as people make out... i have my 2400
with the retail box heat sink it worked fine and was nice and quiet....
though for over clocking maybe a $25 heat sink (im guessing cant be bothered
to convert £15) that keeps it super cool and its not very noisey at all even
when i both the optional fans to the cases moutings... its not loud at all
and keeps my temps down well

Sep 29, 2003, 9:25pm

you mean $60 tops?

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 9:26pm

AMD have got the lead on 64bit.... i mean how much more performance can we
squess out right now on th current systems so get 64 bit much nicer .. but
dont forget to look at the Opteron's but there more office and server
designed 64's are gaming and home use

Sep 29, 2003, 9:27pm

[View Quote] Seriously, do all of you have ADD excluding duo? The 64 bit processor
is, as far as I could tell, the fastest, most optomized piece of
hardware AMD has and in those benchmarks it falls short, or is
relatively equal to the intel 32 bit chip. And it's cheaper. Even the
page duo gave said to save your money and get an intel chip until such a
time AMD lowers their price.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Yeah, it's that good.
(Maybe an AW section in the near future?)

Sep 29, 2003, 9:29pm

Lol nooo well.... heat sink £20... £10 for 2 8 inch fans what ever £30 is in
USD

Sep 29, 2003, 9:30pm

[View Quote] They have the lead on the 64 bit systems, but it offers little to no
immediate advantage to 32 bit processors. And again, there is little to
nothing that 64 bits can do that 32 bit can't. And it's going to be a
huge amount of time before it'll be otherwise. Gaming will stay on the
32 bit system until 64 bit takes over (like I said, that's going to be a
long time).

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Yeah, it's that good.
(Maybe an AW section in the near future?)

Sep 29, 2003, 9:37pm

Sorry for that one liner.

> Can you think? 2x2 is 4 and not 2. Hence why 200x 4 gives you 800 and
> not 200.

The real FSB is 200MHz though.

> I'm sorry I don't have $2000 to blow on goldheatsinkshitfuck(tm)
technology.

See my other post.

> It's the width of a bus. If you have a wider bus, no matter what the
> base frequency is it's going to work faster. 200x4 = 800 yes, but
> that's still much faster than a 200x2 = 400. More room, more
> information, faster speeds. No matter how fast the processor can
> "think" if your bus is 400 MHz you're going to fall short of a processor
> that has 800.

The bus is the same length technically, it basically just cheats itself into
being larger.

> Think of it this way: 1200 clock cycles can fit into a 200 mhz bus, but
> then become easily congested by a backflow of 6. Now, let's put it on a
> 600 mhz bus... then it's only 3. You've halved it. Even if you waste
> clock cycles here and there the bus speed makes up for it.

Ok.

> Now, the faux pas of not being able to compare any two chips produced by
> different companies is a non-sequitor. You can only use that if you're
> comparing two seperate types of processors, ie Alpha and x86,
> Apple(Motorola) and x86, so on. As for comparing like processors, it's
> actually very good. (especially in the FSB)

True.

> I suggest you learn how to think about why the analogy is exactly the
> way it is. I guess he called forth his friends from his city to help
> him, yo.

Where did that come from? lol >:-P

> I digress, I guess I'm don't know what I'm talking about when a fanboy
> hobbies who build their r0x0ring WindowsXP athalon XP ATI Radeon
> Probuttfucker 40234560840698 series, and then waste $1000 because they
> mismatch types like agp 8x cards on an agp 2x system 4 gigs of ram when
> the motherboard only supports 1 gig. I've seen it happen... and then
> they only check their email.

I myself haven't built a computer with an Athlon chip in a loooooooooong
time. I like Intel's motherboards, they are nice and reliable. True lol, but
I wouldn't apply that to everyone. I know someone who just reads their
e-mail who just bought this computer:

Pentium 4c 3.2GHz
4096MB of RAM
4x DVD-R/RW+R/RW
DVD-RAM drive
Two 300GB hard drives
Dual boot:
Windows XP Professional
Red Hat Linux
Radeon 9800 PRO AIW Power Color (I think) 256MB
Audigy 2
$300 custom case
5 extra fans: $200
and it doesn't end there...

Ludicrous, isn't it?

> --
> --Bowen--
> http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
> Yeah, it's that good.
> (Maybe an AW section in the near future?)
>

Sep 29, 2003, 9:39pm

The main thing this processor is going to do is drive intel to make their
own processor of the same kind and programmers to code 64 bit. Its basically
going to push the evolution of computers.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 9:41pm

Right, 30 punds is something just above $50. I gave a high estimate> You
know, if you wanted a fancy heatsink or something.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 9:46pm

My latest computers are 2.4GHz P4c's with 512MB-1GB of RAM, and a
120GB-160GB hard drive. I didn't really chose a specifc optical drive,
though I'd have to say I used 52x/24x/52x CD-RWs the most. I didn't use any
fancy sound or video cards. I have a liscence for XP Pro, so that's what I
used.

--
-.Duo. (342836)

Sep 29, 2003, 9:49pm

[View Quote] I never refuted the fact that the real FSB is 200 MHz, but the actual
speed is 800 due to it being quadruple channeled. 200 x 2 is still not
anywhere near 800. Sure, the bell curve takes effect for Bus speeds,
but it's still going to be just that much more better. And for those of
us who use the video and audio that intel has the lead in... and that's
basically everyone except for those who write e-mails, then intel is the
chipset you want.

>
> technology.
>
> See my other post.

It was sarcasm. ;)

>
>
> The bus is the same length technically, it basically just cheats itself into
> being larger.

Go 80 on a rural road and get stuck behind cars going 30. This is the
same theory that applies to data transfer. When RAM goes 400 MHz and
the video card goes 503.246 then you need a wider bus (even if it is 4
sets of 200) to accomidate for varying speeds. Thus, the 4 lane highway
is going to work better than the 2 lane highway.

>
>
> Ok.

The intel may waste, but it's optomized for it's "quadpumped" bus
system. As opposed to cycle congestion of a "DDRx2" system. Sure, it
may never reach the point of needing the full bus width, but I'd rather
have the ability to go beyond what I use just in case. Especially
consider the kind of resource intensive things I use.

>
>
> True.
>
>
>
>
> Where did that come from? lol >:-P

Everyone who builds in SWCity usually comes to defend them when they do
things.

>
>
> I myself haven't built a computer with an Athlon chip in a loooooooooong
> time. I like Intel's motherboards, they are nice and reliable. True lol, but
> I wouldn't apply that to everyone. I know someone who just reads their
> e-mail who just bought this computer:

I don't like AMD chips anymore.

> Pentium 4c 3.2GHz
> 4096MB of RAM
> 4x DVD-R/RW+R/RW
> DVD-RAM drive
> Two 300GB hard drives
> Dual boot:
> Windows XP Professional
> Red Hat Linux
> Radeon 9800 PRO AIW Power Color (I think) 256MB
> Audigy 2
> $300 custom case
> 5 extra fans: $200
> and it doesn't end there...
>
> Ludicrous, isn't it?

Doesn't surprise me. I'd guess 99% of the people on AW use AW,
respective modeler programs, and just check their e-mail. Which AMD is
perfect for. Hell my 233 system is perfect for checking e-mail.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Yeah, it's that good.
(Maybe an AW section in the near future?)

Sep 29, 2003, 9:55pm

No price wise compare the AMD Athlon XP's with the P4's

Sep 29, 2003, 10:00pm

> I never refuted the fact that the real FSB is 200 MHz, but the actual
> speed is 800 due to it being quadruple channeled. 200 x 2 is still not
> anywhere near 800. Sure, the bell curve takes effect for Bus speeds,
> but it's still going to be just that much more better. And for those of
> us who use the video and audio that intel has the lead in... and that's
> basically everyone except for those who write e-mails, then intel is the
> chipset you want.

Yup.

> It was sarcasm. ;)

So?

> Go 80 on a rural road and get stuck behind cars going 30. This is the
> same theory that applies to data transfer. When RAM goes 400 MHz and
> the video card goes 503.246 then you need a wider bus (even if it is 4
> sets of 200) to accomidate for varying speeds. Thus, the 4 lane highway
> is going to work better than the 2 lane highway.

Yup.

> Everyone who builds in SWCity usually comes to defend them when they do
> things.

So that's what you meant then.

> I don't like AMD chips anymore.

I wouldn't recomend a celeron over an Athlon XP though, for sure. Not only
is Athlon XP faster, but its cheaper.

> Doesn't surprise me. I'd guess 99% of the people on AW use AW,
> respective modeler programs, and just check their e-mail. Which AMD is
> perfect for. Hell my 233 system is perfect for checking e-mail.

I play games on high quality. Its wierd how my 384MB of SD-RAM, 700MHz
processor, and geforce 2 can handle it

Sep 29, 2003, 10:08pm

ALSO
remember:
The New Athlon 64 FX-51 performs on par with Intel's 3.2GHz P4 in most
cases. Where it its self is a 2.2GHz monster and see what the hype is all
about?

Sep 29, 2003, 10:30pm

Errhm....try.....$25-$30 total?
They really aren't that bad :P Hell, even a Prometeia won't set you back
that much, and that'll keep things at -30C and just emit a low-frequency
hum.

-CMM

[View Quote]

Sep 30, 2003, 4:55am

> Can you think? 2x2 is 4 and not 2. Hence why 200x 4 gives you 800 and
> not 200.

Nope, the true freqency is the main influence because of the
northbridge-DIMM interface. DDR and Quad-pumping will never get you exactly
2x or 4x the performance increase, or anywhere close to it for that matter.
They're merely bonuses to squeeze in more instructions when it can. The
proof is in the reviews. If quad pumping was really doing that much work,
AMD and Intel would no way in hell be neck and neck like they've been for
years. Another example similar is dual channel RAM. It's double the bus,
but you're lucky if you get even 25% bonuses.

> I'm sorry I don't have $2000 to blow on goldheatsinkshitfuck(tm)
technology.

Pfftt my mom's 2500 was a hair over inaudible with the stock cooling, and
dead quiet with a $20 zalman. You just got a bad experience and got shafted
with a crummy heatsink that they did to save money, or they're just stupid
or something *shrug*.

> It's the width of a bus. If you have a wider bus, no matter what the
> base frequency is it's going to work faster. 200x4 = 800 yes, but
> that's still much faster than a 200x2 = 400. More room, more
> information, faster speeds. No matter how fast the processor can
> "think" if your bus is 400 MHz you're going to fall short of a processor
> that has 800.
>
> Think of it this way: 1200 clock cycles can fit into a 200 mhz bus, but
> then become easily congested by a backflow of 6. Now, let's put it on a
> 600 mhz bus... then it's only 3. You've halved it. Even if you waste
> clock cycles here and there the bus speed makes up for it.
>
> Now, the faux pas of not being able to compare any two chips produced by
> different companies is a non-sequitor. You can only use that if you're
> comparing two seperate types of processors, ie Alpha and x86,
> Apple(Motorola) and x86, so on. As for comparing like processors, it's
> actually very good. (especially in the FSB)

*sigh* see previous paragraph. It's simply not relevant enough, it's all
about the base frequency, because only the base frequency effects the many
many other latency timings throughout the system (CL, CMD, RP, RCD, and RAS
to name a few big ones), which play a whole roll in a computer's
performance. And, once again, AMD and Intel can't be compared by mhz. As
we all know AMD can compete with an Intel even though it's roughly a ghz
faster now. It's just the way the two companies designed their
architecture, and both are good and work. Intel has to have a higher
bandwidth (and higher clock rate for that matter) because it needs to call
on information a lot more than AMD has too. Look at the CPU white sheets
one day, and you can see how and where AMD gets more work done per cycle,
lessening the chance that it'll have to call for more information.

> I suggest you learn how to think about why the analogy is exactly the
> way it is. I guess he called forth his friends from his city to help
> him, yo.
>
> I digress, I guess I'm don't know what I'm talking about when a fanboy
> hobbies who build their r0x0ring WindowsXP athalon XP ATI Radeon
> Probuttfucker 40234560840698 series, and then waste $1000 because they
> mismatch types like agp 8x cards on an agp 2x system 4 gigs of ram when
> the motherboard only supports 1 gig. I've seen it happen... and then
> they only check their email.

lol I don't need "help". I operate a PC repair service, major in computer
engineering, been an über computer enthusiast for years, pretty much
spending a big chunk of my free time every day doing personal research on
whatever there is to know about computer hardware. I know what I'm talking
about, unlike you who apparently didn't even know about the meaning of DDR
in the host clock ("Where the hell have you been? 200 MHz FSB is 1999
buddy. "), thought that an opengl screensaver fried a CPU, and your zanely
bus theory. I just called CMM in for a laugh =P

And anyone who screws up on a system that you mentioned there shouldn't be
building computers. I've never seen so much exaggeration in a long time
lmao. 4 gigs of RAM? A "$1000" AGP card paired with a mobo that only
supports 2x? lol you know how old that mobo would be? Anyone that dumb
deserves it LOL. All those problems are easily avoided by simply looking at
the mobo specs. And who you calling a fanboy? CMM and I have no problem
with Intel. A fanboy is someone who loves one company and hates the over
false or ignorant reasons...hmm sounds like someone I know =P

The only reason I'm even posting all this is because I hate seeing people
that don't know what they're talking about critizing/bashing hardware that a
company has worked on for years in a public newsgroup spreading false
impressions upon people. It's not fair to the company or people that take
what you're saying seriously.

Bottom line: AMD and Intel's performance have been about neck and neck for a
long time, regardless of any technical babble you can dream up, the proof is
in the numbers. AMD has a small lead now, and I expect Intel to come ahead
later, and then AMD later, etc, like what always happens. Let the price
determine what's right for you.

Sep 30, 2003, 11:32am

Bowen, you dipshit, you were talking about PROCCESSORS AMD vs INTEL you sure are a nasty punk when you get pointed out wrong ya know that? Oh that's right YOUR never wrong, only misunderstood. And when you gonna get off the lowlife insults? I'd love to see you say that in front of my face loser. But the net protects you and gives you strength....go on thinking that kido. oh and learn to use the word diabetic in it's proper form you moron.


[View Quote]

Sep 30, 2003, 4:04pm

*claps*

1  2  3  |   Order by index