Intel vs Amd

[Apocalypse23]

http://www.houseofsith.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=472

just thought Id let you folks decide on who is wrong or right here in the above forum thread. It seems to be a pointless argument between amd and intel processors. Id appreciate if some experts from here wouldnt mind joining tin that debate and positng their comments about it as well.

THanksCLick here

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Coke vs Pepsi

Bruce Lee vs Jet Lee

Ad nauseum

 

[GrumpyMan]

Those kind of debates have been beaten to death around here and usually turn into flame fests.

 

[Captante]

The accurate answer to this question depends on a couple of different things, first & foremost what is the primary use for your computer going to be?
If the answer is video editing or multi-media content creation, then the P4 *(32bit, either core) is what you want.
If what you want is the most "bang for the buck" & decent performance in all applications, then the Athlon XP 2500+ OC'ed to a 400mhz fsb will yield the best value.
If you want to make yourself as future-resistant as possible, go with an Athlon 64 (FX is over-priced), however the best bet if 64bit computing is your ultimate goal is to sit on your cash for the moment & wait
for the A64 motherboards to mature a bit before jumping on that bandwagon.
Bottom line...if you are running a half-way decent system now, just chill out & wait a couple months & the answer as to what to upgrade to will be much clearer cut.

 

[Captante]

Bruce Lee would kick kick Jet Lee's ass... assuming they would fight at all which I highly doubt.

 

[oupei]

it's Jet Li.

 

[Budman]

Link.

 

[OverVolt]

Some of those arguements didn't even make sense. Reminds me of the BB salesman thread.

 

[Schadenfroh]

:thumbsdown:

 

[Lyfer]

Originally posted by: Budman
Link.

Thats fvcked up. (poor kid)

 

[wetcat007]

anything that has a title like this should get locked.

 

[noxipoo]

don't drag jet li and bruce lee into this useless fight.

 

[Dulanic]

OMG dont ever link something like that again.... thoose people are so clueless when it comes to PCs its not even funny. Noone in that thread is winning because everything I've read is absolute CRAP...

I mean lets just look at a few things...

umm the amd 64 will never be close to an an intel it2. nothing that 99% of home users have takes advantage of 64 bit processing

Aples and oranges...

how about comparing the intel it2 to the amd fx. instead of 64 bit vs 32 bit

again apples and oranges... server market chip vs enthusiast chip...

i will say this to support my claims. A program called WCPUID. Run it on an intel box, then on an amd box. DO THE MATH!

WTF??? I dont even know his point... one has higher frequency?

I have, sitting right here for the past three months, a complete P4 3.2 GHz system. It has been sitting on the floor behind my desk at work. Just sitting. The computer I use for work, the one sitting on my desk is an Athlon XP 2200. A mere 2200 (thats 1.8 GHz to you and INTEL fans). And I would not trade it for that 3.4 GHz P4. Not a chance. The P4 doesnt run as smooth or as fast for all of the things I do with my work computer every day. It usually bogs out with 6 or 7 application windows open. Starts to slow down. So I use the OLD Athlon. Right now I have 11 applications running and no sign of fatigue.

Man I like AMD but this is just CRAP, no way a XP 2200+ is out performing a P4 3.4Ghz unless that thing is running on PC100 or some crap LOL.

i have to rebuild AMD networks often and when i transfered them to intel the people were amazed and the improvements. so i will spend a little extra for quality

Hmmm replace older PC with new one... and the new ones faster? SHOCKING!!!!! Must be cause it says Intel.

A. Hyperthreading is the INTEL version of AMD's MultiPass Processing, and AMD had it first (as usual)

Someone tell me how to enable MultiPass on my A64 please.

Encoding a dvd never takes more that 50 percent of my intel proc's recources. My XP on the other hand has to use all of the cpu resources.

Encoding always should use as much of the CPU as possible to get it done as fast as possible, if it's not there are issues LOL

800 FSB vs 266 FSB: The AMD has HIGHER THROUGHPUT and WIDER BANDWIDTH even at 266. THe 333's are even higher. Once again INTEL cheats you with numbers that sound good, but dont add up.

Idiot

hird: Multipass Processing or HYPERTHREADING was invented by AMD, JUST LIKE 3D NOW was, and STOLEN by INTEL, JUST LIKE 3D NOW was.

It doesnt need to be said again... but Idiot.

Dont ask me why I read this stuff and quoted anything... I want to shoot myself for doing so. Im not even pointing out which is faster or argueing anything..... just pointing out how STUPID these people are when it comes to CPUs.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: noxipoo
don't drag jet li and bruce lee into this useless fight.

Not a ATOT regular, that's good! My post is a reflection of a common response there to such threads. You see, they come up so often that the opponents are even considered interchangable for purposes of sarcasm i.e. Bruce Lee vs Coke, or Pepsi vs AMD Now you can hopefully understand the reason I would bring MA stars into this flamebait thread.

 

[Zebo]

This is why I only post at anandtech. Mods here lock this kind of useless flame bait.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Zebo
This is why I only post at anandtech. Mods here lock this kind of useless flame bait.

The Mods here are Huts, your Jedi mind tricks won't work on them

 

[aNeke]

Well, it depends on what you want to do with your computer.
AMD - Good for gaming.
Intel - Good for audio, video, and general applications.
AMD is a lot cheaper than Intel, but Intel is a little bit of a better CPU.
Edit; these are just my thoughts.

 

[Snoop]

AMD is a lot cheaper than Intel, but Intel is a little bit of a better CPU.

LOL

 

[Yanagi]

Originally posted by: Snoop

AMD is a lot cheaper than Intel, but Intel is a little bit of a better CPU.

LOL

It used to be that way a couple of years back. Nowadays they pretty much neck to neck.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Yanagi

Originally posted by: Snoop

AMD is a lot cheaper than Intel, but Intel is a little bit of a better CPU.

LOL

It used to be that way a couple of years back. Nowadays they pretty much neck to neck.

You'd have to go back more than a couple of years to be in that situation.

 

[Insane3D]

This is what happens when I ask my cats the same question.

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: aNeke
AMD is a lot cheaper than Intel, but Intel is a little bit of a better CPU.
Edit; these are just my thoughts.

My major interest in this thread, would be my interest in consumer perceptions.
So if you would humor me, why do you feel Intel "is a little bit of a better CPU"?

a) It costs more.
b) Intel is a larger company.
c) It runs at higher clockrates.
d) Dell only use Intel, so AMD probably doesn't measure up to something.
e) Trust sales business suits more than obnoxios spotty hardware geeks.
----or hearsay:
f) Have heard that "AMD runs hotter".
g) Have heard that "AMD is buggy, has problems".
h) Have heard that "some software don't work right on AMD".
i) Have heard that "AMD is more fragile".

 

[imported_chrisbtx]

Originally posted by: aNeke
Well, it depends on what you want to do with your computer.
AMD - Good for gaming.
Intel - Good for audio, video, and general applications.
AMD is a lot cheaper than Intel, but Intel is a little bit of a better CPU.
Edit; these are just my thoughts.

Let's not get anything started here... noone wants to look like an idiot.....:roll:

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: Vee
i) Have heard that "AMD is more fragile".

That I might believe. For XPs\Durons maybe, A64s are fine though.

The rest is BS... now.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: wetcat007
anything that has a title like this should get locked.