| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 51732 | 2004-11-28 20:58:00 | OT - I am sick of intel. What CPU will you use in your next PC? | crazy monkey (6347) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 297420 | 2004-11-29 08:45:00 | Intel. | Growly (6) | ||
| 297421 | 2004-11-29 09:04:00 | amd64 soon i hope, either 3800+ or fx-53 (depending on how much money i can scrape together) | lagbort (5041) | ||
| 297422 | 2004-11-29 10:59:00 | I respect everybodies opinion on processors. Both are good quality (as has been said) and both have strengths and weaknesses (as has been said). I have only ever bought Intel. In fact, when I bought my current PC it was a limited budget as I am young :p, and I bought a Celeron D - not out of thought but out of automatic reflexiveness towards Intel. My next processor will be a P4 3.0Ghz Prescott. This is mainly because I hate the Celeron and want an AMD, but would rather not buy a new motherboard. I REALLY wish that I had bought an AMD motherboard and a Sempron CPU, which I could then easily upgrade to AthlonXP, but I didn't so I must put up with it. As soon as it is time for a new motherboard, I will go AMD I think. Out of curiosity Growly, why do you choose Intel? Do you hate your current AMD? Cheers George |
george12 (7) | ||
| 297423 | 2004-11-30 01:24:00 | To me Intel portray an aura of manliness, because of the sheer grunt they posses. No longer is it sufficient for me to say "My CPU runs at 2.08 GHz, but because it can perform more instructions per clock cycle it performs at the effective level of an Intel Pentium operating at 2.8GHz". Granted, the AMD Athlon 64s can play the games you want with flying colours, but there's nothing like 128 Itanium2s in one box to crunch numbers, no? |
Growly (6) | ||
| 297424 | 2004-11-30 01:35:00 | > Granted, the AMD Athlon 64s can play the games you > want with flying colours, but there's nothing like > 128 Itanium2s in one box to crunch numbers, no? 128 Opterons perhaps? |
Pete O'Neil (250) | ||
| 297425 | 2004-11-30 01:41:00 | > To me Intel portray an aura of manliness, because of > the sheer grunt they posses. [cough], [cough], [choke] *dies* > No longer is it > sufficient for me to say "My CPU runs at 2.08 GHz, > but because it can perform more instructions per > clock cycle it performs at the effective level of an > Intel Pentium operating at 2.8GHz". Why is suddenly no longer sufficient to say that? Thats like saying a holden V8 is faster than a Porsche because it has more Break Horse Power. The facts are that the Porsche is simply faster, because of its superior design and architecture. What Growly said just killed me. |
fus1_n (3818) | ||
| 297426 | 2004-11-30 03:53:00 | He just wants more GHZ so he can laugh at his friends. Even though their 2.2Ghz AMD processor will whip Growly's 3.0Ghz Intel one. But when people learn to compare in benchmark terms, it will be a sad day for the Intel fanboy. Or anyone who has Intel. For today I have learned that a 1.4Ghz AMD processor WHIPS THE **** out of my Celeron 2.4, EVEN AT 3.06GHZ. But then my Celeron *cough*paperweight did only cost $105 new... George |
george12 (7) | ||
| 297427 | 2004-11-30 03:57:00 | Even though its an AMD, 1.4 GHz? that is so old??!? how does it whip your new celly? | fus1_n (3818) | ||
| 297428 | 2004-11-30 04:13:00 | Dunno aye, but here are the figures, all in MIPS (FPU), with no programs running: My Celeron 2.4GHz (at 3152MHz): 3762 My Celeron 2.4GHz (at 2400MHz): 2070 P4 1.8GHz: 1252 AMD AthlonXP 1.4GHz: 3189 (WHIPS the 2.4 @ 2400, and the P4 1.8) AMD AthlonXP 1.6GHz: 4069 (Beats 2.4 @ 3152, WHIPS the 2.4 @ 2400, AND the P4 1.8) Celeron 700MHz: 315 Duron 800MHz: 831 ----------- Yes, a Duron 800Mhz is more than 2x a Celly 700Mhz Therefore, I conclude that AMD are better by a massive proportion. Cheers George |
george12 (7) | ||
| 297429 | 2004-11-30 04:21:00 | Cool! | fus1_n (3818) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 | |||||