| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 44562 | 2004-04-23 02:51:00 | P4 or AMD | dwnz2003 (5250) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 231367 | 2004-04-23 06:15:00 | toms hardware arent exactly a reputable site and have been known to be very Intel bias. agreed thou this topic has been disguessed time and time again. By the way the FX53 has now been released, the only intel chip that can keep up is the 3.4EE | Pete O'Neil (250) | ||
| 231368 | 2004-04-23 06:19:00 | > toms hardware arent exactly a reputable site and have > been known to be very Intel bias. agreed thou this > topic has been disguessed time and time again. By the > way the FX53 has now been released, the only intel > chip that can keep up is the 3.4EE Yeah... I heard about how dodgy Tom's Hardware are... Hmmm... next machine I build will have some of that PCI Express in it... ;) Too many CPU's to keep a track of! Lo. |
Lohsing (219) | ||
| 231369 | 2004-04-23 06:23:00 | > Im talking about the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 800mhz > FSB and the AMD FX-51 (200mhz FSB?) they are both > 64biit chips whoa,you managed to put some awesome errors in that one sentance. |
metla (154) | ||
| 231370 | 2004-04-23 06:25:00 | > I personally think that Intel CPUs are far more > superior than AMDs in terms of stability, performance > and reliability; of course, it is also more > expensive . I'm sure there are many who do not > agree . well its a given that i won't agree,why do you think such things? Is it easier then having an opinion based on fact? |
metla (154) | ||
| 231371 | 2004-04-23 11:07:00 | > well its a given that i won't agree,why do you think > such things? > > Is it easier then having an opinion based on fact? > Have personally encountered countless problems with AMDs in the past 4 years . "Junk" probably is too strong a word to describe AMDs but, I'll never consider or recommend AMDs for myself or to anyone else . Anyway, that's my personal experiences with AMD and just lost my confidence in it . |
bk T (215) | ||
| 231372 | 2004-04-23 11:12:00 | Fair enough,can't change peoples perceptions when they are drawn from personal experience. | metla (154) | ||
| 231373 | 2004-04-23 11:30:00 | I, too, have had problems with both Intel and AMD. However, considering how far we've come in the last decade, I must say, they're both excellent CPU manufacture. Everyone will have had different experience depending not necessarily on the design it self, but sometimes luck (e.g. they get the 'not as good batch') However, I have noticed that gamers and Linux users tend to go AMD. Perhaps someone else can comment on that as I do neither. You could say these are the "h*rdc*re" stuff. For those doing the "gentle" stuff like web browsing, email, office work, photography/video editing type work, they tend to use Window and Intel processors. So, seeing as I'm not a gamer or Linux fan, I no longer consider AMD the right stuff for me. Hence, I have come to accept Intel as the better processor for most, except gamers and Linux users maybe. Stability wise, it is not easy to discuss this, as it will most likely lead to an argument. This will vary in terms of how you use the computer. I think, same goes for the CPU temperature, although I do know that AMD CPUs are generally hotter than the Intel ones. Not so sure with the new ones your talking about though. However, everyones need and desire when put together with a bit of luck will never be the same. Hence, I just recommend you to make a decision based on what PF1 members (and any others) have informed, as this Intel vs. AMD matter is not necessarily the most desirable topic to debate. |
~~~~~ s y ~~~~~ (2054) | ||
| 231374 | 2004-04-23 11:32:00 | > However, I have noticed that gamers and Linux users > tend to go AMD. Perhaps someone else can comment on > that as I do neither. You could say these are the Just "comment on this". Need some sleep.... :8} |
~~~~~ s y ~~~~~ (2054) | ||
| 231375 | 2004-04-23 12:30:00 | Gamers are more likely to build a system, and AMD presents the best bang for buck (in most price ranges) so when performance matters, AMD is chosen, especially as this may free up enough money for an extra stick of ram or better video card. Then you get the fact that AMD consistently out perform the Intel cpu's in game orientated benchmarks. Linux users are like the Green party, outside my scope. :D In my experience AMD make rock solid excellent performing cpu's....There have been in the past one or 2 dodgy chipsets released, but that was cleared up years ago. As to the high end cpu's as queried by the thread starter, I have no real preference, both are too expensive for the amount of performance, The Intel EE line has quite a few heat related issues reported and is an end of the line product..... The AMD cpu is of a socket design that is in the process of being fazed out. Both seem dead ends to me, plus the difference in performance is probably only measurable in controlled benchmark situations, and even then results are probably a bit naf. The thread started seems to already know what he wants to buy. |
metla (154) | ||
| 231376 | 2004-04-23 19:52:00 | Dawnz, What do you mean by faster? Faster at doing what? In most cases the P4 is faster, but the differences between them is insignificant. Why do you think AMD changed the names of their processors? To stop a direct comparisson between the two !!! If you are thinking of 64 bit processors, WHY ? They will cost you big money and there will be no real difference until someone brings out a reliable 64 bit o/s. To say nothing of other software. As for temperature. With simliar, properly built and assembled computers the AMD will be something like twice as hot as the P4. Why do you think AMD owners are filling their boxes with extra fans and oversize heat sinks? Jack |
JJJJJ (528) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | |||||