| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 63997 | 2005-11-29 10:46:00 | Intel Fanboys, Do Not Open This Thread! | Murray P (44) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 408627 | 2005-11-29 10:46:00 | Ah! Welcome, normal objective person, please follow the AMD Dual Core Butt <insert something nasty here > Intel Dual Core CPU's (reviews.cnet.com) link. Oi you! You were warned, non of your usual whining please. :rolleyes: |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 408628 | 2005-11-29 17:21:00 | To me the tests mean nothing. Dual core will do nothing for me untill they join the two cores and make them act as one. Seems to me intel ,like microsoft, is loseing it's no.1 position. What I want is an OS that does what an OS should do. When is Linux going to produce a genuine plug and play OS ? |
JJJJJ (528) | ||
| 408629 | 2005-11-29 17:52:00 | I also noticed this link at the end of the above article news.com.com Looks like Intel need to get back to the drawing board |
Myth (110) | ||
| 408630 | 2005-11-29 18:22:00 | I read the numbers and see AMD beats intel, but what do those numbers mean? is 5-10 a big difference or is it like putting two formula1 cars to the test? | plod (107) | ||
| 408631 | 2005-11-29 18:27:00 | If you are talking F1, it would be like comparing Micheal Schumaker to anyone else in the field (not this year though, but when he was winning back-to-back championships) | Myth (110) | ||
| 408632 | 2005-11-29 20:58:00 | I have given up reading comparison performance numbers on differant CPUs, Graphics cards etc long ago. What do they mean to the average user nothing. What do they mean to the human eye or brain nothing. The differance can't be seen. Trevor :) |
Trev (427) | ||
| 408633 | 2005-11-30 05:06:00 | I have given up reading comparison performance numbers on differant CPUs, Graphics cards etc long ago . What do they mean to the average user nothing . What do they mean to the human eye or brain nothing . The differance can't be seen . Trevor :) Nothing, no not quite . If you're talking productivity apps, especially in pro/work related situation, the 5, 10, 20, . . second differences, all add up to a considerable amount of time at the end of a day, week, month and possibly more important, frustration for the user . i . e . it's incremental . If you're only mcuking around with a bit of email, surfing and the odd office app, then yeah, it's going to mean very little to you . For gamers, video encoding, etc, the effects are obvious in performance straight away in real time . JJ, the AMD chip is very much as you describe, it's basically two cores on the same die, whereas Intel virtually have 2 CPU's plugged into the same socket . That's as I understand it anyway, someone may wish to correct me if I'm wrong . It's heartening that the fanboys have taken heed and stayed away :lol: |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 408634 | 2005-11-30 05:57:00 | Ok, so next time I want to play Half-Life 2 but turn off all of the advanced graphics features, so as to minimize the calls to the onboard graphics chip or if I want to use McAfee's VirusScan to inspect 40GB worth of files, while simultaneously encoding an 85MB video file using Dr. Divx then I'll know exactly which chip to use....... :rolleyes: In the meantime, I'll stick with what I have and just play a few games, surf the 'net, use Office software, check e-mails, play some songs, hack some lines of code etc. But if I want to be more productive, I'll just stand up and step away from the PC..... I think you'll find greater productivity gains Murray if PC-tied staff didn't surf the net, read the funnies or visit online help forums - a much cheaper way of extracting more dollars from your staff without upgrading CPU's to the latest dual code AMD models.....but that's just my opinion. A :cool: |
andrew93 (249) | ||
| 408635 | 2005-11-30 22:40:00 | Andrew, the upshot is, if you were in the market for a new system/CPU now, would you rather purchase one that does everything you want (in real world terms) as costs leass money? If the answer is yes, how do you evaluate that? I suggest, in part, you would use benchmarks that give an indication of real world performance, for whatever your performance requirements are . To pull out one or two in a series of tests, that are designed to give all types of users a reasonable basis for appraisal, and denegrate them because they don't happen to fit your model is, to put it mildy, disingenuous . To put it more bluntly, it's crap thinking of the bovine variety ;) |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 408636 | 2005-12-01 03:58:00 | I take your point Murray about cost versus benefit but who would want to play a game like Half Life 2 and turn everything off? It seems like a pretty random test to me that has zip relevance for the real world. I guess that's why I picked on it. As for my buying patterns? I never buy the latest or the greatest - if I have to buy the latest I look at the either the cheapest and buy the model that is slightly better or look at the highest performer and buy the one that is slightly less than that. But then sometimes I will buy technology that is nowehere near new. But hey, that's just my opinion.... I didn't see many other posts from Intel users so had to stick my oar into it. BTW, isn't AMD a big advertiser with C|Net? ;) |
andrew93 (249) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||