View Full Version : AMD Processors

15-10-2002, 12:32 PM
Thank for coming AMD but Intel Rocks

Read this- http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/story.html?id=1034458564

15-10-2002, 02:55 PM
oh well, i'm happy with my athlon 2000+, P4's are good but are way too expensive and arn't that much faster for the greater price... fine athlons are noisy with the fans but it lets you know the thing is running ;), my 2 cents :P
- David

15-10-2002, 05:15 PM
I'm with you DangerousDave. Intel P4 CPU's are too expensive.
My Athlon 2100+ goes fine anyway and with an Igloo CPU fan it is very quite! :)

15-10-2002, 05:18 PM
What does that show.

First of all you can't believe everything on the interweb.

Also it happens with all chips at a certain time. The last P4 won't overclock all that well either.

15-10-2002, 05:21 PM
Well... Intel is up to 3Ghz mark already... AMD trailing with 2.3Ghz as their fastest.

Also, AMD aren't exactly renowned for "multi-tasking" although running single multi-media apps will spank the pants off a comparable P4 chip.


15-10-2002, 05:29 PM
they all get to an end point eventually. they all have their merits and failures whether it be p4 or via c3.

don't forget the intel p3's had simerler probs before the p4's came out.

the REAL question is will AMD have the next generation cpu out in time??

15-10-2002, 05:31 PM
AMD will probably end up playing catch up like their XP processors have been since release... :^O

*puts on a flame resistant suit and runs...* :D


15-10-2002, 05:44 PM
I'll just by what is the best value for my money at the time :)

15-10-2002, 05:47 PM
"run forest run!" hehehe

also with hyper threading just around the corner..........it certainly will be interesting.

15-10-2002, 06:56 PM
It's good to see all the ppl here are nice and not aggressive as I have seen in other forums when they're talk about Intel and AMD :)

I must say everything has it's Pros and Cons ... Intel & AMD, Holden & Ford, BMW & Benz, ATI & Nvidia .. all the same :D

Now.. for those people who reckons AMD is much cheaper but in reality is it? AMD needs a good HSF, better PSU, extra case Fans to make it more stable and when you add those extra things, it cost about the same as an Intel which comes with a stock HSF and runs much cooler and quieter as well.

My attitude is if you love AMD, go for it :D if you love Intel, Great! :D

But I would not agree to AMD is cheaper and better as I've mentioned before that both costs about the same, and both have their pros and cons so no one is better :D


15-10-2002, 09:35 PM
hmmm hyperthreading.....
I went to an IBM symposium a few months ago, about their new server solutions. the new Xeon (is that what it's called?) was one of the things they were pushing. the dude reckoned about 20% increase in performance due to the multithreading.... I don't know how long it will be til it hits the home market though, he certainly didn't indicate that it would be anytime soon.

Go AMD. yeah.
I personally like them, and of course the MHz war isn't all there is to it... higher MHz (GHz!) is not necessarily better. The difference between a 2.3 GHz and a GHz is probably not even a noticable difference if you pump as much ram and the best vid card you can get in with it.

The real catch up game is for software developers... write an app that demands more than a 2 GHz processor? I don't think so....
Granted, some graphics apps do require beef, but for the home user who's rendering their own animated music vid or something, you're gonna leave it cranking overnight anyway, so what's the diff between 4 hours and 5 hours? Nothing.