Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 124
  1. #46
    Joined
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,520

    Re: what you like dislike about intel amd

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandito View Post
    QFT

    then again VRP makes a good point with his Mortal Kombat comparison, it's hard to argue against such sound reasoning! i mean Mortal Kombat is OBVIOUSLY the measuring stick that all smoothness related discussion should be based upon.

    FINISH HIM!

    Sub-Zero WINS!
    I'm not mad or anything, but you're not interepreting my post very correctly either, and you're effectively saying that I said that the difference in the 2 aforementioned versions of mk2 was due to smoothness, when in fact I never said the differences between the two versions was about which version was smoother.

    I could go on forever about the apparent differences between the arcade and super nes versions of mk2. but i never explicitly said smoothness was one of those differences.

    don't take any of this as offensive, b/c i don't intend for it to be. I just want you to read everyone's posts completely correctly before you comment on them.

  2. #47
    Joined
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    14,223

    Re: what you like dislike about intel amd

    I love AMD, but I'm thoroughly disappointed at how much software requires special patches to perform properly on AMD processors.

    I also much prefer the Intel Skt. 775 heatsink mechanism over the AMD Skt. AM2 mechanism.

  3. #48
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    2,745

    Re: what you like dislike about intel amd

    Quote Originally Posted by vote ron paul View Post
    BTW, your wholly incorrect post came across as very rude and quite argumentative. If you didn't mean for it to be, I'm sorry for reading it the wrong way.
    Umm, as if this topic as a whole doesn't comes across as rude and argumentative, if you put gas and a spark together odds are you're going to get a big fire. Of course its great to have an opinion on matters as far as likes and dislikes but sometimes its best to be able to substantiate your findings to others.

    I look at it this way, some days seem to go by faster than normal while others days seem to go by slower and I wonder to myself if everybody's day went by just the same or maybe it was just me. However since I can't substantiate this feeling I can't necessarily reasonably expect everyone to just agree with me that the day did indeed seem to go by faster or slower than normal.
    i7 Beast: Asus P6T Deluxe, Intel i7 920 21x191 (4000) HT on 1.3875v, Swiftech GTZ/D5/BIX2
    6GB (3x2GB) G.Skill pi Black DDR3 1600, ECS 9600GT
    CM STACKER 810, PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750


    i7 Game: Asus P6T, Intel i7 920 20x180 (3600) HT on 1.275v, TRU-120
    6GB (3x2GB) G.Skill DDR3 1333 7-7-7-18, MSI GTX260 OCv2, Dell 3007WFP LCD
    CM STACKER 830, PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750


    AMD: Biostar 790GX A2+, PII X4 940BE 17x200, Freezer 64 Pro
    4GB (4x1GB) Ballistix Tracer DDR2 800, Powercolor 4850
    Corsair VX450

  4. #49
    Joined
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Cape Cod, MA
    Age
    62
    Posts
    11,621

    Re: what you like dislike about intel amd

    VRP, I fail to understand your rant against Intel's reliability issues. You can like them or not, but I think you would be very hard pressed to come up with documentation that Intel chips/chipsets are less reliable than their AMD counterparts. In fact, for years AMD was stuck with VIA and ALI, etc chipsets, because they could not mass-produce their own (which was actually very good). It really took Nvidia chipsets to propel AMD to the top of enthusiast's hearts for a few years. I still have an NF7-S with a 2100 that runs at 2.1 all day long, and would still if I hooked her up.
    That said, I have never had an Intel chipset or CPU fail on me either. I have an e6300 that ran for 1 1/2 years 24/7 at 2.8. I took it out of my main computer, and put it in my HTPC, where it is still running at 2.8 24/7. (this is a 1.8 gig chip).

  5. #50
    Joined
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Age
    34
    Posts
    475

    Re: what you like dislike about intel amd

    my two cents. Take them for whatever the heck they are worth....

    I have been running a e6750 since late last year. It was running at 3.4 (from 2.66 stock) until i had the missing hal.dll problem... (if that hadn't happend, it would still be...) It has been rock solid. I think my memory has started to have issues before the cpu, and only because i am running 4 gb's of 1066 balistics ram (4 x 1 gb). They get super hot and when there are two sticks right next to each other, they don't vent that super heat off well....

    As for smoothness. at 3.4 ghz, i had my processor fully loaded to 100% usage most of the time due to SMP folding and i could go about my daily tasks and have them be "smooth." I could play music, have firefox doing it's thing, i could do a virus scan if i really wanted too but it would've taken forever.

    speaking of smoothness... i think i only run into issues there because of my raptor drive. I'm not convinced of their performance... i think my 7200.10 drive from seagate does better... but the seagate is on 300 sata and the raptor is on 150 sata and has the perpendicular recording goodness.

    I have run AMD in the past. a 1 ghz thunderbird and a 4200 XP dual core. but after the 4200, i went to the e6750 from intel and i'll never look back. This has been the most stable and amazing friggin rig i've owned. I LOVE this computer (except when the hal.dll file deletes itself.) and for the smoothness between the 4200 and the e6750...i frankly think that this one is smoother, but that could just be because of it's more amazingness and speed factor. It's just going so fast i don't have time to look for smoothness . but it's been so long since i've seen the other one that i can't tell now.

    other notes....
    I think that AMD's are great for budget builds, and i always recommend them for someone who is wanting great performance on a budget. They are great processors, it's just that intel has the edge on this core 2 round.

    true quad core or two core 2's on one die.... WHO CARES as long as they deliver. and obviously, true quad core isn't giving them that much performance anyways.

    as for prices on processors...
    is it really AMD's choice? or are they more being forced to do the prices they are? sure, in general they are lower in price, but lets be honest, could they get away with charging a premium? even back in their X2 days? If AMD doesn't charge the lower prices, then they can't stay competitive. who in their right mind would pay the same price for a processor that doesn't perform as well. So take another look and see if it's a commitment to their customers or a necessity of their company's position. AMD will probably never pull ahead because they are unable to charge the same prices as INTEL does. INTEL is just a beast. a huge beast that is nearly impossible to kill. the only way to win is through sheer numbers. AMD just has to come out with another product like the X2's when they came out. if AMD can consistently do so, and granted intel doesn't pull another core 2 phenomenon out of their butts, then they can gain mucho market share again and get out of this slump they're in. but in the words of a man that i talked to at INTEL, "we could put them out of business at any time, we just keep them there for the competition." I see much truth in that, and i really think that INTEL has that kind of power at this point. Do i think it's a good thing... HECK NO. monopoly = company that will put out crappier and crappier products = bad for us the consumer.
    Last edited by Captain O Hair; 06-18-2008 at 04:22 AM.

  6. #51
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Devon, England
    Posts
    96

    Re: what you like dislike about intel amd

    I really hate Intel's push pin heatsink design with a passion, its simply not good enough and worries me that the heatsink will litterally, fall off especially with the larger heatsinks that are available.

    What I do like about Intel are that they realeased cheap CPUs that perform fairly well such as the E21xx / E22xx range of processors (not counting the Celeron one but even that isn't bad, and has been seen to acheive some amazing overclocks on XS) even with just 1MB of L2 cache, these low end Intels areant slow and the thing I like about overclocking Intel C2D is that you don't have to worry about the HT Link speed like you do with any 939 / AM2 AMD. I've got a x2 3800+ @ 2750 as well but the Intel is way faster at everything (mostly due to the AMD only having 512MB whereas the Intel has 2048MB, probably)

    I used to be a fan of AMD, in the days of the Athlon XP where you had to mod them to unlock the multiplier and on boards that didn't allow overclocking pin mod CPU to particular multipliers/voltages, was very fun at the time.

    Saying that though, I have heard from various sources that the newer Phenoms are actually quite fast and can beat some Quad Intels.

    Edit: to the above comment about folding - I used to run folding on a lot of PC's and it uses the IDLE priority so only when other apps need CPU time will they recieve it, the rest of the time folding clients will use as much of the processor time as they possibily can. The only thing that would make the system slower when folding is the RAM each client uses, especially when ran on a Quad core rig with four clients running as some of the large more PPD units took a lot of RAM. Gromacs they may have been called but it was a long time ago I ran this.
    Last edited by Ben Rogers; 06-19-2008 at 04:13 AM.

  7. #52
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    In bed with one of my avatar AMD girls :D
    Age
    39
    Posts
    8,876

    Re: what you like dislike about intel amd

    As for phenoms being smooth I think thats due to both AMDs superior memory controller and theyre claimed system agility with a higher HT speed.

  8. #53
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    third stone from the Sun
    Posts
    1,794

    Re: what you like dislike about intel amd

    It is the memory controller of the AMD part that is better. Edit: oops just saw your post Poci, so there ya go we have to be right !

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandito View Post
    in all honesty, i doubt it's the cpu accounting for the smoothness. it's just illogical to me that one system will give the higher frame rates while the other is 'smoother' just doesn't sit well with me.

    something else was in the system accounting for said smoothness, all other variables could not have been equal if you ask me.

    only thing i can think of is that maybe crysis depends heavily on memory bandwith and that the phenom made up a difference there, but still, the framerates don't match what i'd assume to be the results.

    could have been hdd thrashing on the intel machine due to low memory, so something else was involved other than just the cpu in that case.

    if it can't be repeated and recorded scientifically then i'm guessing it's all psychosomatic

  9. #54
    Joined
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois
    Age
    34
    Posts
    15,846

    Re: what you like dislike about intel amd

    Quote Originally Posted by supercat View Post
    It is the memory controller of the AMD part that is better. Edit: oops just saw your post Poci, so there ya go we have to be right !
    doubtfull since people claim this smoothness goes all the way back to athlon xp processors, which didn't have integrated memory controllers.

    also the extra memory performance only ever shows a marked difference in synthetic benchmarks.
    Corsair 800D / Corsair TX750 PSU
    ASUS Sabertooth P67 / Win7 Pro
    Intel i7 2600k @ 4.4ghz (44 x 100) + Corsair H100
    Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 x 16GB
    2 x XFX R9 280x + 3 x Asus VS24AH-P 24" IPS 1920x1200
    Samsung 840 Evo 250GB OS + 2 x 1TB WD Caviar Black




    The member formerly known as SuBX3r0 HEAT

  10. #55
    Joined
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    138

    Re: what you like dislike about intel amd

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandito View Post
    sometimes you need something with a little added kick to it.
    try some Methanol, that should give you a kick, drink a whole glass or bottle!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by John C View Post
    Or you can get a Q6600 for $180, which will OC at stock voltages and cooling to 3.0, with aftermarket cooling it will go much higher on air. Best bang for the buck in CPU's right now, IMHO. Especially if you are building a Home Theater PC, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are extremely demanding, and love the quad-cores.
    my old athlon XP plays 1080p movies in h264+aac or h264+vorbis format no problem why would i need to get a quadcore or even dual core intel do the job? (that system has a 1300pro in it and 1gb ddr400)

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandito View Post
    in all honesty, i doubt it's the cpu accounting for the smoothness. it's just illogical to me that one system will give the higher frame rates while the other is 'smoother' just doesn't sit well with me.

    something else was in the system accounting for said smoothness, all other variables could not have been equal if you ask me.

    only thing i can think of is that maybe crysis depends heavily on memory bandwith and that the phenom made up a difference there, but still, the framerates don't match what i'd assume to be the results.

    could have been hdd thrashing on the intel machine due to low memory, so something else was involved other than just the cpu in that case.

    if it can't be repeated and recorded scientifically then i'm guessing it's all psychosomatic
    ever think that it could be because the min fps is better on one system then the other? most benches dont acctualy show the true min fps, and the crysis bench tool has been shown to be flawed/bugged so it dosnt really count.

    Quote Originally Posted by zerocool24 View Post
    It is very difficult to fine 9850's that go over 2.8-3 on the other hand most 6600's will reach 3 no problem whatsoever on stock voltage at that. my 9850 i cant get over 2.75 ghz, my 6600 is at 3.3 and it is actually undervolted (according to cpu-z which says it is 1.2-1.22 volts)
    think you need to head over to tpu, rebelshaven and some other forums, i have seen alot of reports of 3gz on up to 3.8 on diffrent forums, and yes the 3.8 was validated, most of the problems clocking phenom are due to imature bios, this is a new chip, it takes time to get the overclocking bios mature i have personaly seen a move from one bios to another a few weeks later lead to a 9850 going from a max overclock off 2.66 to a max overclock of 3.2x STABLE (36hrs pime95 running on all cores)

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandito View Post
    i use both intel and amd dual core systems on a daily basis and notice nill!

    i represent some who actually has ground to stand on for the current debate, i use both systems daily, you used one system then went to another system while doubling your cores. i really don't see how that's a valid comparison, but hey, whatever.
    so what take this to mean is that your experiance is the only valid experiance and as such everybody else must be LIEING?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pehu View Post
    Well, your 'experiences' with P4 and Athlon xp are totally opposite to those of mine. Not to mention they are illogical. Under WindowsXP the hyperthreading P4s certainly seemed 'snappier' (faster and more responsive, even 'smoother' if you prefer that) than the AthlonXP. This in normal desktop use in a simple multitasking environment.
    then your experiances are 100% oposite of mine as well, HT was a good idea but sucked for true SMP apps, hence alot had to come out with patches to "fix" the HT perf, and not all p4's have HT, even after it came out only part of them had it.

    my athlon xp to this day can run a 1080p movie playing out the DVI into a projector and let me suft the net at the same time no problem, cpu is running like 70-80% use, but thats fine, opera dosnt take that much cpu power

  11. #56
    Joined
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois
    Age
    34
    Posts
    15,846

    Re: what you like dislike about intel amd

    not all of us are willing to put up with pc's with the computing power of a modern cell phone.

    be happy with your 1300+ and it's amazing computational prowess, i'll continue to use stuff that's actually fast.
    Corsair 800D / Corsair TX750 PSU
    ASUS Sabertooth P67 / Win7 Pro
    Intel i7 2600k @ 4.4ghz (44 x 100) + Corsair H100
    Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 x 16GB
    2 x XFX R9 280x + 3 x Asus VS24AH-P 24" IPS 1920x1200
    Samsung 840 Evo 250GB OS + 2 x 1TB WD Caviar Black




    The member formerly known as SuBX3r0 HEAT

  12. #57
    Joined
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    138

    Re: what you like dislike about intel amd

    Quote Originally Posted by TBird761 View Post
    Brandito, I do not understand your tactics here. You have ignored parts of my posts that do not fit your agenda and are attacking my credibility for presenting a balanced viewpoint. You have become quite personal in your attacks. Why am I not allowed to voice my opinion in this thread? Must your observations be an ultimate authority on this subject? I do not believe the current course of discussion is well served by these tactics of yours.

    Do not mistake my observations on one machine for my observations on all, either. I have used both Intel and AMD quad core systems as well as dual and single core ones. My previously posted points still stand that I personally can tell a difference and favor my AMD quad setup over any AMD dual or single core as well as Intel single, dual, and quad core. The reasons for the better experience do not have to be specifically attributed to a single component to be felt. Likewise, we do not have to understand what about water causes wetness to feel wet when it is on us. It is simply wet.

    My only other point is that performance is often mistaken for smoothness--that people will for example look to framerate as a way to tell how smoothly their game will run. This is a fallacy for the reasons I have described before. Smoothness is not the same thing as raw work performed, and we should not be treating it as such. No matter how much you may try to insult me or damage my credibility in the matter, the core issue will remain. Just as pie and cake are both sweet deserts and often served in slices but are not the same food, smoothness and work performed are both measures of performance that can be applied to a system but are also not the same thing. It should be obvious to any rational adult, but somehow we are missing each other here.

    I don't know if you've understood me and just want to continue fighting or what, but I don't. This is my final attempt to try and communicate with you as one adult to another. Failing this, I will just leave you be since it will have become obvious to me that you do not wish to acknowledge the potential for my claims to be correct even when they do not necessarily conflict with your own. It will at that point have become obviously personal and I do not wish to promote that kind of action here.
    might as well give up, his tactic is that his experiance is the only valid experiance and his openion the only valid openion, hes like the nvidiots and mac fanbois i deal with dayly, they dont care about anybody else openions or that more then 1 person reports the same thing, their experiance and openion is all that matters.

    hell look how he talks, u can tell hes a redneck with those folksy words he uses

    in all seirousness, i have had core2 here, as well as k10 and my little dualie, and in some games my MIN fps is better then the intel q6600@3gz my buddy left here for a month(he was out of town and didnt trust his roomies to not mess with/break his puter) his videocard was better then mine, hdd's better, ram better but the min fps and "studder" where lower and happened alot, tho avg fps where better due to high's being higher.

    as to desktop use, some apps do take longer to load or load plugins, this im almost 100$ sure can be tacked back to memory bandwith and latancy on intel systems due to their memory controlers, yes if you look at older amd socketA chipsets from via or the like the memory per was blah, but the sis735/746/748 chipsets and nforce2 chipsets took care of that, and in my experiance gave a better "user experiance" and yes i had both systems around thru that time, i had a p3 3gz preshottttttt based system from the first run(when they where top of the line)

    equialy configuared and maintained(on clean windows server 2003 workstation installs) the amd systems just FELT SMOTHER, i cant proove it, its just a fact.

    also, just a note, dont bother telling me server 2003 isnt faster/snappyer/smoother then xp will just get you laughed at......every single person whos tryed 2k3 on my recomendation and followed my workstation guide has been very happy and a few even dual booted clean xp installs to compair, xp never lasts that exparment.

  13. #58
    Joined
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    138

    Re: what you like dislike about intel amd

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandito View Post
    not all of us are willing to put up with pc's with the computing power of a modern cell phone.

    be happy with your 1300+ and it's amazing computational prowess, i'll continue to use stuff that's actually fast.
    Edited.Forum rules
    1. NO SWEARING. Please refrain from using any vulgar language that would offend someone else. Shortcuts to vulgar language does not constitute no swearing.
    Last edited by CMB; 06-25-2008 at 03:18 AM. Reason: language

  14. #59
    Joined
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois
    Age
    34
    Posts
    15,846

    Re: what you like dislike about intel amd

    no one is a troll here but you, you call me a redneck (even though i've lived in chicagoland all my life) and i use folksy words?

    and you tell me i claimed you need a quad core for hd playback? never have i mentioned hd playback.

    no you would be the troll, you resurrect a thread just to add your own flamebait.

    you take a mostly civilized (though obviously heated) debate and turn it into a flamewar with insults and unnecessary cursing for what reason?

    how am i a fanboy? i own a single intel machine (have a second on the way though) and have been a solid supporter of amd for as long as i've been using computers (back to the k6 days)

    if you're seriously going to attack someone, at the very least use a spell checker, it'll make you look less trollish.
    Corsair 800D / Corsair TX750 PSU
    ASUS Sabertooth P67 / Win7 Pro
    Intel i7 2600k @ 4.4ghz (44 x 100) + Corsair H100
    Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 x 16GB
    2 x XFX R9 280x + 3 x Asus VS24AH-P 24" IPS 1920x1200
    Samsung 840 Evo 250GB OS + 2 x 1TB WD Caviar Black




    The member formerly known as SuBX3r0 HEAT

  15. #60
    Joined
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    138

    Re: what you like dislike about intel amd

    oh sorry confused you with the guy who said hd playback, and yes you use old words that make me think of my great grandfather, found very funny.

    sorry i confused you with the HD guy, tho your comments about cell phones and 1300 are trolling, no other way to read that other then an attempt at getting me or others to insult you.

    and why should i need a quadcore or the like for a htpc, its 2 uses are playing movies/videos and netsurfing, why does that need a high end cpu?

    as to redneck, some take it as insult other dont, you come off as the kind who would be proud of it. also where you live has NOTHING to do what being a redneck....its how you act.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •