List some reasons

[He Is Legend]

Why AMD is better than Intel

I like AMD better myself..for its ment for games and runs cooler than Intel..Although intel has hyperthreading, alot of people say its a joke...but thats cause there AMD people, but some people say its a joke that are intel





only if biggs was here :p

[BlackWolf]

AMD is for kids

Intel are for grown men

that is the difference ;)

AMD is a great gaming cpu more raw gaming performance while intel got greater performance in serious stuff

if u only game AMD is the way to go

if u are a guy for serious sofware Intel is the way to go i think :confused:

and then there are the prices intel are expensive :(

[He Is Legend]

AMD is for kids

Intel are for grown men

that is the difference ;)

AMD is a great gaming cpu more raw gaming performance while intel got greater performance in serious stuff

if u only game AMD is the way to go

if u are a guy for serious sofware Intel is the way to go i think :confused:

I ment for gaming :p

[BlackWolf]

I ment for gaming :p


i know ur a kiddo :D

[BlackWolf]

just look at some benchmarks in games intel Vs Amd then u kow why u wanna buy Amd for games :)

[Slice]

Why AMD is better than Intel

I like AMD better myself..for its ment for games and runs cooler than Intel..Although intel has hyperthreading, alot of people say its a joke...but thats cause there AMD people, but some people say its a joke that are intel





only if biggs was here :p
AMD does not run cooler then Intel.

[Caged Anger]

Ever since I switched to an AMD Sempron 1.5Ghz processor, my games have really been flying. Then there is the fact that it cost a lot less than the Intel alternative.

I know that hyperthreading is supposed to be good, but don't programs have to be specifically written in order to take advantage of it?

[OUTLAWS 9.99repeating^32]

I'm not an expert in processers, so please correct me if I make a mistake. This is how I understand it from reading some articles over the years (listing only pros of each compared to the other):



Intel Processers..
Run cooler than AMD
Consume less power than AMD
Run at higher frequencies than AMD
Can use DDR2 RAM, unlike AMD
Outpeform AMD in graphical development and 2-D applications
Outperform AMD when handling multiple applications at once (multitasking)
Are more widely available than AMD
Are better known than AMD
In laptops outperform their AMD counterparts
In servers outperform their AMD counterparts

AMD Processers..
Generally cost less than Intel
Outperform Intel in 3-D gaming applications
Have better FPS-to-dollar ratios in games than Intel
Can use SLI, unlike Intel

That's about all I can think of. Hopefully that was mostly correct and somewhat helpful.

[He Is Legend]

I'm not an expert in processers, so please correct me if I make a mistake. This is how I understand it from reading some articles over the years (listing only pros of each compared to the other):



Intel Processers..
Run cooler than AMD
Consume less power than AMD
Run at higher frequencies than AMD
Can use DDR2 RAM, unlike AMD
Outpeform AMD in graphical development and 2-D applications
Outperform AMD when handling multiple applications at once (multitasking)
Are more widely available than AMD
Are better known than AMD
In laptops outperform their AMD counterparts
In servers outperform their AMD counterparts

AMD Processers..
Generally cost less than Intel
Outperform Intel in 3-D gaming applications
Have better FPS-to-dollar ratios in games than Intel
Can use SLI, unlike Intel

That's about all I can think of. Hopefully that was mostly correct and somewhat helpful.

every aspect in AMD's thing you just listed means Pwnt.

lol, I mean if your a gamer...AMD is the way to go

if your a buisness man..Intel is yours

[ME BIGGD01]

AMD is for kids

Intel are for grown men

that is the difference ;)

AMD is a great gaming cpu more raw gaming performance while intel got greater performance in serious stuff

if u only game AMD is the way to go

if u are a guy for serious sofware Intel is the way to go i think :confused:

and then there are the prices intel are expensive :(

You are kidding right?

as for everyone who posted here, you all are living in the 90's. from reading the responses, you are all wrong and really are not up to date.

i am curious to know from anyone---please let me know what applications they run that intel outperforms amd. sure gaming is already know to own intel but before i interject regarding anything else, i would like to hear how people like blackwolf come up with amd does not come close or can not run serious applications. once i see some responses, i will then post.

i also ask to who ever responds to be able to back up what they say because i intend to make my point clear.

[He Is Legend]

You are kidding right?

as for everyone who posted here, you all are living in the 90's. from reading the responses, you are all wrong and really are not up to date.

i am curious to know from anyone---please let me know what applications they run that intel outperforms amd. sure gaming is already know to own intel but before i interject regarding anything else, i would like to hear how people like blackwolf come up with amd does not come close or can not run serious applications. once i see some responses, i will then post.

i also ask to who ever responds to be able to back up what they say because i intend to make my point clear.

DO IT DO IT

I so wanna hear about AMD :D

[OUTLAWS 9.99repeating^32]

Well, as far as outperforming AMD in certain applications, I got that information from this article (http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353&p=6). In it, almost every one of the game and 3-D rendering programs shows AMD to be faster, but for many of the 2-D and multi-tasking programs, Intel pulls ahead. It was written in February so I think it's safe to say that the general message still applies today. And like I said earlier in this thread, I have read other articles in the past that have said generally the same thing.

Again, I could be wrong, I'm not sure. That's why I specifically said that what I wrote is only my conception of the two processer giants, and may or may not be equal to the actual truth.

[ME BIGGD01]

chaotic, unless you already have a p4, there is no reason to purchase one over any amd chip. when anyone tells you that amd is just for games, they usually do not know what they are talking about and are not familiar with either platform. do i think the p4 sucks? no i don't but in no way does it compare to the athlon64 platform. it may be a tad better for encoding with some software that was specifiacally written to take advantage of intel's hyper threading but overall it still can not compete. if anyone says that amd chips run hotter then intel's they are again wrong and suggest those that are telling you to quote the power and heat specs to you.

[He Is Legend]

chaotic, unless you already have a p4, there is no reason to purchase one over any amd chip. when anyone tells you that amd is just for games, they usually do not know what they are talking about and are not familiar with either platform. do i think the p4 sucks? no i don't but in no way does it compare to the athlon64 platform. it may be a tad better for encoding with some software that was specifiacally written to take advantage of intel's hyper threading but overall it still can not compete. if anyone says that amd chips run hotter then intel's they are again wrong and suggest those that are telling you to quote the power and heat specs to you.

I'm never switching :P

remember that pos intel i had before?

this AMD kills it.......perfectly

[ME BIGGD01]

Well, as far as outperforming AMD in certain applications, I got that information from this article (http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353&p=6). In it, almost every one of the game and 3-D rendering programs shows AMD to be faster, but for many of the 2-D and multi-tasking programs, Intel pulls ahead. It was written in February so I think it's safe to say that the general message still applies today. And like I said earlier in this thread, I have read other articles in the past that have said generally the same thing.

Again, I could be wrong, I'm not sure. That's why I specifically said that what I wrote is only my conception of the two processer giants, and may or may not be equal to the actual truth.
the problem with online reviews is that they are paid to say what they say. the inquirer just flipped out recently about that because of it. they explained how many of the websites do this and follow the same pattern. don't believe the hype. it would be easy to benchmark anything with bias benchmark suites that score on features that really make no difference in the real world. you will never hear anything about the clock throttling of an intel chip which it does when it gets too hot. sure that may sound like a great feature but when you are pushing your system heavy using real applications the p4 will slow down due to it's heat. overall, your project is being slowed down. let these sites run a burnin for 24 hours and then benchmark the chips. you would be suprised to see the real performance. also you will notice from these sites benching products that arent even to the market yet. what i mean is that you couldnt buy them if you wanted or not available. it's all hype and the way intel does it's marketing. for a recent example, try to order a dual core cpu based on an intel chip. intel announced it last monday because amd was going to announce on the 21st but the truth is it's a paper launch. regardless of websites such as anandtech and a few others, they are benching chips not available. amd made their announcement on their anniversay date and they already had the products in their customers shops before it. one point made by the inquirer to back up their claims was looking at the suites of benchmarks. also look at the products they use to compare one another. i look at those scores and trounce them with my own system so it proves to me that they are bias.

i could never understand the true nature of the benchmarks used anyway. when considering an investment, one ususally looks for a long term advantage. their is nothing long term with an intel product. their server line is garbage and in no way could compete with amd's server line. anyone running a webserver would use an athlon 64 product over an intel product. the architecture of both platforms when researched will show that intel's offerings fall short and are way to expensive.

never base your opinion on any website that gets paid to do their reviews. too bad that is the majority of them today. do you want to get real answers? goto the people using the products and ask questions. just like the comment made that amd's chips run hotter will prove that their is a lot of false information out there which ignores the truth. i hate to see people make bad descisions over myths. it is easy to go to both intel and amd websites and get the power consumption info and compare them themself.

and as a side note to all, i hope it doesnt seem i am attacking anyone or anything but to explain the intensity in what ever i post is that in this field i have met so many techs and it people that claim to know everything but in reality know nothing. anyone who would buy a product based on the company that built it would be fired from me at hello. when i hear false statements that have no truth it makes me nuts because the person who said it usually get tehir info from other rather then doing the research and testing themself. if this was an illness such as cancer, no one would be asking anyone for info from anyone who read about it. i have tested and built systems on many platforms and depending what your application requires is what you should invest upon. there are things that amd doe sthat pisss me off and i will bash amd for it also. i may like their products but i am not going to say they are perfect when they are not. i just at words with someone at amd because of some problems i have encountered. some jumped on me because they felt i was bashing amd when all i was doing was explaining the bs tactics from them. it's hard to get your point across some people who do not use a computer for the same things. the majority of people will not run into the same problems as i do becuase they are not using the same components and pushing limits to notice them. some people think these companies are a football team but they are not. they are companies that want your money and will market it anyway to get it. i myself will never kiss an ass of either company. with that, today, amd is the platform to use.

[ME BIGGD01]

I'm never switching :P

remember that pos intel i had before?

this AMD kills it.......perfectly
yes but we should compare to products that are available and new. what you could say is that regardless of your system, you can still upgrade it compared to the other platform. i would suggest an upgrade at this point but the option is there which made it a well worthy investment for your needs.

[Slice]

chaotic, unless you already have a p4, there is no reason to purchase one over any amd chip. when anyone tells you that amd is just for games, they usually do not know what they are talking about and are not familiar with either platform. do i think the p4 sucks? no i don't but in no way does it compare to the athlon64 platform. it may be a tad better for encoding with some software that was specifiacally written to take advantage of intel's hyper threading but overall it still can not compete. if anyone says that amd chips run hotter then intel's they are again wrong and suggest those that are telling you to quote the power and heat specs to you.
LOL, it still can not compete? OK, then let me just pull my chip out and let it sit on the desk. Of course it still competes. You make it sound like apples and oranges. When in fact it is not. Find me an application that will slow my system down to the point where I am waiting.... Until then AMD has nothing over Intel.

[SALvation]

Easy answer? Price to performance ratio.

[Slice]

Easy answer? Price to performance ratio.
Is it really so easy to draw that conclusion? I mean Hummers are real nice but suck down gasoline like water, but they certainly perform nice. I will not switch to AMD for a few reasons. The first one is they run hot, and I have friends of mine who lost their whole system because the chip went up in smoke. The second being show me a chart on regular computer usage where AMD blows Intel out of the water. (Let me also sneak this in too, if you guys think that your processors are bottlenecking your performance you are probably wrong. Memory, graphics cards, and FSB are your bottle necks now) Processors are way ahead of the game. The rest of the hardware needs to catch up imo.......

[Speedsweeper]

Is it really so easy to draw that conclusion? I mean Hummers are real nice but suck down gasoline like water, but they certainly perform nice. I will not switch to AMD for a few reasons. The first one is they run hot, and I have friends of mine who lost their whole system because the chip went up in smoke. The second being show me a chart on regular computer usage where AMD blows Intel out of the water. (Let me also sneak this in too, if you guys think that your processors are bottlenecking your performance you are probably wrong. Memory, graphics cards, and FSB are your bottle necks now) Processors are way ahead of the game. The rest of the hardware needs to catch up imo.......


No processor should go up in smoke, provided you have a good CPU cooler. My own opinion is that AMD are best for gaming and for being cheap. Intel are also very good but they are the preferred option for multi tasking within windows. Intel also steals most of the limelight within the industry because they are more mainstream and spend more on advertising.

Just my opinion. :)

[BobtheCkroach]

The HyperTransport Technology on the AMD64 line is enough to convince me. It's a pretty kewl thing. On most (if not all ?) boards up through the AMD64 bit line, all hardware that communicated had its datapath going through the Northbridge Chip - even RAM. Huge bottleneck. In the new HyperTransport technology, RAM has a seperate, and completely reserved datapath to the CPU, and the other HW works on 1 (in the AMD64 and AMD64 FX chips) or 3 (on the Opteron...don't know about the new Dual Core) HT links to greatly reduce bottlenecking...

Can you tell I just had to give a presentation on 64 bit technology... :P

Jim, Bigg, etc...correct me if I'm wrong on any of that.

[ME BIGGD01]

slice, when i say can not compete, i am referring to the technology. for such a small company such as amd, they are far ahead when it comes to their processor technology and are making intel screwup since the k7 days. before the k7, amd had another great chip called the k6 series. it was faster then intels p2 but was not as good when it came to multimedia. it was still a great chip though and had many enhancemnets such as integrated memory in the core (k63) which utilized the l2 cache on the motherboard as an l3 cache. that's all history now but they still had it first.

now lets look at today's design a little clearer. while your chip (p4 northwood core) was great when it came out and can still run all the daily apps, it is at the end of the road as far as upgrading goes and if you did mangae to get a new p4 chip in there it will actually run hotter and slower (prescott core) the only advancements intel has made to their line is add more l2 cache which really isnt doing much for them. they can not get over 4 gighz barrier (they canceled it due to power consumption) and they are copying everything from amd which they bashed amd for a year prior.

they said 32/64 bit was stupid and now they have it in their p4 cpu's in their 6xx series and higher which are amd64 code (regardless, intel failed to do this 100% and in 64 bit mode it can not keep up to amd's 64 bit series). they are also using somehwat of the same pr rating as amd but different codes such as 5xx 6xx etc. let me also remember the nx bit which has been used on the k8 line from day one and still to this day not all p4 chips being processed have it. for such a large company with large pockets of cash, they are not leading the industry in anyway when it comes to cpu.

now not knowing what anyone does with their system but considering where things are heading and the technology available, one would be in dream world to say intel is faster or better then intel. now that is just talking about the cpu but when you design the full system, you have to take the reality of the full architecture such as memory, bus, and keeping things cool.

as far as hyper threading goes, it is a great design but 98% of the apps out there do not use it or use it correctly. windows xp os does not use it correctly and it will not multi task as some are saying so efficiently. there are more apps that require you to disable it because it causes problems. i still think it's a great design and works well for the apps written for it.

here are a few things that amd currently has over intel today.
the athlon 64 platform will offer you an integrated memory controller, hyper transport technology, nx bit technology on chip, lower voltages and cooler processors, longer platform life such as being able to install a dual core chip in current 940/939 chipsets. sli is also there but the p4 now has this option but not yet available to public. true 32/64 bit pipeline unlike the 6xx series of intels p4 which comes short by i think 8 so will not keep up. also lower pricing which makes the system in full cheaper to fill it up with better components and more ram.

now what i just listed is general amd64 cpu components. i did not mention the latest and greatest features such as true dual core cpu's. what i mean by true dual cores is there is 1 core with 2 processors built into it. the k8 series was designed for dual cores from the get go. intel rushed out their dual cores also but really they are not true dual cores. they have 2 cores on a board. these chips also do not feature hyper threading but they are supposed to bring that out. now what am i getting at? when we discuss servers or workstations, looking at the platform design, there is nothing intel has to compete with the athlon 64 design. for an example, we will discuss building a server that has dual sockets which can fit to processors in there. so we take 2 xeon chips which have 64 bit (amd64) technology and we take 2 opteron chips. we will make these chips dual core chips which although intel did a marketing announcement and paper launched their dual cores you can not get them (go to pricewatch.com and look for a dual core p4 and look at the availability for the opteron dual core to see my point). regardless of availability lets pretend w ehave them for our virtual machine. so we put the dual cor chips in the dual board which would give us a quad system for each. we will use server 2003 64 which is built using amd64 technology (so is windows xp 64). now we look at the performance ratio and make note that on the xeon platform each processor is sharing 1 bus to the memory. that makes things very slow and causes a major bottle neck. lets also look at the opteron platform and make note that each proessor has it's own memory controller built into it with it's own lane to memory. there is no bottleneck and with hypertransport technology they opterons will get faster with each processor put into the system. unlike the xeon which becomes more and more of a bottle neck because of the limited bus and the lack of an integrated memory controller. now lets cluster 20 of these systems and count how much we paid for each platform design. systems that are over a year or two old using the opterons can utilize a dual core chip with a imple bios update. so now we have to look at price/performance artion in it's correct terms and see that anyone who bought into this platform will be able to upgrade without purchasing new systems. it really make sense to go amd. they do not have the marketing power to make them look good and finally they do not need it becuase of the performance of their technology.

there are so many other things i can type up but hell i am not being paid for this. if anyone does a search on power consumption on the chips for these, they will notice that the xeon is going to heatup something good and it will take a lot more to keep the intel platform cooler. they will also notice that the opterons won't even break a sweat.

[ME BIGGD01]

Is it really so easy to draw that conclusion? I mean Hummers are real nice but suck down gasoline like water, but they certainly perform nice. I will not switch to AMD for a few reasons. The first one is they run hot, and I have friends of mine who lost their whole system because the chip went up in smoke. The second being show me a chart on regular computer usage where AMD blows Intel out of the water. (Let me also sneak this in too, if you guys think that your processors are bottlenecking your performance you are probably wrong. Memory, graphics cards, and FSB are your bottle necks now) Processors are way ahead of the game. The rest of the hardware needs to catch up imo.......
slice just to let you know, amd had a problem with their thunderbird core which was their first release of socket chips. they ran very hot and if not installed correctly with the proper heatsink they would burnup in seconds. this was 4 years ago and the problem was eliminated in the next core palomino. i am telling from personal use that yes the thunderbird was hot but if it was installed correctly it would still run hotter then any other brand but it would still run fast. let us not forget this that at that time intel was on it's 2nd recall. i hear people discuss this heat issue with amd chips and it was only a problem with the thunderbird core (it was not that big of a problem but who like their chips hotter then hell). i would rather have a chip that ran well and hot then a chip that was recalled. i would say that intel has failed worst then amd in those days but they failed a lot more on the first version of the p4 which ran slower than a 400-600 clocked slower p3. today the entire amd line runs much cooler the intels chips. hell just google it and see what you find. go to intel.com and download spec sheet pdfs and look for yourself and you will realize that intel is having a much worst heat issue then amd did with their first socket a core. the worst problem for intel is this is their newest cores of the p4 and xeon line that are having problems. when you realize that what i say is true, will not ever use an intel chip again?

also you mentioned bottlenecks which i mentioned in my post before this one. the bottlenecks are not on any athlon64 platform. hell, they are actually not that bad on any nforce2 socket a systems due to the hypertransport hub on the nforce2 (what the hell the nforce 1 also uses hyper transport also). all k8 boards and k8 chips use hypertransport. you can not compare an intel platform to amd platform because they are apples and oranges.

[ME BIGGD01]

The HyperTransport Technology on the AMD64 line is enough to convince me. It's a pretty kewl thing. On most (if not all ?) boards up through the AMD64 bit line, all hardware that communicated had its datapath going through the Northbridge Chip - even RAM. Huge bottleneck. In the new HyperTransport technology, RAM has a seperate, and completely reserved datapath to the CPU, and the other HW works on 1 (in the AMD64 and AMD64 FX chips) or 3 (on the Opteron...don't know about the new Dual Core) HT links to greatly reduce bottlenecking...

Can you tell I just had to give a presentation on 64 bit technology... :P

Jim, Bigg, etc...correct me if I'm wrong on any of that.
hey bob, the mac uses amd technology in the g5:) their chips also have an onboard memory controller. i am impressed with this post though because while i was typing up what i posted, it mentioned what you posted. good job:thumbs:

[BobtheCkroach]

hey bob, the mac uses amd technology in the g5:) their chips also have an onboard memory controller. i am impressed with this post though because while i was typing up what i posted, it mentioned what you posted. good job:thumbs:

Hmm...a MAC freak talked about the G5 in that class that I did the 64 bit presentation in...he didn't mention that...fool! :rolleyes:

Thanks BIGG. :thumbs:

[BlackWolf]

You are kidding right?

as for everyone who posted here, you all are living in the 90's. from reading the responses, you are all wrong and really are not up to date.

i am curious to know from anyone---please let me know what applications they run that intel outperforms amd. sure gaming is already know to own intel but before i interject regarding anything else, i would like to hear how people like blackwolf come up with amd does not come close or can not run serious applications. once i see some responses, i will then post.

i also ask to who ever responds to be able to back up what they say because i intend to make my point clear.


my opinon is based on benchmarks seen on different web sites and i did not say that AMD couldnt be used for serious stuff and for the web sites to be payed to make Intel or AMD look better i dont know anything about but u seem to do but then again u are a AMD freak down to ur toes so i guess u might be on AMDs pay list also then :D
we seriously need a guy that are on Intels pay list to we can have some good info on both sides :thumbs:


and i have had both had AMD and Intel and is not a special fan of any of them i just change to what looks best for the price or my use when i upgrade
i got intel now but i might end up with a AMD next time time will tell

[ME BIGGD01]

:) blackwolf, amd should be paying me:D . anyway, don't be fooled or misunderstand to think that i do not have my gripes with amd. like i mentioned earlier in this thread, i went to an amd forum, signed up and tried to get some feedback with some issues that i have encountered regarding amd. to say the least i was arguing with some moron about it as they were telling me that i should of done research before making a purchase. yeah i was pretty pissed and such the reason i hate the internet because you can't get physical with the putz on the other end:mad: . anyway, there are issues with every company and in a minute i would switch to intel if they came out with a better product. i may like amd because of the way they do business but they are not innocent all the time. i guess it would be fair if i also list the bad things with amd also and will do that so it does not look like i am a puts who thinks amd is the best thing since slice bread. i do not ever one to be close minded to think that any product a company makes is great because that would mean i am ignorant and worst a hypocrite. so here it goes.:thumbs:

first--amd's pr ratings absolutely suck. they are not accurate and if not careful, one can pay an additional 100 bucks for a cpu with a higher pr rating but clocked at the same frequency. this is not fair considering that they may have tweaked the core or changed something to make it run a little faster. for an example, the athlon xp line 1800 and higher have pr ratings with a boost of 66mhz frequency boost. the pr ratings changed with an additional 256 l2 cache. ex. a 2400xp chip runs @ 266 fsb 256 l2 cache with a frequency of 2 ghz. a 2500 xp runs 333 fsb with 512 l2 cache and a frequency of 1.83 ghz. the difference at the time was 20-30 dollars but in performance the 2400 actually ran faster in many of the tests i have ran. this has not changed and the problem is somewhat there for the amd64 line where they gave but also took away. ex. the3200 athlon 64 socket 754 will run better in many instances then a 3500 athlon 64 with dual channel and socket 939. what bothers me is that there should be some standards set because it is completely a rip off to customers who are spending more and not getting the additional performance. price/performance ratio is not 100% accurate at this time with amd because of it. the prices are not as cheap as they use to be so don't expect to save as much when buying amd platforms. although overall they are cheaper then intel, the product being purchased is not as giving as it should when buying higher end products.

second--in all cores of the athlon 64 for socket 939, the memory controller did not support 4 banks of dual channel ram. if one planned to install 4x512 dimms their system would clock down to 333 and not give you the dual channel which would actually cost you in performace and defeat the purpose of the higher pr rating given to these chips and defeat the purpose of running a system with windowsxp 64 with large amounts of ram. i feel this is totally bs and was one of the biggest complaints regarding amd's athlon 64 sries of chips considering the hype. sure the chip runs great but i want what i am paying for and there was no documents of info regarding this as that little prick on the amd forums suggested i should did my research (i would of chocked the punk if i could of). i do research as much as i could but i spend large amounts of money yearly designing powerfull platforms for a powerful product. this does not sit well with me that the memory contoller can not handle this memory issue which most people have no clue exists becaus ethe majority of the people running an athlon 64 (not opterons) series chip. gamers should not have any input when it comes to chatting about a platform in full. their area should be strictly video cards where or is the most important to a gaming system. the cpu helps but you could be running an athlon 64xx and a geforce 4 and i will tell you no matter what, the system sucks. i still feel the 3200 socket 754 with 1 meg l2 cache is a great product and would take it over my 3500 chip any day. i run one in my laptop and i have one in another system. both perform extremely well.

now as far as heat goes, from day one the chips run cooler than anything. looking at each core, the cooling is even getting better along with a more and efficient memory controller in die. amd also fixed the memory issue in the latest cores. the venice core is the core to buy if looking to buy amd 64 chip. it runs even cooler then all other athlon 64's (although it wasnt ever an issue) and they run lower voltages which is always great and helps for those enthusiasts who like to oc. this in my eyes does not excuse my feeling with the problems i listed and i expect amd to replace my chips for free to make me happy. if they do not, i will be a very unhappy person regarding amd and will have a different view on them altogether. regardless of the athlon 64 series of chips being great chips, i still want everything to work the way i expect them to since i paid for it. i have this mindset on anything and everything if i am paying for it even food. i feel any person who spends their money they worked for should get what they paid for. anyway, i hope you do not think i am a amd fan becuase they are amd. if you only saw what i went through with a bunch of those freaks a week ago you would understand. nothing more irritating then a bunch of morons trying to give me advice when i actually know what i am talking about. never fall into a fan category because one day you are bound to get screwed.:thumbs:

[ME BIGGD01]

Hmm...a MAC freak talked about the G5 in that class that I did the 64 bit presentation in...he didn't mention that...fool! :rolleyes:

Thanks BIGG. :thumbs:
if anyone challenges you with a mac let me know. the g5 is good but there are many issues and bs tactics used to market the thing. you will notice that they will never test one against a amd platform. they actually tried to take the moment of the first 32/64 bit cpu out the door for a desktop (they were sued and had to change their marketing scheme). anyway, the opteron was out long before the mac g5 was. also the os for the mac was not 64 bit capable when released and i think still not fully 64 bit where as 64bit linux and betas of windowsxp 64 bit was available.

[BlackWolf]

wow long read but good :thumbs:

what about those dual core processors are they worth the wait if u wanna upgrade ? or would it be better to go with a FX55 or 4000+ ?

[ME BIGGD01]

wow long read but good :thumbs:

what about those dual core processors are they worth the wait if u wanna upgrade ? or would it be better to go with a FX55 or 4000+ ?
i plan to get one for myself but the desktop chips will not be available until june. will they be worth it? it depends what you are using your system for. when people are buying a computer or building they need to write down what thie system is going to be used for. the fx chips are the fastest for everything. they will not beat the highest end chip that intel has in encoding with some apps but we are talking about a few seconds. now i would still consider the fx chip for the reason of being able to upgrade in the future and also lower heat and power consumption which overall will beat the p4 in time and performance overall. also the apps are being rewritten to take advantage of 64 bit which will kick ass on the athlon 64 series.

now if i am working on professional applications and not just messing around with hobby tasks, i am going to design a system that will work completely fast overall. when making this descision you can not just consider a cpu to be the power of the system. before the amd 64 was released intel owned the market due to the chipsets available for amd and intel. the chipsets for amd sucked and could not be taken serious in the server and workstation world (although the dual socket a's mp and mpx chipsets were pretty good they lacked in areas and never progressed which prevented them to be taken serious in this area). today with the opterons and athlon 64 series of chipsets and chips, they have everything you can want or need. the nforce 4 chipset is an extremely powerfull setup. anyway before i ramble on, i want to make it clear when spending your money for an all around computer system, one has to consider all areas of performance which pretty much will make or break your performance expectancies. as i amentioned before if you buy an athlon 64 system to game with, you better buy an ass kicking video card along with it otherwise you are not going to be all that impressed. when you design a system for video editing, you better have the hard drives configured correctly because it will cost you time when encoding. one thing i noticed on all these websites that benchmark and do comaprison is that they are just depending on the cpu which inmy eyes is only 1 part of the factors. i notice what chipsets and boards they are using and usually creates a false conclusion which doesnt matter because they are being paid to do this. it's totally misleading but it happends everyday.

so the question is should you go with dual core? again depending what you are doing. if you are multitasking i would say wait until june and buy one. people say that dual core chips do nothing for gaming but i will say they are wrong in many ways because regardless of the game not being able to support 2 threads the os does and with anything else running in the background it will make things run much smoother. just like the sites outhere claiming it will be slower for gaming, i find that false and would challenge anyone overall on performance.

as a side note, high ping camper has owned an athlon fx chip for over a year now. when the fx chips were first released, they were built to be used on the socket 940 boards. the thing that was not so good is you needed registered ram which will cut the latency down by a little and won't run as fast as non registered ram. for that kind of board you would most likely be using it as a workstation and it will kick some serious ass. now heres the thing and advantage of that board which is probably over1 1/2 maybe 2 years old. he can update his bios and slap one of those dual core chips in there today if he wanted to. the 940 boards support the fx and opteron chips. the dual core opterons can be bought today (actually a week ago) which would make his system a dual processor. to me that option alone makes his system so valuable and a workhorse. that is a smart investment and when spending so much on a system, you want the option to be able to upgrade in a year or 2.

if you want to game and save money and still have an ass kicking machine, i would suggest buying a 3000 or 3200 athlon 64 chip 939 pin built with a venice core and you will have the ultimate gaming rig that did not cost you so much which you can use the extra bucks for a better video card. you will have the option to upgrade at a later date and if you wanted, these chips are known to be able to oc well passed the higher end & more expensive chips.

i sugest the speed is always that expensive. the technology is what matters in the outcome. the onboard memory controller and hyper transport technology is what you want to buy into. the speed of the chips will give you a boost but not an overall boost compared to the technology being used. to explain this theory a little better, look at the speed of the a celeron clocked at the same frequency of a p4. lets say both are at 3 ghz. they have the same speed but the celeorn is lacking in all of the technology the p4 offers. that is what you are paying for.:thumbs:

[OUTLAWS 9.99repeating^32]

Wow, great series of posts Biggs. You shed some light on a number of important issues between AMD chips and Intel chips, especially the way AMD has progressed over the years. I really enjoyed your view on the 3200+ vs. 3500+ AMD 64 chip. Thanks.

[He Is Legend]

What can he say?

hes the man

[ME BIGGD01]

i am not special, i lack the ability to communicate the way some of you all can. I do not have the grammar or writing skills so it make s it tough for me to address my point clear enough. it's all i can offer:bawling: .

[He Is Legend]

i am not special, i lack the ability to communicate the way some of you all can. I do not have the grammar or writing skills so it make s it tough for me to address my point clear enough. it's all i can offer:bawling: .

>bows<

[Speedsweeper]

slice, when i say can not compete, i am referring to the technology. for such a small company such as amd, they are far ahead when it comes to their processor technology and are making intel screwup since the k7 days. before the k7, amd had another great chip called the k6 series. it was faster then intels p2 but was not as good when it came to multimedia. it was still a great chip though and had many enhancemnets such as integrated memory in the core (k63) which utilized the l2 cache on the motherboard as an l3 cache. that's all history now but they still had it first.

now lets look at today's design a little clearer. while your chip (p4 northwood core) was great when it came out and can still run all the daily apps, it is at the end of the road as far as upgrading goes and if you did mangae to get a new p4 chip in there it will actually run hotter and slower (prescott core) the only advancements intel has made to their line is add more l2 cache which really isnt doing much for them. they can not get over 4 gighz barrier (they canceled it due to power consumption) and they are copying everything from amd which they bashed amd for a year prior.

they said 32/64 bit was stupid and now they have it in their p4 cpu's in their 6xx series and higher which are amd64 code (regardless, intel failed to do this 100% and in 64 bit mode it can not keep up to amd's 64 bit series). they are also using somehwat of the same pr rating as amd but different codes such as 5xx 6xx etc. let me also remember the nx bit which has been used on the k8 line from day one and still to this day not all p4 chips being processed have it. for such a large company with large pockets of cash, they are not leading the industry in anyway when it comes to cpu.

now not knowing what anyone does with their system but considering where things are heading and the technology available, one would be in dream world to say intel is faster or better then intel. now that is just talking about the cpu but when you design the full system, you have to take the reality of the full architecture such as memory, bus, and keeping things cool.

as far as hyper threading goes, it is a great design but 98% of the apps out there do not use it or use it correctly. windows xp os does not use it correctly and it will not multi task as some are saying so efficiently. there are more apps that require you to disable it because it causes problems. i still think it's a great design and works well for the apps written for it.

here are a few things that amd currently has over intel today.
the athlon 64 platform will offer you an integrated memory controller, hyper transport technology, nx bit technology on chip, lower voltages and cooler processors, longer platform life such as being able to install a dual core chip in current 940/939 chipsets. sli is also there but the p4 now has this option but not yet available to public. true 32/64 bit pipeline unlike the 6xx series of intels p4 which comes short by i think 8 so will not keep up. also lower pricing which makes the system in full cheaper to fill it up with better components and more ram.

now what i just listed is general amd64 cpu components. i did not mention the latest and greatest features such as true dual core cpu's. what i mean by true dual cores is there is 1 core with 2 processors built into it. the k8 series was designed for dual cores from the get go. intel rushed out their dual cores also but really they are not true dual cores. they have 2 cores on a board. these chips also do not feature hyper threading but they are supposed to bring that out. now what am i getting at? when we discuss servers or workstations, looking at the platform design, there is nothing intel has to compete with the athlon 64 design. for an example, we will discuss building a server that has dual sockets which can fit to processors in there. so we take 2 xeon chips which have 64 bit (amd64) technology and we take 2 opteron chips. we will make these chips dual core chips which although intel did a marketing announcement and paper launched their dual cores you can not get them (go to pricewatch.com and look for a dual core p4 and look at the availability for the opteron dual core to see my point). regardless of availability lets pretend w ehave them for our virtual machine. so we put the dual cor chips in the dual board which would give us a quad system for each. we will use server 2003 64 which is built using amd64 technology (so is windows xp 64). now we look at the performance ratio and make note that on the xeon platform each processor is sharing 1 bus to the memory. that makes things very slow and causes a major bottle neck. lets also look at the opteron platform and make note that each proessor has it's own memory controller built into it with it's own lane to memory. there is no bottleneck and with hypertransport technology they opterons will get faster with each processor put into the system. unlike the xeon which becomes more and more of a bottle neck because of the limited bus and the lack of an integrated memory controller. now lets cluster 20 of these systems and count how much we paid for each platform design. systems that are over a year or two old using the opterons can utilize a dual core chip with a imple bios update. so now we have to look at price/performance artion in it's correct terms and see that anyone who bought into this platform will be able to upgrade without purchasing new systems. it really make sense to go amd. they do not have the marketing power to make them look good and finally they do not need it becuase of the performance of their technology.

there are so many other things i can type up but hell i am not being paid for this. if anyone does a search on power consumption on the chips for these, they will notice that the xeon is going to heatup something good and it will take a lot more to keep the intel platform cooler. they will also notice that the opterons won't even break a sweat.

Holy Sh*t BIGGS, loads of info.

Thanks for taking time out to post all that. Good stuff.

:cool:

[BobtheCkroach]

i am not special, i lack the ability to communicate the way some of you all can. I do not have the grammar or writing skills so it make s it tough for me to address my point clear enough. it's all i can offer:bawling: .

<pick your favorite grandmother-ly voice>
It's ok, buddy! We're all special - each and every one of us. You are special, too, big(g) guy. You have talents and abilities that none of us can substitute, and you are a unique and amazing individual. How 'bout I buy you an ice cream cone? Would that make you feel better? Yeah? Would that be nice?
<end your favorite grandmother-ly voice>

Sigh...I need hobbies instead of reading GM all sunday afternoon...

[He Is Legend]

<pick your favorite grandmother-ly voice>
It's ok, buddy! We're all special - each and every one of us. You are special, too, big(g) guy. You have talents and abilities that none of us can substitute, and you are a unique and amazing individual. How 'bout I buy you an ice cream cone? Would that make you feel better? Yeah? Would that be nice?
<end your favorite grandmother-ly voice>

Sigh...I need hobbies instead of reading GM all sunday afternoon...

Dont we all? :/

[Die Hard]

BIGGS, you are wonderful. Thank you :thumbs:

[Death Engineer]

Despite the many un-capitalized first-word-sentences, I find BiggDs hardware posts very informative. ;) It is more like a thought stream than an article, but that's what makes it easy to follow.

One suggestion: Try to organize your thoughts into smaller chunks (especially here). The large paragraphs make some of these kiddos wet their pants. ;) Keep up the nice work of educating the gamemecca world (among others). See ya around. :thumbs: