AMD Appreciation thread!!

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
apt403

apt403

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2006
2,923
0
20,780
You sound a hell of a lot like either a troll or a fanboy to me. I mean, amd is an awesome company, but the C2D is just a better cpu then anything amd has right now. For a budget system though, amd rules!
 
yeah, I too remember, just some not as fondly as you... ahh, the heat, low overclocks, paper launches, exaggerated specific benches and oh yeah, the instability... now I remember... :wink:
 
Sorry to say i had intel all my life, but i have seen the light 😱
just waiting on the new stuff to be released, I will need help on motherboards later, cause i dont have a clue on which 1 is good or not.
 
Whether I buy AMD or Intel, I'm still glad that AMD is there. If it wasn't for the competition, we'd be still on Pentium 4s in 5 years time.

Edit:
I really do appreciate AMD cause their competition made my C2D cheaper.
Click to expand...

Oh well, you beat me to it!
 
I don't seem to remember history as you do there Flower. I remember Intel being right in the running during your Thunderbird days. Also the Athlon XP had it all their way until Intel abandoned Rambus, once Intel adopted DDR the Athlon XP wasn't so attractive. I remember the P4 2.533 Northwood and up kicking the Athlon XP's ass. It wasn't until Prescott and A64 that Intel lost outright. Finally the C2D's are much better than any of AMD's in production CPU's, cause the ones on paper don't run benchmarks so well. I love AMD, don't get me wrong. Had I built my sig rig 12 months earlier, it would have been a X2 4400 (S939). As it turned out though luck was on my side and I didn't have the money until after C2D came to p1ss on AMD's parade. You need to come out of the dark and remember things as they actually happened, or at least get back on your meds (untreated schizophrenia is not a good thing).

I hate the idea that all the AMD fanholies out their think that AMD is such a altruistic comany. They are in it for the money just like Intel. I am sure they have dealt in some underhanded business practices as well. Every AMD fanboy needs to get down off their soapboxes and see it like it is, selling CPU's is a business, and business isn't always clean and moral. Look at the prices of AMD's CPU's 12 months back as an example. They knew they had the best product, and they were gouging us for it. Not any different than Intel has done under the same circumstances. It stands to reason that Intel has more bad publicity for corrupt business practices, they do way more business than AMD.
 
Let's not forget AMD's first offerings. Yikes. I went from a 300mhz Celeron to a 500mhz K6 and ugh. It was SLOW. So, went back to Intel for my P3 600 and wow, what a difference. Then came Slot A, and that's when it all started to turn around. Pretty smoking chip, in more ways than one.

I've been with AMD ever since. Not necessarily fanboi-ism, AMD always happened to be bigger bang for the buck when I was upgrading. From the Slot A 700, to a T-Bird 900, to an XP 1.7, to a San Diego 3700, to my Opty. All have been good solid chips. Can't wait to see what "Phenom" has to offer. I hope it's a decent value chip like they have always been. My 939 board is begging for an upgrade.
 
I got my first AMD as a graduation present. It was when DDR first came out and AMD was becoming an alternative to Intel. So I got a gaming rig for $300 cheaper than intel and was much faster than any of my friends. For a few months then new stuff came out. My friend with his dual processor motherboard beat me. Next I got the AMD 64 when it first came out in a combo for around.. 300. I was amazed. No intel could do this(at the time). My computer booted in under 30 seconds, think I timed it at 15, given with windows updates and other programs that number quickly grew. Then of course my mobo everything went up in flames and smoke. I got an AMD laptop 3800 but I think it was based upon their desktop not the turion. I only saw the model offered for a month or two. The laptop flew like crazy and enjoyed playing WoW around the world. Eventually it was short-circuiting and had it replaced for free with an Intel C2D laptop. Which isn't much faster but battery life is about 3-4 times what my AMD 38000+ one was. Now I built a new desktop with C2D at 3.2 and never thought OC'ing could be so ez. I don't think on the K10 or Penryn it will be, I think that's because they'll be pressing the chips closer to the max to compete, but AMD had nothing to compete with C2D so Intel didn't have to stress them. Upgrade to K10 or Penryn next? Who knows probably Penryn if it's same socket if not it's all up to the benches. AMD has made Intel cheaper and saved me hundreds on my pc's by going with them.
 
Love AMD too here. First PC was a Intel, although that was the only cpu back in those days. Intel 486, next pc was a intel celeron 600Mhz one in 1998 😀, but my dad sold that and got us an AMD, performance was way better. From then on I've stuck to amd, went to athlon xp, athlon 64, athlon x2. and just today, i recieved a x2 4600 ;D because my 4200 broke and they didnt have any in stock. Gonna upgrade to AM2 though, then maybe when AM3 chips come out i can use one 😀. as for intel, yea they did suck all the way from 2000 - mid 2006, but now they are on top. also their first core duo cpu's sucked. thats why its called core 2 duo, because it took them 2 times to make it better :)
they seem to have mastered it, but now as core 2 duo comes to its 1 year mark almost i wouldnt want to buy it.
 
I probably shouldn't bother correcting you because you're an uninformed fanboy, but...

as for intel, yea they did suck all the way from 2000 - mid 2006
Click to expand...

No they didn't. The Pentium 4 Northwood was a pretty decent chip. If I recall correctly the top Northwood chips were similar to the Athlon XP top chips, maybe a little quicker, depending on the application.

also their first core duo cpu's sucked. thats why its called core 2 duo, because it took them 2 times to make it better :)
they seem to have mastered it, but now as core 2 duo comes to its 1 year mark almost i wouldnt want to buy it.
Click to expand...

No, the Core Duo was very good, and not a whole lot slower than the Core 2 Duo most of the time. Even the Pentium M, which came before the Core Duo, was about the equivalent of the AMD Turion. The Core Duo was definitely already superior to the Turion.
 
Wrong... AMD had 486's...
Click to expand...

Yup, it was the last CPU AMD was allowed to copy. In fact AMD was forced to produce them long after Intel had switched to the Pentium. This was due to the fact that AMD had never had to do more than study and refine Intels process. It took them awhile to get up to speed on creating a completely new CPU from scratch (well as completely new and still be X86 as you can get).
 
I probably shouldn't bother correcting you because you're an uninformed fanboy, but...

as for intel, yea they did suck all the way from 2000 - mid 2006
Click to expand...

No they didn't. The Pentium 4 Northwood was a pretty decent chip. If I recall correctly the top Northwood chips were similar to the Athlon XP top chips, maybe a little quicker, depending on the application.

also their first core duo cpu's sucked. thats why its called core 2 duo, because it took them 2 times to make it better :)
they seem to have mastered it, but now as core 2 duo comes to its 1 year mark almost i wouldnt want to buy it.
Click to expand...

No, the Core Duo was very good, and not a whole lot slower than the Core 2 Duo most of the time. Even the Pentium M, which came before the Core Duo, was about the equivalent of the AMD Turion. The Core Duo was definitely already superior to the Turion.

well amd were on top most of the time 2000 - mid 2006 then :)

as for core duo, im mistaken 😳
but still amd's were much better with the dual core before the c2d
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html

and yes you can say im a fanboy, because i have been supporting amd for most of the time, but..

if c2d had real quad core and supported hyperthreading let me assure you i would be with them right now. right now the jump from a 4600 x2 to a c2d doesn't look like id gain anything, except ddr2 and minor performance like, oo i can calculate pi in 16 seconds.
 
He's not saying Intel didn't have 80486's, what he's saying is that AMD had them too, and if you want to get technical so did Cyrix and VIA.
Click to expand...

Wrong... AMD had 486's...
Click to expand...

looks to me like hes saying only amd had the 486, coulda just said, amd had 486's too.
 
I have not owned an Intel CPU since my 300A celeron running at 450mhz.
Am I an AMD fanboy? Yes, I am.
I don't care if you can buy a faster CPU from somewhere else.
I simply excerise my right to spend my money however I wish, and that is NOT spend my money with Intel. Call it brand loyalty, call it an idiot's choice, call it whatever you want. Until AMD goes belly up and their products are wiped from the face the earth, and Intel is the only choice left, I will always buy from AMD. There are plenty of people who always buy Intel, so I'll do my teeny, tiny insignificant part to keep the competition healthy.
I hope Intel and AMD stay in business and keep releasing decent products for a fair value for years to come. Long live competition, we all win in the end.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom