AMD Appreciation thread!!

[mpasternak]

I like AMD. I've had many. some good. Some not so good. AMD and intell have their own problems.

My first PC i owned was a Cyrix based 286 ( i think). than an intel 486, and then a pentium 1, 2... but then i decided to try AMD.

I bought my first AMD CPU. AMD 1.4ghz. Before they started using the XP naming scheme. plugged it in. started it up. Blue screen. reinstalled. Checked the temp. was high. ran to the store to get a new cooler. Got home. Smelled burning. the fan stopped spinning and tehre was a wiff of smoke. I instinctivevly reached in to pull the cooler off and burned my fingers (2nd degree).

I went out and bought a new intel CPU.

stuck with intel. Had a 1.8, 2.4 and a 3.2. The 3.2 was prescott, had it water cooled and everything just to maintain decent temps. So i decided to try AMD. immediately with the 3700 A64 i noticed improved perofrmance and temps. I recently upgraded from the 3700 to the 4600 just to go dualcore. temps are still low and it's stable as a rock.

I'm not partial to any. even after AMD burned me, i was willing to try them again. If i had to buy a new PC now, I'd buy Intel, if i have to buy a pc in the future, i'll buy whatever gives me the best performance at the time.

 

[techgeek]

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.

Just for the people with difficulty remembering, here is the link to Toms CPU charts for 2004.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2004.html

If you pick a P4 versus any of the Athlon XP's with the performance rating that matches the P4 clockspeed, you'll see that the P4 beats the Athlon XP in nearly everything. It isn't until you match the A64 with the P4 that the P4 gets it's a$$ handed to it. It seems to be that every AMD fanboy wishes to re-write the history previous to the A64, since the A64 kicked a$$ for x number of years, they must have did so before the A64 too. Heck why not say that Intel never made a good processor ever. This is the attitude that gets me. People get programmed into thinking in only one way (and it only took a few years of AMD superiority to do it). If anything AMD fans should be leery of narrow minded thinking with the whole clockspeed myth, that's why AMD created the performance index. What I'm saying is before you make blanket statements, you need to go back to the facts. If you can't remember that far back then you ought to stay silent.

By the way not all this was for you moogles, its for all fanboys on both sides of the fence. Intel fanboys have their day of reckoning coming too, Intel won't stay on top forever (if AMD hasn't dug themselves into a hole they can't get out of). I would rather see everyone be a performance whore, whoever has the best price/performance/power takes the market share, and the other gets the budget market.

 

[jitpublisher]

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.

Just for the people with difficulty remembering, here is the link to Toms CPU charts for 2004.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2004.html

If you pick a P4 versus any of the Athlon XP's with the performance rating that matches the P4 clockspeed, you'll see that the P4 beats the Athlon XP in nearly everything. It isn't until you match the A64 with the P4 that the P4 gets it's a$$ handed to it. It seems to be that every AMD fanboy wishes to re-write the history previous to the A64, since the A64 kicked a$$ for x number of years, they must have did so before the A64 too. Heck why not say that Intel never made a good processor ever. This is the attitude that gets me. People get programmed into thinking in only one way (and it only took a few years of AMD superiority to do it). If anything AMD fans should be leery of narrow minded thinking with the whole clockspeed myth, that's why AMD created the performance index. What I'm saying is before you make blanket statements, you need to go back to the facts. If you can't remember that far back then you ought to stay silent.

By the way not all this was for you moogles, its for all fanboys on both sides of the fence. Intel fanboys have their day of reckoning coming too, Intel won't stay on top forever (if AMD hasn't dug themselves into a hole they can't get out of). I would rather see everyone be a performance whore, whoever has the best price/performance/power takes the market share, and the other gets the budget market.

What I remember most about the pre-64 days was the PII, PIII, and P4's.
Clock speeds going up 200mhz at a time every 3 months and charging a hefty premium for each little "bump". Even though Intel could have leapfrogged over several of these "improvements" and released products that had much bigger performance gains each step of the way. But business is business, and this is how they milked the consumer for every penny they could until AMD finally offered something that did what Intel could/should have done, leapfrogged past everything else available by a good margin. That is what has soured me, those mid to later Pentium days when Intel had everything in their pocket, and just sit back raking in the cash. If I was CEO of Intel, hell I'd have done the same thing. But as a consumer, it really turned me off.

 

[RichPLS]

this thread should be renamed the AMD Depreciation thread...

 

[moogles]

sorry that i have a narrow minded view of intel , but the reason i chose amd over the years is due to the power/price/heat. only now it's changed to power/heat/price/overclockability. and yes the pentium does beat the athlon on most of those, but y'see I a gamer only look at one thing, games. it's up to intel/amd to decide what do we focus on the gaming market or the big corporation market. ie make the cpu better for video editing and such or better for games. since you know alot, please tell me the lets say counterpart for each cpu,

AMD Intel
Sempron Celeron
Turion Core Duo
Athlon Pentium
Athlon 64 Pentium 4
Athlon X2 Pentium 4 EE? Unsure
Athlon X2 Core 2 Duo
Agena Penryn

i'm pretty sure the cpu before core 2 duo was meant to be competing against the x2's so core 2 duo has no counterpart except for the latest x2's?

add more that i dont know of. although i may be a amd fanboy, i still read up on all new tech. so if i was asked to build a c2d i'd know what to get, in terms of overclocking.

 

[commanderspockep]

If only your thread would have said "Thank You AMD for your contributions to the world of Computers." and/or "Thank you for making the CPU market competitive." But instead you had to say:

Now we have Intel's Core 2 Duo, but too be honest they are not all that good.

Now that my friend is just flame bait. :roll: :roll:

 

[techgeek]

What I remember most about the pre-64 days was the PII, PIII, and P4's.
Clock speeds going up 200mhz at a time every 3 months and charging a hefty premium for each little "bump". Even though Intel could have leapfrogged over several of these "improvements" and released products that had much bigger performance gains each step of the way. But business is business, and this is how they milked the consumer for every penny they could until AMD finally offered something that did what Intel could/should have done, leapfrogged past everything else available by a good margin.

And your saying that AMD didn't milk us when they were on top with the A64. Seems to me I remember this time last year that an X2 4400+ was over $600 (CAD) and the FX60 was at $1000 (CAD). It's the nature of doing business, you got the best, you set your price. The auto industry is as bad or worse. All cars will get you back and forth, but Ferrari's don't go for the same price as Honda Civics. What's worse with the auto industry is driving day to day, you can't utilize the Ferrari. At least with a computer you're allowed to use it to it's full potential without getting in trouble.

 

[RichPLS]

If only your thread would have said "Thank You AMD for your contributions to the world of Computers." and/or "Thank you for making the CPU market competitive." But instead you had to say:

Now we have Intel's Core 2 Duo, but too be honest they are not all that good.

Now that my friend is just flame bait. :roll: :roll:

Which if he believes that, kinda makes ya wonder how little he thinks of AMD... :roll:

 

[Harrisson]

No wonder you dont post on main account, FlyingFlower, since I doubt you posted only once here Why? Because too many Intel fanboys here, and posting AMD appreciation thread on THG is the same as posting intel prasing thread in AMDzone :roll:

Back on topic, I thank AMD for concurency, otherwise we would be using P3/4 now and paying 600$ for it Intel is more buly than AMD simply because it can, AMD would do the same in Intels place, same in every other area, notable example Microsoft, etc.

 

[moogles]

yep, its just over 1 year since i got my x2 4200, $400 i paid (USD), still its not bad isnt it. all i remember is the ee edition intels cpu being out at that time.

 

[jeff_2087]

I thought it would be a great idea to create a AMD appreciation thread because of all the great CPU’s they have provided us with. This is a discussion about AMD, so could Intel fan boys please not reply because they keep creating flame wars….thank you.
My first AMD was the Thunderbird chip at a 1.4Ghz rated speed and these were awesome destroying anything Intel had to offer. I then moved onto the XP chip, which was improved over the Thunderbird, but yet again Intel had noting to beat AMD with.AMD 64 chips were awesome and intel still sucked. Then AMD made a revolution by releasing Dual core chips, but yet again Intel’s Dual cores were rubbish in comparison. Now we have Intel's Core 2 Duo, but too be honest they are not all that good. Core 2 Duos work out more expensive and too be honest do not run games that much better than the X2’s. Long live AMD! We salute you! I cannot wait for the new chips later in the year to annihilate Intel 😀 .

Sounds like you don't need any help creating a flame war. Maybe that's what you intended, or maybe you really are such an idiot that you actually believe what you posted. Either way, you're a waste of bandwidth, go to AMDZone where you can join the rest of the fanboys who preach to one another how good AMD is.

 

[wolverinero79]

This is a growing trend that a lot of people have screwed up. It's exactly as you said. AMD had about a 2 year lead and even then the margin of the lead wasn't gigantic. Since both companies have been in business for about 35 years, you can say that Intel has had 33 years of leading and AMD has had 2 years (I know I'm oversimplifying here, but it makes a point...at most AMD has had 5 years of leadership out of 35) 😀

 

[m25]

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...

Id'not be so rude with AMD's performance, even because, the memories of you that I highlighted, are fresher from Intel's Prescotts than the almost forgotten K7 you are referring .

 

[RichPLS]

I have had both through the years including today, and granted, Netburst was an oven which I avoided thanks to AMD, but generally, I have experienced higher overclocks and greater system stability with intel than my AMD systems, and I rarely skimp on components...

 

[m25]

I have had both through the years including today, and granted, Netburst was an oven which I avoided thanks to AMD, but generally, I have experienced higher overclocks and greater system stability with intel than my AMD systems, and I rarely skimp on components...

Many people confuse true overclocking (that is measured in percentage) with the MHz they OC; Core2 now is the king of that too, but in the past, people used to send a Pentium4/D to 4.0GHz and considered it an incredible OC while seldom being impressed by a 2.8GHz X2/A64, even if the OC of the latter was better; 200MHz OC of an Athlon are still better than 300MHz OC of a Pentium4/D.
And as for system stability, I don't think AMD has been that far fron Intel since the K8 was out.

 

[techgeek]

sorry that i have a narrow minded view of intel , but the reason i chose amd over the years is due to the power/price/heat. only now it's changed to power/heat/price/overclockability. and yes the pentium does beat the athlon on most of those, but y'see I a gamer only look at one thing, games. it's up to intel/amd to decide what do we focus on the gaming market or the big corporation market. ie make the cpu better for video editing and such or better for games. since you know alot, please tell me the lets say counterpart for each cpu,

AMD Intel
Sempron Celeron
Turion Core Duo
Athlon Pentium
Athlon 64 Pentium 4
Athlon X2 Pentium 4 EE? Unsure
Athlon X2 Core 2 Duo
Agena Penryn

i'm pretty sure the cpu before core 2 duo was meant to be competing against the x2's so core 2 duo has no counterpart except for the latest x2's?

add more that i dont know of. although i may be a amd fanboy, i still read up on all new tech. so if i was asked to build a c2d i'd know what to get, in terms of overclocking.

Well on the CPU chart, you'll see quite a few games used as benchmarks, and Intel wins most of them if not all under the guidelines I used.

As for the chart, you're pretty much spot on, here is how I see it:

AMD Intel
Duron/Sempron Celeron
Turion Core Duo
K6-X Pentium, Pentium Pro (with or without MMX)
Athlon Pentium II,III
Athlon XP Pentium 4 (Willamette, Northwood)
Athlon 64 Pentium 4 (Northwood, Prescott, Presler)
Athlon FX Pentium 4 EE (this was a particular stupid idea)
Athlon X2 Pentium 4 D
Athlon X2/FX Core 2 Duo (sorry if that's all you got that's what we have to stack it up against)
Agena Penryn

That's pretty close without getting too far into details. Of course you may have Nehelam competing with Agena depending on how long Agena is around. Seems to me Intel is trying to be the rolling stone, they don't want to be caught sleeping again. It's hard to be the sleeping king who wakes to find the fool stole his crown.

 

[enewmen]

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!

Agree. But,
Tell me about the years between the first Hammer 64 and before the C2D? The X2 hit hard. Was AMD superior all those netburst years? (high and low-end) ?

 

[enewmen]

This is a growing trend that a lot of people have screwed up. It's exactly as you said. AMD had about a 2 year lead and even then the margin of the lead wasn't gigantic. Since both companies have been in business for about 35 years, you can say that Intel has had 33 years of leading and AMD has had 2 years (I know I'm oversimplifying here, but it makes a point...at most AMD has had 5 years of leadership out of 35) 😀

5 years out of 35 is 'good enough' to show it's possible to beat Intel.

 

[techgeek]

This is a growing trend that a lot of people have screwed up. It's exactly as you said. AMD had about a 2 year lead and even then the margin of the lead wasn't gigantic. Since both companies have been in business for about 35 years, you can say that Intel has had 33 years of leading and AMD has had 2 years (I know I'm oversimplifying here, but it makes a point...at most AMD has had 5 years of leadership out of 35) 😀

5 years out of 35 is 'good enough' to show it's possible to beat Intel.

No one in their right mind would argue that AMD didn't have Intel beat. All I said (which is what enewman was agreeing with) is that to most AMD fanboys, those few years erased all the years that Intel lead, making blanket statements like "AMD has always been better".

Another point is that at no other time during this performance war was the delta between Intel and AMD as huge as it was in the A64 vs P4 days and the C2D vs. X2/FX days. Before these two points in history, the performance delta held to around 10%, now we see 25% and higher. If this continues (the huge leaps ahead), in 5 years time we'll be using computers with CPU's 100% (not times) faster than the ones we're using today.

 

[atp777]

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.

Umm.. I see an issue with these 2 sentences. Well, unless he means to upgrade the mobo. Eh, oh well. LOL

 

[gloppppp]

:arrow: Wow!

 

[1Tanker]

I thought it would be a great idea to create a AMD appreciation thread because of all the great CPU’s they have provided us with. This is a discussion about AMD, so could Intel fan boys please not reply because they keep creating flame wars….thank you.
My first AMD was the Thunderbird chip at a 1.4Ghz rated speed and these were awesome destroying anything Intel had to offer. I then moved onto the XP chip, which was improved over the Thunderbird, but yet again Intel had noting to beat AMD with.AMD 64 chips were awesome and intel still sucked. Then AMD made a revolution by releasing Dual core chips, but yet again Intel’s Dual cores were rubbish in comparison. Now we have Intel's Core 2 Duo, but too be honest they are not all that good. Core 2 Duos work out more expensive and too be honest do not run games that much better than the X2’s. Long live AMD! We salute you! I cannot wait for the new chips later in the year to annihilate Intel 😀 .

Revision..."I created this thread to honour our best friend...AMD. Please don't reply if you like Intel, because we want to bash Intel, without any legitimate arguments defending them. You Intel fanboys just create flame-wars....now where was i.....Intel sucks AMD's nuts." :roll:

You're a hypocrytical dufus, who's like a rabid skunk that's been cornered. "Leave me alone, or i'll turn around and spray my stink at you". :x

 

[Vash-HT]

I really do appreciate AMD cause their competition made my C2D cheaper.

Totally wrong man, I love intel for making my 4800 drop from freaking 800$ to 320$ in ONE day. People keep saying AMD is dropping the prices, but if Intel hadn't introed C2D at such low prices then AMD would still be gouging for their CPU's. Intel could have released their proc's at higher price points, and AMD probably wouldn't have made such huge cuts.

 

[CompTIA_Rep]

I have both a C2D and AMD AM2 system with comparable technology.

The biggest difference was moving to the 8800gts 640.
That being said, the C2D is the quietest system I have owned stock.



Long Live AMTINTELVIDIA!!!!!

 

[Viperabyss]

I thought it would be a great idea to create a AMD appreciation thread because of all the great CPU’s they have provided us with.

you might want to rewrite that intro, with a new topic like "AMD users united!!". its less inflammatory, and much more logical. we already have tons of AMD fanbois here, and we really don't need another one.