Why AMD is better than Intel?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is it because of its intelligence not to run for Ghz Race ....... Instead use its resources Efficiently :)

Oh
My
God

are you an idiot, want to put it bluntly? Intels conroe makes AMD look like a P4, and P4 was DESIGNED to run at high speeds to make it (unfairly too) look faster then AMD (AMD 1400 sounds slower then a P4 1700), it wasnt a matter of efficency at the time, and it sadly worked.

Dam fcuking noob fanboy.
 

psyno

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2003
48
0
18,530
Is it because of its intelligence not to run for Ghz Race ....... Instead use its resources Efficiently :)
Don't mind them. It turns out that you've asked this question at a somewhat bad time... A few days ago, some benchmarks were released about a product that might hit the market in half a year but is apparently causing major hissy fits now.

There are three major problems with your question:

1. There is debate about whether the assumption your question makes (AMD is better than Intel) is true.

2. Either way, that assumption doesn't actually make sense, since AMD and Intel are companies, not processors.

3. Efficiency and what is "better" can be difficult to quanitfy and you haven't provided a starting point.

Anyway, welcome to the forums.
 

joefriday

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2006
2,105
0
19,810
I for one love my Netburst P4's. I'll be holding onto them for quite a while until Conroes become cheap and plentiful. I don't care for playing games on the computer, but I do enjoy using Divx. Netburst rules in Divx.
 

unbiased4u

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2006
267
0
18,780
I hate fanboys! Get out of here!
Both companies make good products, they leap-frog each other all the time, it's just Intel's turn to do so.

So please, just chose the better product, and keep an open mind
 

kitchenshark

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2005
377
0
18,780
@ Heyyou27

To me your reply was perfect...utterly absolutely perfect and a joy to behold...my hat's off to you. Saying less is definitely sometimes a LOT more!

Definitely brought a smile to my face on this dismal day and I thank you. ^^
 

the_guru

Distinguished
Dec 18, 2005
434
0
18,780
Is it because of its intelligence not to run for Ghz Race ....... Instead use its resources Efficiently :)

Oh
My
God

are you an idiot, want to put it bluntly? Intels conroe makes AMD look like a P4, and P4 was DESIGNED to run at high speeds to make it (unfairly too) look faster then AMD (AMD 1400 sounds slower then a P4 1700), it wasnt a matter of efficency at the time, and it sadly worked.

Dam fcuking noob fanboy.

Conroe isn't even released yet so I think you should calm down until it is...
 

doomturkey

Distinguished
Sep 18, 2005
430
0
18,780
Is it because of its intelligence not to run for Ghz Race ....... Instead use its resources Efficiently :)

Oh
My
God

are you an idiot, want to put it bluntly? Intels conroe makes AMD look like a P4, and P4 was DESIGNED to run at high speeds to make it (unfairly too) look faster then AMD (AMD 1400 sounds slower then a P4 1700), it wasnt a matter of efficency at the time, and it sadly worked.

Dam fcuking noob fanboy.

Conroe isn't even released yet so I think you should calm down until it is...

Agreed. Conroe isnt out for 6 months and AMD should have better things on AM2 by then...noob fanboy lol. thats funny because that's what i was thinking of apache, betting on something not even benchmarked (by someone other than intel). Buddy, conroe isnt out for half a year. How about we stay in the now? Currently P4 is poop, and AMD is a lot better because theirs give superior price/performance. Conroe might just top A64 but my prediction is not by much. Then the A64 65nms come out and pawn the conroes.
I'm probably going to get called a noob fanboy for this. And I know I contradict myself when I say "lets stay in the now" so meh.
 

kais

Distinguished
Jul 6, 2004
256
0
18,780
the reason is well it just is maybe 20 fps isnt that much of a big deal for you but for now amd has ccrown but soon im hoping conroe gets it
 

NeDtHeOnE

Distinguished
Mar 12, 2006
12
0
18,510
Is it because of its intelligence not to run for Ghz Race ....... Instead use its resources Efficiently :)

Oh
My
God

are you an idiot, want to put it bluntly? Intels conroe makes AMD look like a P4, and P4 was DESIGNED to run at high speeds to make it (unfairly too) look faster then AMD (AMD 1400 sounds slower then a P4 1700), it wasnt a matter of efficency at the time, and it sadly worked.

Dam fcuking noob fanboy.

I was complimenting "AMD" .. Well its a company right?

Let me be more specific! AMD Athlon 3600+ is far better than its counterpart Intel p4 3GHz or 3.4 Ghz .. Practically ... U get more performance at less price!

Thats what everybody wants !

8)
 

NeDtHeOnE

Distinguished
Mar 12, 2006
12
0
18,510
An Intel Pentium D processor-based PC delivers an extra powerful gear when you need it.
Accomplish more while running multiple applications, such as editing video while downloading music
. The dual-core feature provides two execution cores in one physical processor allowing the platform to do more in less time while enjoying smooth interaction with your PC. Intel EM64T allow platforms to access larger amounts of memory and will support 64-bit extended operating systems.

I AM IMPRESSED!!!

:p

I dont edit videos!!

GAMES!! m a bit high time gamer AMD ROCKS

But I think there is AMD counterpart that beats D805 ... I'll check!
 

NeDtHeOnE

Distinguished
Mar 12, 2006
12
0
18,510
And the Pentium D 805 kicks the crap out of the Athlon 64 3000. What's your point?

Here you see by yourself who's better...

Budget Dual Core showdown (Pentium D 805 vs X2 3800)

I'm a little surprised the X2@2.5 beat the 805@3.8 on so many benchmarks, including everything that wasn't related to PCMark. Definitely better bang/buck on the X2

But as far as prices are concerned ... Intel nice work :D

But still AMD rocks 8)
 

Jazmodo

Distinguished
Dec 20, 2005
28
0
18,530
I hate fanboys! Get out of here!
Both companies make good products, they leap-frog each other all the time, it's just Intel's turn to do so.

So please, just chose the better product, and keep an open mind

This is so True ! I dont see the point in Fanboyism... All you do is lock yourself to one manafacturer, then, when the other brings out a better product (AMD first with their K8's; Now intel with their Conroe's), You all cry and moan, and say it isn't so!


Is it because of its intelligence not to run for Ghz Race....... Instead use its resources Efficiently :)


Oh
My
God

are you an idiot, want to put it bluntly? Intels conroe makes AMD look like a P4, and P4 was DESIGNED to run at high speeds to make it (unfairly too) look faster then AMD (AMD 1400 sounds slower then a P4 1700), it wasnt a matter of efficency at the time, and it sadly worked.

Dam fcuking noob fanboy.


Conroe isn't even released yet so I think you should calm down until it is...


Agreed. Conroe isnt out for 6 months and AMD should have better things on AM2 by then...noob fanboy lol. thats funny because that's what i was thinking of apache, betting on something not even benchmarked (by someone other than intel). Buddy, conroe isnt out for half a year. How about we stay in the now? Currently P4 is poop, and AMD is a lot better because theirs give superior price/performance. Conroe might just top A64 but my prediction is not by much. Then the A64 65nms come out and pawn the conroes.
I'm probably going to get called a noob fanboy for this. And I know I contradict myself when I say "lets stay in the now" so meh.

So very true... AMD are current holders of the performance crown. The fastest processor from AMD that will be available when the Conroe is released, will be a 2.8Ghz FX62, which will not be able to beat the Conroe.

In 1h07, AMD will release the Rev.G cores, on 65nm, with Hypertransport 3, level 3 cache on the die, and possibly (still rumours) a DDR3 or higher spec. memory controller (although this i seem to doubt...? Any thoughts on that ? ? ?)

Either way, this will mean AMD regains performance crown... Until Intel release their next revision.... :?: :?: :?:
 

gOJDO

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2006
2,309
1
19,780
Oh
My
God

are you an idiot, want to put it bluntly? Intels conroe makes AMD look like a P4, and P4 was DESIGNED to run at high speeds to make it (unfairly too) look faster then AMD (AMD 1400 sounds slower then a P4 1700), it wasnt a matter of efficency at the time, and it sadly worked.

Dam fcuking noob fanboy.
Well this is an clear example of how unlimited human stupidity can be!
Do you know what is the meaning of that "idiot"?
Or you are just using when your need to insult some one?
This is not your parents forum and you have no right to make the new members feel unwellcomed here and make them go away from the forum.
Another stupidity is talking about things that you never saw, like you already have them and you know everything about them(Conroe).

Anyway, I think AMD are better than Intel since K7 arived, not becouse of their performance, but becouse of tehir price. In most cases for the same money we could buy faster AMD system than that from Intel.
 

Mr_Bill

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2006
34
0
18,530
If you remember the IDF when the Willamette p4 was introduced, many of the same predictions for AMD's demise were made.

Likewise, Prescott was supposed to hit 4Ghz and end the performace race.

Even if Conroe lives up to its promise (which most future products never do), the biggest impact will be a reduction in A64 prices.

(A64 drove P4 prices down so far, Intel started looking like the value leader.)

In the end, it is good news for all the little fanboys in both camps.
 

Jazmodo

Distinguished
Dec 20, 2005
28
0
18,530
IMO, fanboys have got their heads up their own arses, and should look a little further than their own colon... Both AMD & Intel are good. They can both be good manafacturers. It just so happens the best was AMD for server and desktop (ie Opteron, 64, X2, FX), and Intel at portable (ie Pentium M), ultra-portable (ie Xscale)

I really do not understand what the deal is with acting like a 3 year old, over a bloody CPU manafacturer. Get over it. *sigh* Go for performance/price, whichever is most important to you, not the name of the company you've been wanting tattoo'd on your chest...
 

joefriday

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2006
2,105
0
19,810
And the Pentium D 805 kicks the crap out of the Athlon 64 3000. What's your point?

Here you see by yourself who's better...

Budget Dual Core showdown (Pentium D 805 vs X2 3800)

I'm a little surprised the X2@2.5 beat the 805@3.8 on so many benchmarks, including everything that wasn't related to PCMark. Definitely better bang/buck on the X2

But as far as prices are concerned ... Intel nice work :D

But still AMD rocks 8)


Wow! Thank you so much for supporting my arguement. I now see that the pentium D 805 not only costs less than 1/2 the price of an entry level x2, it also can be semi competitive with one! That's great! Bang/buck crown goes to the PD 805.

In fact, the price of the 805 is the same as an A64 3000 for 939, that's why I compared the two, because that's what you do.....compare two processors based on their price. Now show me a benchmark series that shows the A64 3000 outperforming the 805, dumba$$. :roll:
 

NeDtHeOnE

Distinguished
Mar 12, 2006
12
0
18,510
I think A64 must be compared with the processor of their age like P4 3.4 GHZ ...

Right? because Pentium D 805 is new ....
 

the_guru

Distinguished
Dec 18, 2005
434
0
18,780
And the Pentium D 805 kicks the crap out of the Athlon 64 3000. What's your point?

Here you see by yourself who's better...

Budget Dual Core showdown (Pentium D 805 vs X2 3800)

I'm a little surprised the X2@2.5 beat the 805@3.8 on so many benchmarks, including everything that wasn't related to PCMark. Definitely better bang/buck on the X2

But as far as prices are concerned ... Intel nice work :D

But still AMD rocks 8)


Wow! Thank you so much for supporting my arguement. I now see that the pentium D 805 not only costs less than 1/2 the price of an entry level x2, it also can be semi competitive with one! That's great! Bang/buck crown goes to the PD 805.

In fact, the price of the 805 is the same as an A64 3000 for 939, that's why I compared the two, because that's what you do.....compare two processors based on their price. Now show me a benchmark series that shows the A64 3000 outperforming the 805, dumba$$. :roll:
I don't know of any benchmarks out there but there is most likely that an OCed 3000+ would beat an OCed P D 805 in many games. Other than that I think the P D would win...

And when it comes to energy efficency and cooling the AMD will absolutely win. In some cases you can't really use an OCed P D 805 since it emits too much heat. (like building a ultra silent HTPC in some very slim cases)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS