Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by Fase, Dec 12, 2004.
Although AMDs are easily customizable, they are overall slower and less reliable.
A strong arguement.
no argument necessary, buddy
I wouldn't say they're slower than Intel's chips, and customization is more a feature of the motherboard BIOS, but:
Intel chipsets > * for stability and compatiblity
Intel Chipsets > * is definitely TRUE!
But I can't say that Intel or AMD is better than the other in all things... Both have uses where they excel. Overall, for the majority of users, I don't think you can go wrong with either -- it's personal preference.
Less reliable?? Since when?
you did your research at toms hardware i bet?
tom's hardware can't be any more intel-biased. I remember a "review" (if you could even call it that) where they said intel was better because you could remove the heatsink completely and it wouldn't fry, but the amd fried. Of course they had to completely remove the heatsink, incorrectly applied thermal compound, and had to compare an old tbird to a new P4 in order to argue their case. lol.
When a customer starts a sentence with "I read on toms hardware" I immidiately tune out.
ahahahaha.... my 32 bit 2.6ghz kills most ANY pentium, even those 3.5ghz+. If it weren't for hyperthreading they'd have nothing. And I like how the fx-55 wasn't added in those benches
I like how you show the graphs were intel were leading, but left the majority of them where the fx-51 is leading. and look for a more recent bench, where they are using socket 939 and the fx-55 not one that is 15 months old.
you can see the rest of the benches @ http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTI0
reliable? Preshot come to mind?
Btw, I own an AMD desktop and an intel laptop. The centrino is an amazing processor.
centrino isn't a processor BTW, the processor is a Pentium M
Sure, Intel processors are great if you've got the cash to shell out for that great benching Extreme Edition.
I agree with jollyogre, both companies processors excel at different apps.
I've got an Athlon XP 2700+, and it serves me well with the applications I work with. I couldn't afford a P4 2.4B, or whatever Intel equivalent there is for the 2700+. I'd say those benches shown are as bad as the benches someone had in another thread where they were pitting a 6800GT against a 9800 AIW Pro for video cards.
Amd > *
my rig is AMD, but i still wont say that. For a laptop i'd take a Pentium M or an apple over an AMD one.
Intel > AMD. <-- becasue they make their own chipsets, shet just runs better. (yes, i have intel and amd systems)
Props to AMD though, they making some cool shet. Besides if it wassant for AMD we'd all be on rambus! not to mention we'd have already been at 1066 year ago already.
Yea, laptops, the P4M's own. AMD never really has put much effort into the laptop market though. I hope they get more serious with mobile opterons than they have with their 32bit processors in the past.
i'd rather have my video card match my chipset then my cpu.
naw, Intel chipsets rox0r
then you'd be stuck using a nvidia cards j/k
Sun and Apple >>>>>>>>> AMD
EE is bs except for benchmarking. I have a 3.0 Prescott coming off of 3 AMD systems including an XP-M powered notebook w/ a penchant for overheating. The 915 chipset is definitely more stable than any of the Athlons but I miss the ability tweak it a bit every now and then.
HT is also worthless if you run anything that isn't multi threaded and there are a surprising number of programs still running on one thread.
I would have gone w/a fourth AMD system but it's hard to pass up those insanely cheap Dells. PCI-E, HT, and dual channel memory + 17" flatscreen for under $600.
The Prescott feels decent but it's nothing compared to the school computers I've worked on which are dual 3.06 Xeon w/ 2GB of memory or the occasional Itanium2 box. I need about another gig of memory before I'll be able to multi-task as much as I want to but I blew too much on other computer equipment already this month.
The tuner inside me wants a 64 overclocked to the limits but the reasonable side of me says I can't build a more reliable business system for less than one of these Dells. It's why I've bought 6 of these cheapo Dell's in the past year and finally swapped my own machine over to one. I also have a couple that have been running reliably since 1999...though they are beyond slow nowadays.