AMD vs Intel

Gigabyte p35 ds3r and you? Yea when they where on top they had good cpu's, pity they charged more than intel and failed to get market share, but i guess big companies like AMD would rather charge more than dominate the market with the best cpu and the cheapest, they messed up there is you ask me.
 
AMD messed up big time when they had the lead. Instead of capitalizing on it (like M$ is doing with their Xbox360 currently) they faffed around and tried to play hardcore okes. well it blew up in their faces. Hopefully they'll learn and do it right the next time. I for one am an AMD fanboi deluxe - still doesnt stop me from running an Intel CPU because frankly, Intel cleaned up their act and have provided better.

@killadoob - Do you really think that Intl boys will move to AMD if the AMD makes better CPUs? If that were the case then Intel would have abandoned their NetBurst fail atleast 3 years earlier. The fanbois will not see reason, no matter what the cost/evidence there is. You post often enough on the PS3/Xbox thread... you should know this.

@rouxenator - I admrie your steadfastedness to the AMD cause, but frankly I think its a bit misplaced. They messed up big time witht heir CPU's. They need to learn a lesson. Nuff sed. And they won't learnt hat lesson by succeeding with mediocre CPU's. For all their innovation and smarts, they still can't beat the Intel on a price/performance basis. If the Phenom2 happens to do for thei CPU division what the HD4000 did for their GPUs then they will be on a good road. Otherwise... FAIL!!!

Mumbling... I really do hope the Phenom2's will kick ass, it would warm my heart to see AMD on top again - if in nothing else then the price/performance ratios. Bugger the top-end, I want more bang per buck not some hideously overpriced monster that drains more power than a PS3 and is slightly more clocked that its closest brother.
 
I run a intel and amd, both are great systems. prefer the amd :)
 
smokey said:
AMD messed up big time when they had the lead. Instead of capitalizing on it (like M$ is doing with their Xbox360 currently) they faffed around and tried to play hardcore okes. well it blew up in their faces. Hopefully they'll learn and do it right the next time. I for one am an AMD fanboi deluxe - still doesnt stop me from running an Intel CPU because frankly, Intel cleaned up their act and have provided better.

@killadoob - Do you really think that Intl boys will move to AMD if the AMD makes better CPUs? If that were the case then Intel would have abandoned their NetBurst fail atleast 3 years earlier. The fanbois will not see reason, no matter what the cost/evidence there is. You post often enough on the PS3/Xbox thread... you should know this.

@rouxenator - I admrie your steadfastedness to the AMD cause, but frankly I think its a bit misplaced. They messed up big time witht heir CPU's. They need to learn a lesson. Nuff sed. And they won't learnt hat lesson by succeeding with mediocre CPU's. For all their innovation and smarts, they still can't beat the Intel on a price/performance basis. If the Phenom2 happens to do for thei CPU division what the HD4000 did for their GPUs then they will be on a good road. Otherwise... FAIL!!!

Mumbling... I really do hope the Phenom2's will kick ass, it would warm my heart to see AMD on top again - if in nothing else then the price/performance ratios. Bugger the top-end, I want more bang per buck not some hideously overpriced monster that drains more power than a PS3 and is slightly more clocked that its closest brother.
Click to expand...

With the i7/X58 just going mainstream? well, we will just have to wait and see. :D
 
I have owned both Intel and AMD processors, and have always had a bit of a soft spot for AMD (underdog syndrome maybe?). I got myself an Intel E2180 and that thing overclocked like mad, I also got my self a 5000+ Black Edition, also a great overclocker.

Thing is don't spend too much on processors any more, I will be getting a quadcore, in Q1 next year, Intel or AMD? well that will depends on price vs performance, and thats it! I will be getting myself an AMD 4870X2 gpu, 8GB ddr2/3 and the cpu wont really matter as long as it is next gen running at decent freq. :P
 
The funny thing about AMD's quad cores is that despite being "native" quad core design, they have no performance increase over Intel's Core 2 Quad MXM design. For ages before they actually released a quad core, AMD poured scorn on Intel's design as inferior.

Later on an executive admitted that they failed and should have done the same as Intel did, as their true quad cores didn't deliver on what they claimed. I don't have links of this, but it was on HardOCP a few years back.

Intel's first dual cores, the Pentium D's were basically 2 P4's on the same die, not a true solution at all. However, the Core 2 was a true and proper dual core.
 
ASS_SAZiN` said:
Cause I can :P

Will prob only get 4gb but my point is, CPU makes a difference but it scales to a certain degree ram and GPU makes a whole lot more "Real world" performance, well when gaming is concerned.
Click to expand...

I can tell you that if you run Virtual machines, 8Gb is a much better sweet spot than 4Gb. I have that problem now, running out of ram.

A lot also depnds on your operating system. Unless you are using 64 bit, the extra ram will be wasted. If you running Linux, the 32 bit system can access more than 4GB's, but I'm not sure how it works exactly.

I read somewhere as well that games currently have no benefit to using 8Gb's, not even the most demanding games now use more than 3.
 
Aqua_lung said:
Glad we agree on the biggot part.
Click to expand...
I am lobbying for the rights of biggots and trolls. I really cannot see why theyr are a bad thing. The only people that dislike them are the ones that cannot face the facts that they are right and you are wrong.

EtienneK said:
I like what's been said by some on this thread:

Don't buy the brand. Buy the product.

Buy whatever is best at any given moment. If it's Intel, buy Intel. If it's AMD, buy AMD.

At the moment, Intel is the best. A few years back, AMD was. I bought appropriately.
Click to expand...

That involves buying a new motherboard every time - which is OK if you are on Intel because you would have had to buy a new motherboard anyway. AMD likes to stretch their products over motherboards for as long as possible.
 
Asha'man X said:
I can tell you that if you run Virtual machines, 8Gb is a much better sweet spot than 4Gb. I have that problem now, running out of ram.

A lot also depnds on your operating system. Unless you are using 64 bit, the extra ram will be wasted. If you running Linux, the 32 bit system can access more than 4GB's, but I'm not sure how it works exactly.

I read somewhere as well that games currently have no benefit to using 8Gb's, not even the most demanding games now use more than 3.
Click to expand...

Lol, you got it spot on I do allot of development work in different versions of systems have VM-ware server running, but that aside I will run vista 64 for games, and I have spoken to people running 8GB of ram and they, say that with some games it can take everything you got,ram wise, so I will have to see.


EDIT:
Besides RAM is dirt cheap at the moment so... wont be a waste.
 
Last edited:
Asha'man X said:
The funny thing about AMD's quad cores is that despite being "native" quad core design, they have no performance increase over Intel's Core 2 Quad MXM design. For ages before they actually released a quad core, AMD poured scorn on Intel's design as inferior.
Click to expand...

Sure intel is faster - but is a filthy desgin hack. The performance that it has over the AMD still does not make it sux less d0nk3yb4ll5.
 
issi said:
Ya, Name them and prove that My intel is crap and copied from AMD?
with links
Click to expand...

I am not sure what intel you have and quite frankly I don't care - you buy intel, you go to hell.

Things that intel has failed at (which is why I like to call them Fntel) is :
Their court case to stop AMD from making x86 CPU, in those days it was the 386 and in particular AMD had this very cheap but extremely powerful Am386DX40 that kicked some of Fntels 486s square in the b4alls. The Am386 was so small and efficient it was soldered straight onto the many motherboards and it did not need a cooler. With a cheap 387 it owned even more.

Fntel failed again with the initial Pentium and it has a few bugs while AMD continued to make cost effective upgrade solutions for user stuck with old and crappy Fntels.

Even after Fntel switched to slot-1 AMD continued to annoy them with the stuff they managed on Socket-7 and it caused Fntel to make the celeron.

AMD won the Ghz race, Fntel came in a few months later and then had to recall all the P3s that were able to reach 1Ghz cause it overheated since they did a poor design yet again.

The P4 with Netburst architecture was a dismal fail and even a dirt cheap AMD Duron could p155 all over it.

The itanic was a dismal failure even after Fntel said "Oh boy, this one is gonna be so good we for see our competition closing up". What happened was that AMD invented x64 - which owned - and intel quietly copied it and called it EMT64.

AMD realized the Northbridge was doing a turd job with memory control on their uber powerful CPUs and started to integrate the memory controller - a massive gamble for such a small company. But it succeeds and intel has now copied.

AMD is looking at integrating GPU cores along with the x86 cores on their CPUs and no doubt intel will do that too in due time.

So there you have it - and there is a lot more where that came form - intel sux.
 
ASS_SAZiN` said:
Lol, you got it spot on I do allot of development work in different versions of systems have VM-ware server running, but that aside I will run vista 64 for games, and I have spoken to people running 8GB of ram and they, say that with some games it can take everything you got,ram wise, so I will have to see.


EDIT:
Besides RAM is dirt cheap at the moment so... wont be a waste.
Click to expand...

Yes but 8 gigs of ddr 3 memory will set you back like 6k

Roux what are you talking about?
AMD have socket 754, 939 and am2. Amd have had alot of socket changes as well. Guess that slipped your mind :p
 
Socket 754 had quite a range of CPUs that it could handle. Socket 939 was needed for dual-channel DDR access (as the memory controller is on the CPU) but I agree it was a bit of a bummer.
AM2 is a very long lasting platform and you will be able to use new AM3 CPUs on AM2 boards as the memory controller is backwards compatible. What happened was that AMD saw people were not to happy with the 754 -> 939 -> AM2 setup so they are pushing the limits on AM2.

Intel really screwed up big time with motherboard replacement. Much more than AMD. Have a look at all the platforms they ran through while AMD used Socket-A
 
Yes but if you want ddr 3 you will require a new mobo, so you will need a new mobo if you want ddr 3 ram, so what is the difference?
 
killadoob said:
Yes but if you want ddr 3 you will require a new mobo, so you will need a new mobo if you want ddr 3 ram, so what is the difference?
Click to expand...

As I said already - intel is the big culprit when it comes to making users buy new motherboards. But some people never learn.

Of course you will need a new motherboard as the ram modules have different pin counts! What they can do is make the controllers inside their chips, and their chips themselves, compatible with older generation motherboards - as AMD is doing on the AM2 platform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X