Am I foolish?

P

PolarbearBigEd

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 26, 2003
Messages
435
Well, I work at Fry's in Arlington, TX and when people ask me what I think is better for them, 9 times out of 10 I always tell them to get an AMD based system just because i've read TONS of reviews that clearly show that be it dual core, single core, or whatever, 70% of the time AMD comes out on top, even in non-gaming benchmarks. My co workers accuse(sp?) me of being AMD biased vs. Intel. I don't think that I am but just from what I've read, I tell people the truth. All of them will tout Intel over AMD. If I was working there when it was the AMD XP vs the P4 2.4C-3.2C 800fsb northwoods, I'd tell them to get an intel based system if people wanted the best performance. What do you guys think? Would you tell people the same or am I crazy? Thanks
 
My grandparents on my dad's side live there... When ever we go down there, we always goto the Frys, one time my brother needed a new processor, so we went to look, they basically said something like "AMD sucks, your stupid if you get one.."

Almost like they were saying that so they would get more money from an Intel sale :p This has been a few years, so I don't know if he still works there..
 
It just proves how good Intel's marketing department is.
 
this is just the way it is. INTEL is a household name that everybody recognize and associates with in any level of computers (entry and gamers).

the ppl that are here in these forums are the relative few that knows better
 
Hehe, you're asking this in the AMD forum?

Right now, AMD is best. Intel is selling on the Intel Inside logo, that's about it.

Next processor cycle, it could be even performance, or Intel may pull ahead.
 
PolarbearBigEd said:
My co workers accuse(sp?) me of being AMD biased vs. Intel.
Click to expand...
have you pointed out the benches? or casually mentioned how they can accuse you of being biased when they only advise intel?
 
It's like when I used to deal drugs. People would buy pills with stupid cartoon characters imprinted on them because they thought they were better. They would buy my pills and later come back saying they had Heroin in them. Little did the dumbasses know that the same person who sold that pill to them was also the chemist. My reply to such dumbass was, as always, "Yeah, the chemist is probably putting Heroin in it."

You just can't convince idiots how ignorant they really are.
 
scwam said:
It's like when I used to deal drugs. People would buy pills with stupid cartoon characters imprinted on them because they thought they were better. They would buy my pills and later come back saying they had Heroin in them. Little did the dumbasses know that the same person who sold that pill to them was also the chemist. My reply to such dumbass was, as always, "Yeah, the chemist is probably putting Heroin in it."

You just can't convince idiots how ignorant they really are.
Click to expand...
Yeah. When will the great unwashed masses learn to listen to their drug dealers?
 
I listened to them. Kept my thoughts to myself. Never tried to convince them what they were really eating.
 
mobiux said:
Hehe, you're asking this in the AMD forum?

Right now, AMD is best. Intel is selling on the Intel Inside logo, that's about it.

Next processor cycle, it could be even performance, or Intel may pull ahead.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Right "Now" I tell people that they are the best. I posted this in the AMD forum because I didn't want to double post :(

Well that's what I figure. I didn't think I was crazy. :D :cool:
And if I was AMD biased, I wouldn't have what's in my sig right now typing this :eek:
 
scwam said:
It's like when I used to deal drugs. People would buy pills with stupid cartoon characters imprinted on them because they thought they were better. They would buy my pills and later come back saying they had Heroin in them. Little did the dumbasses know that the same person who sold that pill to them was also the chemist. My reply to such dumbass was, as always, "Yeah, the chemist is probably putting Heroin in it."

You just can't convince idiots how ignorant they really are.
Click to expand...
Post of the year! Very amusing.
 
PolarbearBigEd said:
Well, I work at Fry's in Arlington, TX and when people ask me what I think is better for them, 9 times out of 10 I always tell them to get an AMD based system just because i've read TONS of reviews that clearly show that be it dual core, single core, or whatever, 70% of the time AMD comes out on top, even in non-gaming benchmarks. My co workers accuse(sp?) me of being AMD biased vs. Intel.
Click to expand...

1. spelling is correct.

2. you said that you are making your choice, i.e. the recommendation, based on reviews that you have read. Assuming that you consider those reviews trustworthy, then I would say that you are doing the right thing. You have a large sample of reviews, which all were conducted independently and came up with the same results: AMD > Intel for ~70% of the cases tested. Unless there is a large systemic error, which leads to these results, it is clear that AMD > Intel. I really don't think you need to worry about being bias.
 
PolarbearBigEd said:
And if I was AMD biased, I wouldn't have what's in my sig right now typing this :eek:
Click to expand...

exactly

I'm in the market for a laptop and I wont consider anything other than the P-M, and I'm just as much an AMD desktop whore as everyone else here.

so what does this mean? we buy the better product
 
Recommending based on reviews is not biased, it is informed. Your friends who accuse you of being biased, are ignorant.
 
all intel needs to do is make a desktop version of the pentium M, and it'll give AMD a run for their money. (assuming that a desktop version would be cheaper to make, and thus sell for less money than pentium M's currently do)
 
Intel really took a wrong turn with the whole Netburst, "lets put a pipeline the length of the great wall of China" just to clock past 3 GHz thing. AMD chips are just a whole lot snappier than Intel chips at the moment. Most consumers savvy enough to build their own PCs hardly ask for advice from salespeople at tech stores. It is so unfortunate that most of America is at the mercy of sales people who've been influenced by marketing propaganda, rather than the facts and true experience.

The pentium M would give AMD a run for its money, but we're forgetting that even the new Yonah Dual Core processors still lack support for 64 bit computing. The Pentium M architecture is very efficient and doesn't require a built in memory controller or high speed DDR2 RAM or high speed DDR for that matter to be competitive.

Still IMO the A64 architecture is way to go at the moment. Intel has a lot of catching up to do.
 
No one would be complaining about Netburst had it worked out the way Intel planned...6 Ghz P4's.
 
kirbyrj said:
No one would be complaining about Netburst had it worked out the way Intel planned...6 Ghz P4's.
Click to expand...

This is true.......


btw........even back in the days of Axp, AMD beat Intel when it came to gaming. I fondly remember all of the [H] reviews that inevitably lead to me buying a 2700+ and an A7N8X Deluxe and when it worked (ver1.02 board :mad:absolute POS ), it made the P4 2.53 in my wifes computer look like it was standing still.
You could have recommended them even then and had a valid point depending on use.
 
kirbyrj said:
No one would be complaining about Netburst had it worked out the way Intel planned...6 Ghz P4's.
Click to expand...

Actually, I would be. I didn't care for the architecture of the P4 from the get go. I remember reading an article on anandtech about the architecture. One of the big points about it was the long pipleline and the penalty of branch mispredictions. It essentially said that unless Intel came up with a branch predictor that was flawless, it would be a very inefficient design. I waited for judgement until it actually came out and the inefficiency prediction was correct. I've been behind AMD for the most part ever since then. I'm glad I put my money towards a company that was making a more efficient CPU. For the most part, they have also been making cooler running processors except for a little bump or two like the T-Bred A. Cooler and more efficient is what I like.

Besides, for most of what I do, AMDs weren't getting the crap beat out of them by Intel. There were a few places where AMD had no chance against Intel, but that was not most of what I was doing and still do.

As for the original topic. You're not being foolish when you are basing a recommendation on evidence from many different places that point to the same conclusion. Of course, this means the evidence needs to come from a credible source but I don't think there's a problem of finding that right now. Ask your coworkers what they are basing their recommendations off of and demand proof. I'd bet they can't do it without going back to the P4c and AthlonXP days which is mostly irrelevant in a store right now.

 
Kill your coworkers, carve the amd logo into their chests and leave the bodies in the parking lot :D
 
PolarbearBigEd said:
My co workers accuse(sp?) me of being AMD biased vs. Intel. I don't think that I am but just from what I've read, I tell people the truth. All of them will tout Intel over AMD. If I was working there when it was the AMD XP vs the P4 2.4C-3.2C 800fsb northwoods, I'd tell them to get an intel based system if people wanted the best performance. What do you guys think? Would you tell people the same or am I crazy? Thanks
Click to expand...
They (your co-workers) have ingested the Chipzilla Kool-Aid and stared into the Abyss... They are beyond all hope...

LOL

MD
 
SmokeRngs said:
Actually, I would be. I didn't care for the architecture of the P4 from the get go. I remember reading an article on anandtech about the architecture. One of the big points about it was the long pipleline and the penalty of branch mispredictions. It essentially said that unless Intel came up with a branch predictor that was flawless, it would be a very inefficient design. I waited for judgement until it actually came out and the inefficiency prediction was correct.

Click to expand...

Who cares about inefficiency if you had superior performance? A 6 Ghz P4 that ran around 35-40C under load would mean that in virtually everything, a P4 would have the advantage. Obviously that didn't happen, but if it did, no one (except possibly you ;) )would be complaining about inefficient design.
 
AMD, Intel, they are tools...one recommends the right tool for the right job. Could be Intel, could be AMD. Not sure why some folks are so insecure that they make a personal issue out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top