![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
mzs_biteme said:In one of the links form speedyman...:
WTF! Are people at ZDNet blogs actually reading reviews??? Looks like ZD is overrun by some hard-core AMD-r-o-i-d-s...
It doesn't, it scales slightly better in a 64-bit environment (a negligible difference - maybe 5%). ie: AMD may get a 40% performance increase from 64-bit, whereas Intel will only get a 38% increase. Despite scaling better, it still loses out in the big picture.Donnie27 said:
InorganicMatter said:It doesn't, it scales slightly better in a 64-bit environment (a negligible difference - maybe 5%). ie: AMD may get a 40% performance increase from 64-bit, whereas Intel will only get a 38% increase. Despite scaling better, it still loses out in the big picture.
I saw AMD followers see a 40% gain and think Conroe sits at a 0% gain LOL! There was a thread about this that showed far less than 40% gain on anything. It was more like -2 to 12%. This while Conroe was 0 to 7%. Note, Tech-Report uses WinXP 64 for all but one or two Tests. Still ended up slower as well.Sovereign said:I see a reversal of the original market postitions. Intel = cool and effecient, doesn't cause blackouts. AMD = Thermo-nuclear heat, high clocks, ineffecient, causes brownouts
BoogerBomb said:
Donnie27 said:
osalcido said:
BigMacAttack said:Save your money and got to Wal-Mart for a cheaper one!
Cannydog said:Well of course I could go to Wal-Mart and find over a dozen "space heaters" for less money! But that's not the point now is it? I mean 400-500W for a system that's basically idling? I can feel my electric bill rising "by association".
Oh, and since sarcasm seems to be lost on many of you, I'll state for the record that I'm not interested in Quad FX, or Intel's Quad Core either. Thanks! Have a great life.
Donnie27 said:
Well considering their own website states 125W as well as allowing AMD to state Intel TDP, is biased I would say the real world test are quite illuminating on how much the actual difference will be.BoogerBomb said:
nullzero said:
moon02 said:
jstnomega said:
That is different The 8800 GTX's provide a new level of performance per watt in comparison to the fastest available products from the competitor ATI, with their fairly power hungry X1950 XTX. Not to mention they offer visual quality enhancements as well to offset their fairly high power consumption.Caffeinated said:
Not sure what you're getting at here ... whether you are amazed that I have a decent memory or personally insulting me by calling me a geek ...Taldren said:
Nice way to go to the extreme there buddy. How about we use a different analogy. You don't drive a dragster every day, just one day a week or month if even that. Computers, even if an enthusiast one, can be used every day. Car Enthusiasts just don't buy dragsters. They also buy corvettes, camaros, Ferraris, Aston Martins, etc. You Do talk about fuel efficiencies of those cars.
So are we talking about enthusiasts here or what? Not every one is the same and you don't have to upgrade needlessly. That doesn't take away from the fact that this platform sucks from the ground up. Period. I won't even go into another "needless" car analogy but you can imagine one quite easily.
I don't think you get what I am trying to convey.Caffeinated said:
coldpower27 said:
