• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Good bye Pentium 4 - Hello Pentium D!

USMC2Hard4U said:
I would like someone to convince me because I have owned both Intel and AMD
Click to expand...
well.. it really depends on what you want to do. if gaming is important, then amd is your obvious choice at the moment.

nothing else is really very clear cut at the same 'ratings'...
however, when you compare two chips at the same price for more modest systems, there's no denying that amd has the upper hand: a 3500+ is just a bit less than a 3.2c, but there isn't much that the 3.2c is faster than the 3500+ in

i know this is an incredibly amd biased post, however my intention is to show you that i think amd is the better choice at the moment :D
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
well.. it really depends on what you want to do. if gaming is important, then amd is your obvious choice at the moment.

nothing else is really very clear cut at the same 'ratings'...
however, when you compare two chips at the same price for more modest systems, there's no denying that amd has the upper hand: a 3500+ is just a bit less than a 3.2c, but there isn't much that the 3.2c is faster than the 3500+ in

i know this is an incredibly amd biased post, however my intention is to show you that i think amd is the better choice at the moment :D
Click to expand...

Perhaps biased, but your bias is at least based in logic and fact, unlike many people ;)

Like I've said many times, I am agnostic about hardware. I went with AMD this time because I saw the best gaming performance in an A64 SLI rig, and I see AMD as being the best bang for the buck at this moment.
 
agreed, i try hard not to put my opinions ahead of what i believe to be true. if that makes sense.

and just for those who wonder, i used to love intel.. until pentium 4.
i had a p2 266 back in the day.. lasted me about 3 years until i bought a p3 733 off of my friend for about $50. served me well until i wanted to play some more demanding games. took a look at my options and saw that the barton 2500+ was doing quite well and could easily overclock from 1.83 to 2.2ghz.. mine ended up topping out at 2.3ghz with stock voltage. from there i haven't turned back.
however, dothan and the chips that will follow it are drawing my attention. it's not quite ready, so i'll still be going amd for my next upgrade, but if intel can bring down the prices of the p-m's and better boards make it to market, i'll have a tough time deciding what to do. :(
 
I still have and will continue to have both Intel and AMD machines. It just so happens that this time around my primary workstation is an A64. Next time it might not be. Time will tell :)

EDIT: I wasn't surprised by the ditching of the 4 either. It was just a matter of time. I'm waiting for them to finally get rid of the Pentium name! I miss the days when chips were known by their numbers...
 
and just for those who wonder, i used to love intel.. until pentium 4
Click to expand...
me too... my laptop is a pIII and i have my dual pIII server/desktop (not doing much right now) as well as a celeron in my HTPC (cumine) multiple pIIs and pentiums in my closet.. i just thought netburst was a horrible mistake and IMO, i was right... :(... with the way things are going now at least
 
ThomasE66 said:
I wasn't surprised by the ditching of the 4 either. It was just a matter of time. I'm waiting for them to finally get rid of the Pentium name! I miss the days when chips were known by their numbers...
Click to expand...

When were those?
 
Really? Intel's chipsets follow almost exactly the same naming convention. Instead of starting with 80xxxx, the chipset names start with 82xxxx.
 
xonik said:
Really? Intel's chipsets follow almost exactly the same naming convention. Instead of starting with 80xxxx, the chipset names start with 82xxxx.
Click to expand...

I was talking about CPU's, not chipsets.
 
It was in reply to ScHpAnKy's comment, in the post right above the one you just quoted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top