• 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.

HardOCP 1500 Article

M

MFZ

Gawd
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Messages
782
Am I the only one that feels the entire article is one big advertisement for [H]'s sponsors? Why even recommend an Intel 3.4 GHz chip? Not to mention the use of all the brands that advertise here for product recommendations. I'm not bashing [H] for this and its fine if they want to recommend their sponsors but I just feel the article isn't exactly objective.
 
MFZ said:
Am I the only one that feels the entire article is one big advertisement for [H]'s sponsors? Why even recommend an Intel 3.4 GHz chip? Not to mention the use of all the brands that advertise here for product recommendations. I'm not bashing [H] for this and its fine if they want to recommend their sponsors but I just feel the article isn't exactly objective.
Click to expand...

I agree somewhat. I dont agree with the processor or graphics card picks. I agree with the 6800GT as the card, I just dont think the BFG permium is worth such the higher cost of the card, an XFX would be a better pick.

I also disagree with the processor pick, as I personally feel no Intel processor has any place the in the market right now, though that's just my opinion.
 
Intel processors still destroy AMD processors in encoding/decoding/multimedia, and I know that is a very large part of my computer usage in addition to gaming.
 
tranCendenZ said:
Intel processors still destroy AMD processors in encoding/decoding/multimedia, and I know that is a very large part of my computer usage in addition to gaming.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say "destroy" is quite accurate. Even if it were, when all factors are taken into consideration (gaming, general usage, encoding, price, etc) it seems difficult to recommend Intel. They cited multitasking performance in the article, but I'm not sure I've seen many numbers that say an equally priced AMD can't generally keep up with Intel when multitasking. Perhaps they just rec'd this cpu because they rec'd AMD for the "upgrade" system?
 
amd beats intel in some multimedia stuff and this and that.. about 30% or so... but amd destroys intel in gaming though :) heheh
 
jebo_4jc said:
I wouldn't say "destroy" is quite accurate. Even if it were, when all factors are taken into consideration (gaming, general usage, encoding, price, etc) it seems difficult to recommend Intel. They cited multitasking performance in the article, but I'm not sure I've seen many numbers that say an equally priced AMD can't generally keep up with Intel when multitasking. Perhaps they just rec'd this cpu because they rec'd AMD for the "upgrade" system?
Click to expand...

Well, Tom's did a multitasking test between Intel and AMD, and Intel came on top by quite a bit in that department. I'd say HardOCP was right on in saying Intel is better at multitasking.

AMD's specialty is games.
 
for the price of the processors, the p4 will kill AMD for multi-tasking. i have a prescott system for my workstation and a san diego for gaming. :D

the only way ill ever go AMD for a workstation will be the X2. and right now, its so expensive id rather get a 830 for half the price. :)
 
tranCendenZ said:
Well, Tom's did a multitasking test between Intel and AMD, and Intel came on top by quite a bit in that department. I'd say HardOCP was right on in saying Intel is better at multitasking.

AMD's specialty is games.
Click to expand...

This is a gaming site geared towards gamers where AMD is pretty much the uncontested champion. If it was a business applications site then I'd understand recommending the Intel chip - btw I have an a64 3000+ and I see no difference between it and the P4 3.0C@4.0 GHz I had in multitasking. However, I do see a noticeable difference in games especially when I OC the 3000+.
 
i dont know that this is a gaming site. i would think its more of a hardware site. sure games are used as a benchmark in the hardware they test, but there are just as many enthusiasts that game and still use their systems for every day use. and p4's are better for every day use (aka opening 100 windows of IE and outlook).

i personally multi-task all the time. my 3.5ghz p4 was much much faster than the 3500+ i had at the time. i still have an intel box for my general-use system.
 
First of all who opens 100 IE and outlook windows? Ever heard of firefox and tabbed browsing? My comment about this being a gaming site is because I can't ever recall there being business suite benchmarks being run in any of the articles here (correct me if I'm wrong). The fact that the article recommends buying a gaming card also goes with my assumption -- afterall if it was merely a hardware site they'd recommend a lower end card that costs a lot less than those BFG products.
 
There aren't any general/business benchmarks in the video card reviews. In reviews of motherboards and processors they do have them.

I also vastly prefer Intel for general purpose computing. It's too easy to kill this Athlon with stupid shit. Virus scan pops up, and I'm down to 5 fps. With Intel it's much more seamless; all multitasking just works better. I was really disappointed with my Athlon when I got it, though I've learned to tolerate it. That still doens't mean I like the chip though, and if I had the money I would definitely get an Intel system.
 
Learn how to use a cache managment program, that simple. And no you do still lose the performance, your CPU doesnt have two cores, so where does that extra processing power come from? Oh noes, it comes from the CPU still, its simply that HT is a built in cache managment program basically.
 
OK, I probably shouldn't even chime in, but would you guys please stop having this debate over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again? Every freaking new build someone puts up, every freaking video card thread, everytime someone mentions the processor they have; the intel vs. amd debate crops up. I think there should be a new rule stating that you can't say one is better than the other, unless you post at least two links to a trusted review sites that back up SPECIFICALLY what you are saying. Maybe there should be an AMD vs. Intel sticky so you can argue there. I'm sure it would be about 300 pages long in two days. If you want to contribute something, why not post your own benchmarks? That would at least be interesting.

As for the [H]Guide, I for one appreciate it, as I am about to upgrade to a new platform, and I was leaning towards the P5ND2. The only thing holding me back is waiting on the new crossfire stuff. I'm still kind of curious if I can use an AIWX800 w/a standard x800. If not, I'll probably just get a 7800 w/the P5ND2. The upgrade guide is appreciated!

 
I hope my post isn't construed as an attack on [H]. I enjoy the vast majority of articles put out by this site and find them helpful. However I don't think there's anything wrong with constructive criticism and that's what I tried doing with the original post.
 
There are plenty of cases where AMD is faster than Intel in multimedia, specifically HD-level video encoding/editing.

Furthermore, with dual core AMD processors out, that performance 'lead' on the desktop is not even an issue.

But, to address the thread starter, recommending a brand like BFG over say, XFX probably boils down to support. BFG offers lifetime support and GOOD tech support as opposed to XFX's two year warranty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top