People who like Intel....please read this!

M

Matthew Kane

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
4,233
I like Intel......I know you do too! Now most of you know way more about Intel then I do....so can you please help me out with this AMD lover!

On my other forums techtalkz.com, a member there thinks that AMD is way better then Intel....until I made a comment to him!

But he replied this:

".....You cracked me up kid.. 5 Examples.. AMD lead 2002 with AMD 64 bit then 2003 with 64 bit then again 2004 with 64 bit.. and 2005 with AMD X2 .. With the 1'st True dual core on the side AMD/Ati leading the GPU market with HD3870 X2

Before bragging your idiotic comments go and 1'st repolish your technology.. There is no Pentium Quad ! and there wont be new Wolf dale.. Wolfdale series are already out.. and they haven't shown much improvements over older Conroe C2d's// Its just the shrink of the die and a mere improvement..
I hate people who only see one side of the con..I agree C2D are the way to go but AMD is the best VFM till date.. also wait for their triple core processor and AMD fusion Even I have Intel Core 2 Quad based CPu bymyside .. but this doesn't meant that I unlook AMD..

AMD never hold GPU segment.. I guess you don't know but ATI mearged with AMD and AD is leading the way with AMD?ATI HD 3870X2..

AMD has Quad fire and Fire Gl technology ..

Note : AMD was the 1'st to release true Dual and Quad core.. while Intel just slapped 2 processor in one die ...."


Any ideas and opinions that would prove his case wrong...will be appreciated!???

Thnx!
 
Tell him to look at Intel's latest financial statements.Then look at AMD's.End of argument.:D
 
yeah he seems like a big AMD fanboy, hey I used to have amd all the way until the conroes came out and I was like wow, they are fast!! so I switched over to Intel and got my E6600. Another reason for me to switch is that the conroes can overclock so higher compared to any AMD processor at the time.

for your friend you can just link this thread to him to show him what other users are saying.

AMD and Intel are both good, its just taht Intel is more popular due to price per performance ratio...
 
The thing I find most amusing is that he feels the 3870X2 is leading in... well, anything, really. It had its ~3-4 months in the sun (I even recommended it to people for a few builds -- it was the best for a very short while, price to performance on the high end) and it has since been eclipsed in a huge way. A single 8800 GTS 512MB at ~$220 AR can take on the 3870X2 and, in many titles, win at high resolutions and high settings.The 9800GX2 Nvidia equivalent does better than it pretty much across the board.

The only thing ATI has going for it at the moment is multimonitor support under CrossFireX. If Nvidia enables multimonitor SLI they've got nothing. To my mind the whole thing seems kind of pointless -- if you're gaming on both monitors, run 2 cards separately to drive them, if you aren't gaming on the other monitors, install a cheap passively cooled card that'll handle Aero, HD decoding, and doesn't draw much power for them. Problem solved. Only if you were running a 3 way display setup and gaming on all 3 -- say a 24" or 30" LCD in the center that could benefit greatly from SLI, and 2 17" or 19" LCDs in portrait mode to its sides that wouldn't as much, could you run in to a situation where multimonitor SLI might prove very beneficial. Seems like a very small percentage of the total gaming population, and even a small percentage of really hardcore enthusiasts.


It's an equally difficult argument to make that a quad core Phenom has anything on the Q6600, even more-so the newer die shrunk parts, and still more so if we're talking about enthusiast level parts and overclocking capabilities. AMD remains in the dust.
 
Technically he is right about the true quad part, intel have not made a cpu that has four seperate cores, but then it's part of the reson amd aren't so great on review tests and 64 bit did not arrive until mid to late 2003 otherwise my system would be a 3000+ x2 when I ordered the parts december 2002 for my sig build, he needs to read the A+ book on CPU history, he is also right that they made the first dual core...doesn't mean much at the moment though.
 
The quad debate... it's irrelevant: the processor has 4 cores, therefore, it's a quad core processor. The fact that it's built from two dual cores is also irrelevant as, it's got 4 cores in the long run.

That bonehead sounds like an AMD stalwart, most certainly. Some people just can't change, as the saying goes. Let him/her/it/whatever live with his/her/it/whatever lackluster performance. Yes, there was a time when AMD did rule the world of CPUs - but that time is past, and now nothing they have, even the best they have to offer, is even worth consideration compared to what Intel puts out nowadays.

I just put together a Q6600 box with 8GB of DDR2 800 for myself, with a low end Intel board and bumped the FSB to 1333 and it's running great at a nice solid 3 GHz. I'm happy, and that's what counts.

And I'm not alone... ;)
 
Thnx.....you guys are all helpful!:p

Heres the link to the thread....Note: The Argument started in Page 3 and onwards to page 4!

And I deleted one of the post in page 3 where theres a bit that doesn't make sense as if his talking to the person before...I had to remove it, bcoz I got a Infraction for bagging a member! Which is pretty stupid!

http://www.techtalkz.com/processors-motherboards/3569-would-u-prefer-amd-intel.html

And the guys called Darkstar!
 
QUOTE just put together a Q6600 box with 8GB of DDR2 800 for myself, with a low end Intel board and bumped the FSB to 1333 and it's running great at a nice solid 3 GHz. I'm happy, and that's what counts.

And I'm not alone... ;)[QUOTE

Damn...that'd be a nice, performing rig with Win 64Bit....what temps do you get? and wats your other configuration?;)
 
Idles at 26C, full load (doing DVDShrink - a properly multithreaded app, I might add, one of the few - hitting all 4 cores 100%) pushes it to 38-40C depending on room temp and if I have my window open (seriously).

Picked up 8GB of Patriot 4-4-4-12 from Fry's (2x2GB x 2) on an Intel DQ35JO "Executive" mobo. Rock solid, but then again, it's pure Intel hardware. HSF I got based on a tip from someone here at the forum, it's a Xigmatec 1283 riffle style with a huge (but dead silent) 120mm fan. The whole thing is running perfectly, and it's just what I wanted so I grabbed it all and brought it home last weekend (except for the HSF, ordered that from Newegg and got it Wednesday so I built/tested the box with the Intel stock HSF for a few days).

Running XP x64 screamingly - no let me reiterate that - ludicrously fast. :D

"64 bits... there is no substitute..." to paraphrase a classic movie line.
 
Just tell him the 1'st time you saw him use 1'st as a word, you just stopped reading. Let the idiot be an idiot.
 
Matthew Kane said:
Thnx.....you guys are all helpful!:p

Heres the link to the thread....Note: The Argument started in Page 3 and onwards to page 4!

And I deleted one of the post in page 3 where theres a bit that doesn't make sense as if his talking to the person before...I had to remove it, bcoz I got a Infraction for bagging a member! Which is pretty stupid!

http://www.techtalkz.com/processors-motherboards/3569-would-u-prefer-amd-intel.html

And the guys called Darkstar!
Click to expand...

Its seems that thread is filled with people who dont know jack and embarrassingly so !
Its a sheer waste of time talking to the uneducated that dont want to even consider the reality of the situation.
 
Stop arguing over nothing.Just use what works for you.All these internet debates are pointless and a waste of time after a while.
 
Nenu said:
Its seems that thread is filled with people who dont know jack and embarrassingly so !
Its a sheer waste of time talking to the uneducated that dont want to even consider the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...


Yep, I've found it much easier to close the thread and move onto the next instead of trying to argue with someone who is obviously clueless. You can throw all the facts at people like that you want, but doubtful if anything will stick or change their opinions. Wish I could find my pic that summed it all up, the one that says "remember, arguing on the internet is like winning the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded" ;)
 
il get whatever is fasest and best for gaming, but i'm just not gonna wait 5 years for amd to release their new stuff..

keep waiting darkstar says, yeah go ahead, keep waiting.:D
 
Rule #1: You get what you pay for.

Look at the prices for Intel chips, look at the prices for AMD's. QFT.
 
aguire said:
Stop arguing over nothing.Just use what works for you.All these internet debates are pointless and a waste of time after a while.
Click to expand...

It almost always starts off as controversial but ends up in flames with the mods closing the thread!

I got my hands on a p4-3ghz northwood with a 9800 pro. My gawd talk about going backwards. While the system is fast again (formatted it and re-installed XP), it heats up very, very quickly if gaming. I googled idle power consumption and it seems it consumes 89W idle/ load. Now look at the AMDs of today and the C2D's. Idle temps/consumption is far, far lower. Without AMD there would not have been C2D, and w/o intel there's no AMD. No comment on where ATi fits in the picture...ok well maybe just that AMD better produce something that neither intel+nvidia have on the market. Maybe it's something revolutionary in the mobile, or HTPC.
 
I'm an Intel fan that is ecstatic that AMD is around and trying hard. I'm glad some people like that Darkstar are buying a few AMD processors now and then. 'Keeps the Intel CPU's price down. :D

-Robert
 
You may tell him that Intel has an entire 64-bit architecture that predates Athlon64 by a few years, by the name of Itanium, which holds some supercomputing/clustering world records.

Not that Intel was first with a 64-bit CPU, but at least they had one before AMD, and it wasn't just some poorly extended instructionset of a competitor.

And ofcourse the obvious: he mentions some AMD leads... but before those, AMD has never led Intel on ANYTHING... so who's had the longest leads? Or what about the most impressive leads?
 
i'm not a fanboy either way. i buy whatever will be give me the type of performance/tasking i need at a price point i feel is reasonable. i've had more amd systems then intel by far and they have both been good to me...in the end, i woulda said to the guy..

"that was then..this is now".

done deal
 
No need for bashing this company or that company. We need competition so I hope AMD/ATI, Nvidia, and Intel all prosper. In a hardware cold war we all win because they cannot rest on their laurels. Most of you guys really have no idea what is going on behind the scenes . . .let's just say the alliances you think would be there are not there. Companies you think complete actually work together in strange ways. I am doing projects across companies and am suprised at the cooperation that one would think does not make business sense at least from an outsiders' perspective.
 
This is a ridiculous post. So basically, you got into an argument with someone, and weather or not you are correct or not, you can't backup your claims and can't prove him wrong either, so you're seeking other people help to try and "win" an argument? Lame.
 
RamonGTP said:
This is a ridiculous post. So basically, you got into an argument with someone, and weather or not you are correct or not, you can't backup your claims and can't prove him wrong either, so you're seeking other people help to try and "win" an argument? Lame.
Click to expand...

Is it raining? :D


Anyway, didn't Intel start working on their dual core before AMD did the X2, but AMD was just able to push it out faster?

EDIT: The original Pentium D's were single die dual cores and were out before AMD's X2, so Intel wins the first award for this one.
 
AMD vs Intel.. over the past few years

80386 and 80486 - pretty much exactly the same performance.

AMD 5x86 - 133. Beat Intel 80486 DX-4 100 and could also clock to 160Mhz wothout much trouble.

But Intel had the Pentium 1 chips out around the time AMD had the 5x86 chip out.

P60 and 66 still slower than the 5x86-133

P-75 About the same speed as the 5x86-133

AMD P5 vs Intel Pentium. Intel was faster.. nuff said.

AMD K6 vs Intel PII - Intel more stable platform. Intel maybe a little faster, but way better pricing for AMD.

K6-2 vs PIII - AMD has 3dNow! Probably about the same clock for clock unless you ran into a program that could use the extra cache on the AMD platform. Intel had faster clocked processors though.

K6-2+ and K6-3. Even faster cause of the extra on-die L2 cache.

PIII vs Athlon. No contest.. AMD blew away Intel. Note: A K6-2 550 running at 660 on an Asus P5A board was almost as fast as an Athlon 500.

PIV vs T-bird, both Slot-A and then Socket A. AMD still way faster clock for clock.

PIV 3.2 vs AMD Athlon XP 3200+ - AMD was faster clock for clock... 2.2Ghz vs 3.2Ghz and AMD still came ahead. AMD memory throughput put Intel to shame.

PIV vs Athlon 64. Who would even consider buying an Intel chip except the masses who didn't know any better.

PIV-D vs Athlon 64 X2. Why even bother with Intel? It was a poorly executed design that was a huge waste of money for the poor excuse of a speed increase.

AMD 64-bit vs Intel 64-bit. AMD was way faster.

Athlon 64 vs. Intel Core. Intel wins.

AMD Phenom vs. Intel Core. Intel wins.

So Intel has been faster for a lot shorter than when AMD was faster. And yet, everybody bashes AMD for being slower right now.

Do you not remember all the PR crap when Intel was releasing "new" products for years and years that was just refined old architechture?

Intel had to come up with a new architechture to beat AMD after AMD had done the same to them.

No I am not an AMD fanboy.. but back when AMD was faster AND cheaper, I thought it was super hilarious when people would spend extra for an Intel system that was slower.
 
cyclone3d said:
AMD vs Intel.. over the past few years
snip
.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's quite accurate. AMD was faster at some points, Intel was faster at others. P4 Northwoods were faster than AXP's, P3 and Thunderbird traded places quite a bit in those days. But at no point was AMD every way faster than Intel until A64 came out and mopped the floor with P4-NW until Intel released HTT capable processors. Then it was just a "what do you want to do" game.

3dNow was about the most overhyped-underused processor development in x86 history. Even AMD started dropped developing it and added SSEx support.

As far as rehashed architecture go...
AMD K7
1999-2004
AMD K8
2004-2009?

Intel P6
1995-2001
Intel Netburst
2001-2006

seems to be 2 for 2 right now.
 
cyclone, i think that's a pretty decent historical lesson there..nicely done. i have to comment from my own personal experience on a few fronts on this though including:

amd- got a lot of headsup with enthusiasts of course due to overclocking and price point compared to intel... it wasn't as easy as simple as better product at the time.

-amd- never did get a leg up with the public at large except in the past few years and that's only because you can now build an amd box that doesn't howl like a banshee and won't raise questions with the owner..even then, i find it weird when i compare my one daughter's amd powered laptop to my other daughter's intel powered dell.."amd daughter's" is simply too noisy for me because she has to run a bloody fan plate underneath it to keep it cool. i really find that a downer for a laptop.

-i suspect there's still a lot of bias against amd in the business world for desktop installations. company i work for, high tech with 27,000 employees, will not buy amd product due to concerns about it's dependability, overheat due to fan failure..i know that's old school thinking, but i bet there's a lot of it still out there.
 
Super easy respone to all the people who chose AMD over Intel. Tell them to have a look at this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7XosLKUJEE&NR09&from=0

I saw that video in 2003 I think when it was made and decided then and there I will be an Intel person for the rest of my life. Sure this is many years later and things have prolly changed. But, you get what you pay for. AMD provides cheaper processors and leaves out things that I consider important. If someones heatsink fails or fan goes out the AMD processor burns up where the intel and even Intels cheaper version has built in protection.

AMD is skipping out on important features to provide a lower cost product and who knows what they are skimping on today. That video just made me absouletly detest AMD and they will never gain my confidence back.
 
Chasen said:
Super easy respone to all the people who chose AMD over Intel. Tell them to have a look at this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7XosLKUJEE&NR09&from=0

I saw that video in 2003 I think when it was made and decided then and there I will be an Intel person for the rest of my life. Sure this is many years later and things have prolly changed. But, you get what you pay for. AMD provides cheaper processors and leaves out things that I consider important. If someones heatsink fails or fan goes out the AMD processor burns up where the intel and even Intels cheaper version has built in protection.

AMD is skipping out on important features to provide a lower cost product and who knows what they are skimping on today. That video just made me absouletly detest AMD and they will never gain my confidence back.
Click to expand...


That changed with Thoroughbred. You do realize that before Pentium III, Intel didn't include a thermal diode in the processor die either right?
 
cyclone3d said:
AMD vs Intel.. over the past few years

80386 and 80486 - pretty much exactly the same performance.

AMD 5x86 - 133. Beat Intel 80486 DX-4 100 and could also clock to 160Mhz wothout much trouble.

But Intel had the Pentium 1 chips out around the time AMD had the 5x86 chip out.

P60 and 66 still slower than the 5x86-133

P-75 About the same speed as the 5x86-133

AMD P5 vs Intel Pentium. Intel was faster.. nuff said.

AMD K6 vs Intel PII - Intel more stable platform. Intel maybe a little faster, but way better pricing for AMD.

K6-2 vs PIII - AMD has 3dNow! Probably about the same clock for clock unless you ran into a program that could use the extra cache on the AMD platform. Intel had faster clocked processors though.

K6-2+ and K6-3. Even faster cause of the extra on-die L2 cache.

PIII vs Athlon. No contest.. AMD blew away Intel. Note: A K6-2 550 running at 660 on an Asus P5A board was almost as fast as an Athlon 500.

PIV vs T-bird, both Slot-A and then Socket A. AMD still way faster clock for clock.

PIV 3.2 vs AMD Athlon XP 3200+ - AMD was faster clock for clock... 2.2Ghz vs 3.2Ghz and AMD still came ahead. AMD memory throughput put Intel to shame.

PIV vs Athlon 64. Who would even consider buying an Intel chip except the masses who didn't know any better.

PIV-D vs Athlon 64 X2. Why even bother with Intel? It was a poorly executed design that was a huge waste of money for the poor excuse of a speed increase.

AMD 64-bit vs Intel 64-bit. AMD was way faster.

Athlon 64 vs. Intel Core. Intel wins.

AMD Phenom vs. Intel Core. Intel wins.

So Intel has been faster for a lot shorter than when AMD was faster. And yet, everybody bashes AMD for being slower right now.

Do you not remember all the PR crap when Intel was releasing "new" products for years and years that was just refined old architechture?

Intel had to come up with a new architechture to beat AMD after AMD had done the same to them.

No I am not an AMD fanboy.. but back when AMD was faster AND cheaper, I thought it was super hilarious when people would spend extra for an Intel system that was slower.
Click to expand...

Yes you are an AMD fanboy becasue you are totally twisting the specs of the processors to try and favor AMD. I'll just use one example, Pentium 4 3.2 vs Athlon XP 3200+ Who cares if AMD was faster clock for clock, when we both know the truth is that the Athlon could not get to 3.2GHz no matter how hard you tried. Sure, it was faster clock for clock, but that doesn't matter becuase it could never get as high as the Pentium so the pentium was faster, period. You're the worst type of fanboy, one who claims he isn't and who puts a spin on how things REALLY are.
 
RamonGTP said:
Yes you are an AMD fanboy becasue you are totally twisting the specs of the processors to try and favor AMD. I'll just use one example, Pentium 4 3.2 vs Athlon XP 3200+ Who cares if AMD was faster clock for clock, when we both know the truth is that the Athlon could not get to 3.2GHz no matter how hard you tried. Sure, it was faster clock for clock, but that doesn't matter becuase it could never get as high as the Pentium so the pentium was faster, period. You're the worst type of fanboy, one who claims he isn't and who puts a spin on how things REALLY are.
Click to expand...

Clockspeed doesn't matter when the slower 2.0Ghz part is beating a 3.2GHz part. So what if AMD couldn't reach the high clocks that Intel did. They didn't have to.
 
ryan_975 said:
Clockspeed doesn't matter when the slower 2.0Ghz part is beating a 3.2GHz part. So what if AMD couldn't reach the high clocks that Intel did. They didn't have to.
Click to expand...

Clock speeds matter because the Athlon XP was not far enough ahead clock for clock to make up for the speed deficit. The Pentium 3.2GHz was faster in just about everything when compared with the 3200+

The whole point is that it WAS NOT beating a 3.2GHz part. :rolleyes:
 
Chasen said:
Super easy respone to all the people who chose AMD over Intel. Tell them to have a look at this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7XosLKUJEE&NR09&from=0

I saw that video in 2003 I think when it was made and decided then and there I will be an Intel person for the rest of my life. Sure this is many years later and things have prolly changed. But, you get what you pay for. AMD provides cheaper processors and leaves out things that I consider important. If someones heatsink fails or fan goes out the AMD processor burns up where the intel and even Intels cheaper version has built in protection.

AMD is skipping out on important features to provide a lower cost product and who knows what they are skimping on today. That video just made me absouletly detest AMD and they will never gain my confidence back.
Click to expand...

Dude that's a bit of an extreme view to take on a test by an Internet review site showing processors from about a decade ago. AMD processors have had the same throttling and overheatng protection as Intel chips for ages.
Fair enough, don't buy one of those older ones that don't, but that's no reason to never buy anything AMD again and to hate them for the rest of your days.
 
i don't see the fanboyism..it's a pretty darn good history, and let's face it..when you eliminate anyone but enthusiasts (which is what most of these forums we post at are founded on) there was a mass exodus from intel to amd for overclocking ability, price point and the fact you could build a computer for under a 1000 bucks yourself. in the hearts of us enthusiasts, amd had won the battle and we cheered them on every time for being the little guy who could do it, something we all could/can relate to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top