Whats with intels new system???

S

Spike

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 7, 2004
Messages
350
Whats with intels new system??? I think its really stupid of intel to switch to a new system. I dont understand it very well but than again i am an amd guy. It has always been my opinion that Intel outsells AMD because people think Gigahertz/MHz = Performance. so my questin is this What was intel thinking when they decided to switch from a cut and dry rating system, to somthing only those who care to look into know how it actually works, and one that possibly rates intels performance. Both bad things for intel. Just seems to me it would be in their interst to have all the ignorameus' buy their processors without looking into the actual performance.

Edit: Oh and just so no one argues with meon the performance thing heres a nice link.... i have it comparing the amd 3500+ that runs at 2.2 ghz and intels 2.2 ghz p4
 
Spike said:
Whats with intels new system??? I think its really stupid of intel to switch to a new system. I dont understand it very well but than again i am an amd guy. It has always been my opinion that Intel outsells AMD because people think Gigahertz/MHz = Performance. so my questin is this What was intel thinking when they decided to switch from a cut and dry rating system, to somthing only those who care to look into know how it actually works, and one that possibly rates intels performance. Both bad things for intel. Just seems to me it would be in their interst to have all the ignorameus' buy their processors without looking into the actual performance.

Edit: Oh and just so no one argues with meon the performance thing heres a nice link.... i have it comparing the amd 3500+ that runs at 2.2 ghz and intels 2.2 ghz p4
Click to expand...



lol, gotta love AMD !!!!!!s

btw, good job linking to Tom's, he has no respect here not to mention the article is in german.

Intel switched to the 3xx/5xx/6xx/7xx system so people could tell how fast a certain processor is in that family. So, a 330 is slower than a 340. Besides, who wants to say Pentium 4 3.4Ghz 1MB L2 Cache 800mhz FSB w/ HT verse Pentium 4 540.


And if the last half of your post made any grammatical sense, I'd respond with something witty that would own you. :rolleyes:
 
They've changed thier marketting strategy. Nothing more. Car companies and other manufacturers of various things do it from time to time.
 
SO

Lets see

You are taking a $100.00, 32 bit Pentium 4 2.2 Ghz with a 100mhz fsb (quad pumped)
Running on an intel 845 chipset with DDR266 chipset limitation, with 4 or so year old technology...

and comparing it to a $280.00, 64 bit Athlon 64 3500+ with, what, a 250mhz fsb? with maybe, 1 year old technology..

And you are wondering why the a64 outperforms?

Well, for dollar per dollar, I say the P4 is the better deal

P4 pulls down 48.90 fps for $100.00
That means : 0.489 frames per dollar

the a64 (which, by the way, needs a more expensive motherboard to run) pulls down 89.90 fps for $280.00

That means it gives 0.321 frames per dollar

0.489 / 0.321 = 1.52 which, in my mind, makes the p4 a 152% better value.


Now
compare amd's $100 processor versus that intel $100 processor, and you MIGHT have an argument.


lets see : athlon xp 2500+ retail is $115 at the egg.. -- Ok.. that's close enough.


http://www.de.tomshardware.com/cpu/charts/index.html?model1=80&model2=34&chart=26


The athlon 2500+ (which amd claims is faster than a p4 2.5 Ghz (although your chart proves them wrong, as the 2.53 is getting a higher score (on a slower FSB) than the 2500+

But.. - When you look at THOSE two processors compared, you can see where amd is
the better deal.. The 'equal priced' xp2500+ beats the p4 2.2ghz by 20-25%


But don't sit here and compare a $280 processor on a $150 motherboard to a $100 processor on a $60 motherboard and try to tell me how much better combo #1 is than combo #2..


No wonder I think so many of my fellow "geeks" are retarded
 
BusaOrZX12 said:
Nice step into the do-do OP.

I used to think I was the least intelligent member.
Click to expand...


You weren't... You were close, but you've gotten better :)


j/k



To the OP.

Listen. I like AMD. I think AMD makes a decent product. I just don't think AMD makes a product for everyone.

Some people want more reliability. It is my opinion (and I'm entitled to it, wrong or right) That intels products, while usually more costly for the performance, are more reliable. In 27 years of computers, I think I've had 10 failed intel processors. It's ALWAYS the motherboard first.. In those same 27 years, of which I've only been using amd for 10, I'm positive the # of failed amd processors is north of 100. So, you must ask yourself, at what cost do I accept a cheaper part? Dell (not saying dell is any great entity) has been sticking to intel for all these years for a reason. Intel processors just work. No, they don't work as fast or as cheap as amd's, but they do work.

(and to anyone who would want to post links about dell considering amd -- well, having worked for dell myself, .. I can tell you that they have ALWAYS considered it, and like me considering same-sex relationship, the answer has always been NO.)

I have 8 computers in my home. 3 use amd, 5 use intel.
my webservers are intel dual processing p3's.. I have been giving opterons (dual) a serious consideration, but have not, as of yet, bit the bullet.


But please don't be a f.a.n.b.o.y. and try to preach to me that one brand is superior. Each serve their purpose quite well.. For gamers who overclock and replace cpu's anyhow (or like I call them - walking profit) I say, go with AMD. Your gonna upgrade before the processor is burnt up anyhow, unless you overclock, which makes it your fault in the first place.
But for businessmen, servers, secretaries, and grandma's? - Intel Baby..



Lastly.. When AMD *Started* this system (opteron 240, 242, 244, 246, 248, 250) , athlon FX-51, 53, 55, 57 ? Did you complain?

Intel is just announing products as model #'s, instead of processing speed.. and in all honesty, I prefer it.. because..

Which is faster?

[some of these processors may not really exist, i'm just making crap up]

P4 3.0 @ 1066MHZ FSB, 256K L2 CACHE, 1MB L3,
P4 3.0 @ 533MHZ FSB, 512K L2 CACHE, 0MB L3
P4 3.0 @ 800MHZ FSB, 1MB L2 CACHE, 0MB L3
P4 3.0 @ 800MHZ FSB, 2MB L2 CACHE, 0 MB L3
P4 3.0 @ 1066 FSB, 512K L2 CACHE, 2MB L3
P4 3.0 @ 1066 FSB, 1MB L2 CACHE, 2MB L3

Additionally, when I'm buying a "p4 3.0 ghz complete system" which one of those processors am I going to get from "joe's computer shop" -- You can BET it's the cheapest one.. But If I ask for a P4 650, you can bet I'll get a p4 650, unless they are fraudulent.

If a computer company sells an "Intel 2.4 Ghz Computer system" what are you getting... Celeron? Xeon? p4 2.4a, p4 2.4b, p4 2.4c, p4 2.4E, p4 2.4EE, is it socket 423, 478, 775, 603?



Tell me which processor is faster?
Or


P4 330/340/350
vs
P4 430/440/450
vs
P4 530/540/550
vs
P4 630/640/650

Which do you *THINK* intel says is the best of that list?

I'm gonna have to go with 650.


rayman2k2 said:
I'd respond with something witty that would own you.
Click to expand...
Don't worry.. I can translate fan-boy-ese
 
I personally like the number series system. Sure it could be improved, but it's coherant enough to be useful.

It's been said already, but it really upsets me that you compared the old pentium 4 to the new A64. That's not even apples and oranges, it's apples and buffalo.
 
hey how does buffalo tastes?
i haven't had buffalo but apple are darn good.
but yea these P4 vs. A64 is kinda pointless. i think it's best to just ignore
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top