• 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.

why are you sticking to intel?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stopmenow

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
464
i have a 550 intel processor, and just about 2 days ago i bought a better cpu fan. for the first time since i got this cpu, it is working 100% of its power and my video card is getting 7000+ 3dmarks. i had decided that if i got a worse than 5000+ score again, i would buy an amd x2 processor and mb, but now, because it's working great, i am sticking to intel. :)
 
3DMark is based solely on GPU not CPU.

I had a 6800 GT which scored 5645 back in January of 2005, now I have a 6600 GT which scored only 4382 back in July of 2005.

It is not a CPU benchmark but a GPU, now go get a 6200 Turbo Cache and see if you score >4000.
 
Nasgul said:
3DMark is based solely on GPU not CPU.

I had a 6800 GT which scored 5645 back in January of 2005, now I have a 6600 GT which scored only 4382 back in July of 2005.

It is not a CPU benchmark but a GPU, now go get a 6200 Turbo Cache and see if you score >4000.
Click to expand...


It's not solely GPU, CPU comes into play a lot, esp on 01 and 03. It comes into play a lot in 05 with SLI/xFire
 
rayman2k2 said:
they haven't let me down yet.
Click to expand...

Im not trying to argue... but... I will say this:

I would never stick with a company simply because they have never let me down. Ive had AMD processors since my 1ghz Tbird... Ive stayed with them because Ive felt they had the most reasonably priced product with more then competitive performance. Im looking forward to seeing the new products from both.
 
i <3 my Pentium M Dothan
i <3 my Pentium 4
i <3 my XScale PXA255

i <3 intel. why? it does the work it needs to do, my cpu bitch. :cool:
 
Humans have a tendency to get emotionally attached to things. Justifications follow.
 
cus i cant afford to upgrade lol im still on socket 478 but thats because i love my max3 so much and i dont want to get rid of it
 
Because right now Intel has the fastest mobile processors (Pentium M and Core Duo)

Right now Intel has by far the best bang for the buck dual core processor (the P4 920 which seems to OC extremely well for everyone, can get faster than a X2 3800+ and for less money)

Because Intel has an extremely competitive high end solution (955XE OCed is neck in neck with FX60 OCed)

Because gaming benchmarks mean nothing to me.
 
Because my 875 chipset / 3.0c / ECC Ram is bullet proof. :D

Well, that, and I don't have the money to go out and buy an AMD X2 like I'd like ;)
 
on the desktop, i'm staying far away from intel for a while.

for mobile computing, i recently bought my first laptop, and i went with the pentium M. the thing just rocks.
 
PrkChpXprss said:
Because my 875 chipset / 3.0c / ECC Ram is bullet proof. :D

Well, that, and I don't have the money to go out and buy an AMD X2 like I'd like ;)
Click to expand...


Because of innovation + Technology =


or is it


because Intel is the new Amd, with deals such as the 920's price point and overclockablitly
 
seriously, Intel's got a lot of stuffs in the works right now. I was contemplating of building an AMD rig a few months ago but eventually decided to wait for the Merom/Conroe architecture to come out. What was my reason? Let's just say I get to play with several engineering samples in one of Intel's lab ;)
 
empoy said:
Because I get my salary from Intel :)
Click to expand...


And by extension of that.... most, if not all, of the hardware is free. Work at Intel, make a few connections, profit. I haven't paid for computer hardware in years. Trading FTW! :D

Seriously though...... the differences between AMD and Intel are only noticed by the benchmark junkies. Real world performance there is little if any noticable difference between the two products. Intel makes good, stable equipment. AMD, and by this I mean nVidia, just started making stable platforms. A computer is only as good as the chipset that runs it and Intel is the clear winner here.
 
robberbaron said:
It's not solely GPU, CPU comes into play a lot, esp on 01 and 03. It comes into play a lot in 05 with SLI/xFire
Click to expand...

3D Marks is wayyyyy overrated. But the software is made to check LIKE systems for proper setup, NOT much else. It is a very poor competition tool.

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000242

Ace's said:
For a synthetic graphics accelerator benchmark, this is an ideal situation. But this is not how 3DMark03 has been represented. It is stated to provide an overview of your "system's current gaming performance." Yet from our results, it has failed in that charge twice, by grossly exaggerating the performance of a 350 MHz Pentium II with a Radeon 9700 Pro and minimizing the performance of a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 with a Radeon 9600.

Understanding is the key to benchmarking, and hopefully this small article has provided our readers with a greater insight into 3DMark03. While benchmarking, we must always remember not to draw any conclusions from its results beyond what the benchmark actually measures. From what we know right now, it appears 3DMark03 heavily favors video card performance over other elements of a given system, and so we must take this into consideration when interpreting its results. As I mentioned earlier, we have performed a number of benchmarks and we will be continuing our analysis of these results in the future. So, as always, we'll keep you posted.
Click to expand...
 
Poncho said:
And by extension of that.... most, if not all, of the hardware is free. Work at Intel, make a few connections, profit. I haven't paid for computer hardware in years. Trading FTW! :D

Seriously though...... the differences between AMD and Intel are only noticed by the benchmark junkies. Real world performance there is little if any noticable difference between the two products. Intel makes good, stable equipment. AMD, and by this I mean nVidia, just started making stable platforms. A computer is only as good as the chipset that runs it and Intel is the clear winner here.
Click to expand...

You can easily tell the difference in setting both of them up though. Intel Platforms have been consistantly more stable because the setup doesn't vary like nVidia's are VIA.
Intel's software, i.e. RAID, Chipset, IDE, NIC, and etc.., is first class while nVidia's is a joke at best. Hardware ain't nothing without good to great software/firmware.

Donnie27
 
Donnie27: agreed. I just wish this whole 3DMark bullshit would fuck off and die already...a bunch of crying fan boys getting their panties twisted over a meaningless number...pathetic! :mad:
 
1c3d0g said:
Donnie27: agreed. I just wish this whole 3DMark bullshit would fuck off and die already...a bunch of crying fan boys getting their panties twisted over a meaningless number...pathetic! :mad:
Click to expand...

Kind of like SuperPi.
 
1c3d0g said:
Donnie27: agreed. I just wish this whole 3DMark bullshit would fuck off and die already...a bunch of crying fan boys getting their panties twisted over a meaningless number...pathetic! :mad:
Click to expand...

A better benchmark software like this could easily be made using 3 to 5 of the newest real world Game engines and at least the main Sound System. Add load times to test I/O or etc....

This software should have never been meant for more than a way to check a setup to see if it was setup correctly.

Donnie27
 
robberbaron said:
I never said it was worth anything. I personally never use 3dmark.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to jump you or anything. I do use 3DMark though, but I use it for Video card and to check stability of setups. It also makes a good burn-in and Demo app. IMHO the app is misused and etc...

Donnie27
 
Donnie27 said:
You can easily tell the difference in setting both of them up though. Intel Platforms have been consistantly more stable because the setup doesn't vary like nVidia's are VIA.
Intel's software, i.e. RAID, Chipset, IDE, NIC, and etc.., is first class while nVidia's is a joke at best. Hardware ain't nothing without good to great software/firmware.

Donnie27
Click to expand...

That's my reason for staying with Intel. AMD is okay if you're just building a gaming box, but if you do any critical work I'd personally stay away from them. My venture into the AMD/VIA world for 2 years felt more like a hobby at best. It was a learning experience that's for sure.
 
dark_reign said:
That's my reason for staying with Intel. AMD is okay if you're just building a gaming box, but if you do any critical work I'd personally stay away from them. My venture into the AMD/VIA world for 2 years felt more like a hobby at best. It was a learning experience that's for sure.
Click to expand...

This whole VIA thing seems a bit blown out of proportion, no?

I've run many boards with VIA chipsets, and to my reckoning, I can only blame certain implementations of a given chipset, but not the chipset itself.

What applications were you using on the machine that you couldn't get stable?
 
I keep a P4 Prescott 3.0 in my lineup because of the overclockage its given me. Its simply been a great processor for the years ive had it, and it even beat most of the socket 754 bunch with a 6800 GT at 440/1200. Its ol' reliable, a golden oldie thats always a fun overclocker.
 
Josh_B said:
This whole VIA thing seems a bit blown out of proportion, no?

I've run many boards with VIA chipsets, and to my reckoning, I can only blame certain implementations of a given chipset, but not the chipset itself.

What applications were you using on the machine that you couldn't get stable?
Click to expand...

Not really. Both the KT133 and KT266A chipsets were buggy. The KT133 had issues with my Monster MX300 sound card. It would cause the machine to lockup. Upgrading to an SB Audigy fixed that issue, but then there were issues with it relating to the 686A southbridge. It caused random crashes and the occasional screech of death. Various fixes were available but were of little help.

The KT266A was a much better chipset. I had it paired with a Athlon XP1800+. But it also had its share of weirdness. Random crashing, BSOD, etc. For the most part it was fairly stable, but once I upgraded to a i875p mobo I realized what STABLE really was once again. It was like going back to the 440BX days. Man, how I had missed Intel. :)

I realize that both VIA and NVIDIA chipsets have improved, and building a system around one might be okay now. But, I'm waiting for Conroe.
 
The VIA Stuff never gave me much overclockability. The KM400 that was with my Barton didnt want to overclock much. Didnt get much use out of it and it was unstable time to time with higher clocks.
 
I recommend intel pentium M's to friends looking for laptops because of the power and battery life.
 
good news for Intel. the quad cores are coming...... we might see them soon :D :D
 
empoy said:
good news for Intel. the quad cores are coming...... we might see them soon :D :D
Click to expand...

Quad cores? We just got into dualcore... are most/alot of multithreaded apps made to take advantage of more then two cores?
 
Quad cores? We just got into dualcore... are most/alot of multithreaded apps made to take advantage of more then two cores?
Click to expand...

that's just like offering 64bit processors when Windows is still in 32bits.

It's Intel flexing its muscle. They now want to be ahead of AMD not only in manufacturing but also with the microprocessor architecture. We might see a pull-in in the release of more than 2 cores from Intel. ;)
 
ive heard that intel wants quad cores by 2007 and AMD is pulling it in at 2008. I think intel trying to get a jump on them like amd did intel with 64-bit and dual core
 
FalconSS said:
ive heard that intel wants quad cores by 2007 and AMD is pulling it in at 2008. I think intel trying to get a jump on them like amd did intel with 64-bit and dual core
Click to expand...

Yea, Quad core should hit early-mid 2007.
 
I went back to Intel after all the damn headaches I had with compatibility with recent AMD rigs and them croaking prematurely...... This board doesn't like that PSU or that RAM and this RAM doesn't like this divider or this AMDs integrated memory controller doesn't like that memory with this timings or the memory doesn't do well on that board, etc., etc., etc..

Dropped a 530J into an Abit AA8 Duramax and pushed it right up to 3.9GHz and haven't looked back. Simple and fast enough for any gaming and any work I might throw at it. Plus I swear I get sharper images on my screen than with AMD, but maybe that's just me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top