Yeah it dawned on me why the PR Ultimate challenge was started in the AMD thread. ITs been kinda slow since its the calm before the storm with 939, NV40, R420, Prescott 775, etc.

So in order to make themselves think AMD is the better they start challenges and then make up excuses as to why they don't have scores higher than that of Intel users.

~Bob

Its about getting what you payed for. Your spending double what we are, and were getting more for our money

First off i think it is damn funny that amd is usually 1ghz slower than the p4 and performs right along side.. Immagin if amd had the clock frequency of the intel chips...Would be no hope for Intel...

Ehh i don't care...whatever works. That 300$ I didnÂ’t spend is going to my 97'CamaroSS ill be driving when im 16

i am using intel right now, but i gotta agree with amd u get way more bang for the buck (well depends on the chip u get i guess..)

So whats holding AMD back hmm? Or is there more to it? Maybe they aren't making better waffers or something.

And besides it takes a next generation 64bit CPU to keep up or slightly surpass the 32bit Intels come on..

~Bob

The 64 bits are running at 32 bit right now since there is no 64 bit windows as of yet.. That is not an excuse because it is still running 32bit..

Actually, with the release of the FX-53....Intel doesn't even come close...

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjAy

Then you have the 3400+ which rocks for half the price of an Intel EE

actually it's not that the 64bit amds were supposed to surpass it. it's amd's marketing scheme to keep focus away from clock speeds by focusing on bandwidth instead. after all, you don't compete with a company like intel by playing their game. you gotta come up with your own game. hence the reason why amd and intel have chips with different speeds but can be comparable and thus the infamous "speed rating" amd implemented

Oh yeah WTF is up with AMD 64 , only single channel unless you spend $700+ WTF i can spend $170 for a Processor that OCs 900MHz and get 6.0 - 6.12GB/s yet for the same price the A64 3000+ gets me mybe 3.2GB/s and don't gimme unbuffered marks cause lets face no real world run unbuffered, lets just get rid of 3DNow and see what happens?!

~Bob

There is no excuse for another AMD vs Intel thread. Unless you are a serious intel fanboy, you have to admit AMD gives you more preformance for your cash, unless you stray into FX territory. I am typing this on a P4 B, and the next chip I buy will definatly be an A64, unless the new socket does some miracle for the prescotts.

Quote: Originally Posted by ion There is no excuse for another AMD vs Intel thread. Unless you are a serious intel fanboy, you have to admit AMD gives you more preformance for your cash, unless you stray into FX territory. I am typing this on a P4 B, and the next chip I buy will definatly be an A64, unless the new socket does some miracle for the prescotts.

yeah, let's not get into a heated debate. people can get what they want. it's a free market. perhaps if you wanted to discuss technical specs we could do that. but let's not bash other people's choices in hardware. as i heard the green goblin say to spider-man, "to each his own"

Actually I could care less which one performs better, but i like point out others mistakes, Prescott will take it full advantage of 31 pipelines and smoke 939, all 939 is is a FX without the need for ECC, cause whiny little AMD fanboys won't pay up!

~Bob

I think khellandros66 needs to get his head out of his ass and realize most if not 85% of computer users could hardly give a sh!t. I for one donÂ’t care if I have the newest 4.5GHz processorÂ….or PC7600 ram? Maybe you donÂ’t realize some people are more concerned with there rent or payments on there car then the clock speed of there computer. I for one have to buy all my own ****, my parents donÂ’t buy me anything and im working at A&W part time so I can get a car to drive my own ass there,I need a computer that can play games that doesnÂ’t cost money. If buying an AMD is the answer then so be it, I think you need to stfu!.

The ignorance on both sides of this fence is amazing. No one will win.

it's not as though intel hasn't made mistakes of their own. i mean the a64 is pretty much a server proc released for desktop use and thus the reason for ecc ram. intel is guilty of the same type of misdirection in their p4ee. it's basically a p4 with a huge amount of cache. and this costs upwards of 800 or 900 smackers? obviously all companies make some mistakes. that's because their run by people with different abilities and philosophies. so what's the point in pointing out faults? so what? the new p4 chip isn't all that hot. well....actually it is, that's the problem
if you're looking at the potential of it to become better, why don't you be fair and do the same for amd? it's tough because you don't know what's going on in their heads. so why bother with it at all?

sorry everyone for the rant. just guess i'm bored *shrug*

Work at Office max pal, I get maybe $150 every two weeks, cause I ain't got time with college and my free time is spent on my computer doin home work and surfing forums.

~Bob

BTW: yes I do live at home and abide by my parents rules but since I am in college they would rather me be at home, than in debt, so in October when I graduate and get a full time job I start debt free, and busting out to my own pad.

If you guys have not figured it out yet this thread was done to get pr more active right now.. He does not actually hate amd.. He and I were talking and said that pr was really slow lately and needed a good discussion going..How about we stop bashing and have an intelectual debate provided with facts.. I have been pricing systems for frineds the past few days and funny thing is the p43.2 system was only 8.00 more than the amd 64 3200+.. Seems amd and intell are finally extreamly close in prices...

Operations Per Clock Cycle = basic, standard unit of work done within one clock cycle of a cpu or similar device

intel = 6 operations per clock cycle, higher mhz = 6 x 3ghz = 18000opcc
AMD = 9 ops per clock cycle, lower mhz = 9 x 2ghz = 18000opcc

Real world = both do exactly the same thing, everything else is synthetic garbage that has been intentionally optimized to produce higher results

intel = super stable, optimized, reliable, the Cadillac Escalade of CPU's
AMD = hot, scalable, tweakable, cheap, and quick, the Toyota MR-S of CPU's

each will do their own thing, and are intended for TOTALLY different kinds of users, the argument isnt valid, most (if not all) benchmarking apps are somewhat optimized for not only intels cpus, but their chipsets, and other subsystems, these optimizations are not native within the operating system, its a bit like the old Nvidia / ATI 3dmark cheating bs...

our reasons for using our chips are sound, if you want to show up, in our forums, trying to recreate west side story because you have a chip with Intel written on it, you, my pedigree chum, are a **** faced moron, merry xmas.....