A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » Overclocking AMD Processors
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

intel is all for looks



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 21st 03, 08:08 PM
matthew utt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default intel is all for looks

ok i am seeing more and more of these people thinking that intel is better
than amd and
that the raw clock speeds are what really matters most. i am the proud owner
of a 2700+
that i have stably overclocked to what is considered to be a T-Bred 3200+
which runs at
2.509 Ghz. in sissoft sandra i compared to a p4 2.4 Ghz and it was more than
twice as fast
in all benchmarks. intel is ****ty and all you pay for is a high clock speed
chip and the little
blue men. amd is the way to go and for those that dont believe that then go
check the benchmarks.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=1
for all you intel lovers check out that link. puts intel to shame


  #2  
Old December 22nd 03, 12:40 AM
Ben Pope
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

matthew utt wrote:
ok i am seeing more and more of these people thinking that intel is better
than amd and
that the raw clock speeds are what really matters most. i am the proud
owner of a 2700+
that i have stably overclocked to what is considered to be a T-Bred 3200+
which runs at
2.509 Ghz. in sissoft sandra i compared to a p4 2.4 Ghz and it was more
than twice as fast
in all benchmarks. intel is ****ty and all you pay for is a high clock
speed chip and the little
blue men. amd is the way to go and for those that dont believe that then
go check the benchmarks.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=1
for all you intel lovers check out that link. puts intel to shame


Horses for courses, Athlon XP is better than "equivelent" P4 in many tests,
but the P4 will beat it in others. You cannot advocate one over the other
without taking into account the intended use.

Unless you factor in price. :-P

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...


  #3  
Old December 22nd 03, 07:11 AM
stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ben Pope wrote:


Horses for courses, Athlon XP is better than "equivelent" P4 in many
tests,
but the P4 will beat it in others. You cannot advocate one over the other
without taking into account the intended use.

Unless you factor in price. :-P



Even then the use can outweigh the price difference. I always consider the
intended use and pick the platform that will perform the best for the money
they want to spend. If it's an AMD (which it is much of the time) that's
what they get. If it's an INTEL, that's what they get.
--

Stacey
  #4  
Old January 11th 04, 03:53 PM
Helen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"stacey" wrote in message
...
Ben Pope wrote:


Horses for courses, Athlon XP is better than "equivelent" P4 in many
tests,
but the P4 will beat it in others. You cannot advocate one over the

other
without taking into account the intended use.

Unless you factor in price. :-P



Even then the use can outweigh the price difference. I always consider

the
intended use and pick the platform that will perform the best for the

money
they want to spend. If it's an AMD (which it is much of the time)

that's
what they get. If it's an INTEL, that's what they get.
--

Stacey


My understanding is that AMD is the cheaper (in price and quality) chip
while Intel is pricier in price and Maybe quality.
The 'may be' part of Intel is that they are the largest company and thus
they may make some defective products in their
mass production lines. However, having said all that, I've had
experience with both and will have to say that I've had
more problems with AMD than Intel (Celron) and straight Intel. So, make
your choice and hope for the best, as for
me and my experience, I have to stay with Intel.

Helen

  #5  
Old January 11th 04, 05:02 PM
rstlne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Helen" wrote in message
...

"stacey" wrote in message
...
Ben Pope wrote:


Horses for courses, Athlon XP is better than "equivelent" P4 in many
tests,
but the P4 will beat it in others. You cannot advocate one over the

other
without taking into account the intended use.

Unless you factor in price. :-P



Even then the use can outweigh the price difference. I always consider

the
intended use and pick the platform that will perform the best for the

money
they want to spend. If it's an AMD (which it is much of the time)

that's
what they get. If it's an INTEL, that's what they get.
--

Stacey


My understanding is that AMD is the cheaper (in price and quality) chip
while Intel is pricier in price and Maybe quality.
The 'may be' part of Intel is that they are the largest company and thus
they may make some defective products in their
mass production lines. However, having said all that, I've had
experience with both and will have to say that I've had
more problems with AMD than Intel (Celron) and straight Intel. So, make
your choice and hope for the best, as for
me and my experience, I have to stay with Intel.

Helen


I think that IBM might come close to beating out Intel's fab productions
these days. Keep in mind that many of the other larger names went to IBM
when they decided that IBM would do it cheaper. I dont see how you can say
that one has better "Quality" unless you go by the quality of the boxes,
fans, stickers, leaflets.

I cant say that I have ever had any processor go faulty on me, by any mfgr..
If you had more problems wiht AMD chips being bad then I would put that down
to user error as I wouldnt expect EITHER chip to have problems.


  #6  
Old January 11th 04, 05:39 PM
J. Clarke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Helen wrote:
"stacey" wrote in message
...

Ben Pope wrote:


Horses for courses, Athlon XP is better than "equivelent" P4 in many
tests,
but the P4 will beat it in others. You cannot advocate one over the


other

without taking into account the intended use.

Unless you factor in price. :-P



Even then the use can outweigh the price difference. I always consider


the

intended use and pick the platform that will perform the best for the


money

they want to spend. If it's an AMD (which it is much of the time)


that's

what they get. If it's an INTEL, that's what they get.
--

Stacey



My understanding is that AMD is the cheaper (in price and quality) chip
while Intel is pricier in price and Maybe quality.
The 'may be' part of Intel is that they are the largest company and thus
they may make some defective products in their
mass production lines. However, having said all that, I've had
experience with both and will have to say that I've had
more problems with AMD than Intel (Celron) and straight Intel. So, make
your choice and hope for the best, as for
me and my experience, I have to stay with Intel.


That has not been my experience. Both have made some bad designs,
currently both are pretty decent. I haven't noticed my AMD boxen
crashing with any greater regularity than my Intel boxen--if either of
them crashes for any reason other than a driver problem it indicates
that something is broken or improperly configured. As long as the
_other_ components are of good quality, the power is adequate, and
there's halfway reasonable cooling AMDs don't cause any more problems
than Intels.

Helen


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

  #7  
Old January 11th 04, 07:47 PM
stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

rstlne wrote:




I cant say that I have ever had any processor go faulty on me, by any
mfgr.. If you had more problems wiht AMD chips being bad then I would put
that down to user error as I wouldnt expect EITHER chip to have problems.


Me either. Now I've had problems with chipsets and chipset drivers being
flakey but the processors from either camp have always been fine. Well the
AMD K6 wasn't that great.... :-)

--

Stacey
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ghost speed differerent in AMD & Intel Zotin Khuma General 7 November 17th 04 07:56 AM
Motherboard/Processor Qs elziko General 11 September 5th 04 03:26 PM
intel board, fans on during standby. intel d875PBZ. JohnJ General 0 January 13th 04 06:14 PM
AMD compared to Intel Tod Overclocking AMD Processors 60 December 4th 03 04:43 PM
WD360 + Intel 875PBZ + XP Problem @drian General 0 November 6th 03 12:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.