AMD or Intel

should speak for itself

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:43:16 -0700, thoughtfully wrote:

should speak for itself

Also a mute question these days.

jaster wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:43:16 -0700, thoughtfully wrote:


should speak for itself


Also a mute question these days.

Really muted or just low volume?

And now to bring it back to life...

I prefer intel to AMD for video work. On the two systems I use, a P4
(2.4 Ghz) and an Athlon XP 2500 I've found that the P4 renders video
noticeably faster. Both machines are stable and I generally only use the AMD
with the exception of doing heavy video rendering.
Of course there are differences in the mb and video card and perhaps
that's a bottleneck for the AMD. However, that's how I see it with what I've
got.



--
Jan Alter

or

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...
jaster wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:43:16 -0700, thoughtfully wrote:


should speak for itself


Also a mute question these days.

Really muted or just low volume?

wrote...
should speak for itself

Personal choice.

wrote:
should speak for itself

For what, They both have there advantages/disadvantages. P4, higher
clock speeds and HT. AMD slower speed but better acsess to ram and mor
instructions/clock.

IMO AMD is more for your money(execpt for the dual core they seem pricey)

"Jan Alter" wrote:

And now to bring it back to life...
I prefer intel

I prefer AMD. Otherwise I wouldn't have a computer.

/

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:44:48 GMT, jaster wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:43:16 -0700, thoughtfully wrote:

should speak for itself

Also a mute question these days.

Or would that be a _moot_ question, these days?

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:15:39 -0400, NoWay thoughtfully wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:44:48 GMT, jaster wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:43:16 -0700, thoughtfully wrote:

should speak for itself

Also a mute question these days.

Or would that be a _moot_ question, these days?

I say it's already mute because for the same relative cpu the noticeable
difference is cost (video encoding is less noticeable between newer cpu
models). Migating factors of choice are m/b, memory and video.

Worse we assume the OP's asking about cpus, not specific cpus, nor about
the 2 company's stock performance or financial statements.

jaster wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:15:39 -0400, NoWay thoughtfully wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:44:48 GMT, jaster wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:43:16 -0700, thoughtfully

should speak for itself

Also a mute question these days.

Or would that be a _moot_ question, these days?

I say it's already mute because for the same relative cpu the
noticeable difference is cost (video encoding is less noticeable
between newer cpu models). Migating factors of choice are m/b,
memory and video. Worse we assume the OP's asking about cpus, not
specific cpus, nor about the 2 company's stock performance or
financial statements.

Still, it's probably moot.