Re: AMD vs Intel

I am not upset. Just hate to see mindless knee-jerks like you jump on
something like this and start claiming victory. It was a publicity stunt.
You just don't have enough cognitive power to see that.

It's really none of your business, but I am running two machines based on X2
processors, one is a 4200+ and one is 4800+. I am running two Athlon 64s,
one is a 3200+ ()the original 754 pin) and a 3500+. I am running them
because they are the best bang for the buck. The X2s outperform *ANY* of
the current crop of Intel chips, and are cheaper. They are true dual
core,instead of the multicore of the Pentium "Core Duo".

If you would stop your rant long enough to read what I wrote, I am not
claiming that the Conroe and Merom are not good chips. I merely claimed
that the synthetic and inflated numbers that Intel posted do not and will
never have any validity.

You need to get off your soapbox. You'll have to wait until the chip is in
production, and there are valid third party tests. I have no doubt that the
Intel will be very competitive. No one in their right mind would believe
that Intel suddenly found a way to double or triple the power of their
chips. But then again, they were hoping for a few narrow minded zealots
like you to jump on the bandwagon.

I have owned Intel in the past, when Intel was the performance leader. I am
intelligent enough to research available product and make my purchase
decisions based on testing and suitability to my needs. With those
criteria, Intel has not made a competitive chip for at least 3 years.

You can now go back and put your blinders back on and continue to hang on to
your fantasy; that is all the numbers are. Sadly, you just cannot see that.

Bobby



"Ryan" <Ryan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0E94337C-0783-4326-8861-4768C99FF47D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I don't know your problem, but it obviously appears I struck a nerve with
you. I think I must have really offended you. What type of AMD chip are
you
running?

You are probably running some low end Sempron or XP Athlon and put the
high
end chips on a pedestal because you have high hopes that some day you
could
afford one of those dual core AMD chips. Then you get all riled and ticked
off when someone like me bashes those chips.

I'm sure that's why you're all upset.

"NoNoBadDog!" wrote:

Intel inflated some numbers. They have no meaning. They tested a
prototype
chip that wont even go into production for at least 6 months. They built
a
special mobo for the test. They used a 2 generations old AMD
motherboard,
and due to the BIOS only one of the two cores was recognized. The Intel
had
DDR2. The AMD had DDR. Every test, except for the DivX 6.1 Encoding
test,
was written by Intel and was optimized for the Intel processor.

You have no clue what you are talking about. You act like Intel just got
back on top.
*WHEN* the chip is released, it may be on par with the AM2 X2s, but it
won't
be what Intel claims...Of course you will deny that Paul Ortellini
himself
stated this in his closing comments.

You need to take a deep breath and come back to reality.

Bobby

"Ryan" <Ryan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:CC57B8C2-E910-4960-B2F9-66A916B470E0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
OK, Kerry, I would not say this is a ridiculous thread. The relevance
behind
this thread is to make everyone aware that Intel has regained the
performance
crown that has been AMD's for quite some time.

Sure, each new chip will succeed others, but the difference in Conroe
is
that it put Intel back on top. It put AMD back in 2nd place where it
belongs.

"Kerry Brown" wrote:

Ryan wrote:
For all you hardcore AMD fans, you better start crying. Your AMD
processors are eating Intel's dust.

The spring Intel going on now clearly demonstrates that Intel's new
Conroe chip beats the pants off of AMD's FX dual core chip.

These are just preliminary benchmarks. Just wait till this chip
release in Sept. AMD stands no chance.

According to many websites, the new yet to be release M2 series from
AMD will not make a difference in benchmarks.

Intel is back on top.

What a ridiculous thread. It's a target that no one will ever hit. As
each
new CPU comes out it will be better than what came before. So what!
How
long
have you been using computers?

Kerry








.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Utility to obtain CPU temperature
    ... Right now Intel blows AMD out of the water. ... Measuring the underside of the cpu, ... side (perhaps as little as only 5 degrees cooler than the chip instead ...
    (uk.comp.homebuilt)
  • Re: AMD vs Intel
    ... If Intel had a chip that could best AMD by 20%, do you think they would sit ... I won't run out and buy a Conroe when they are released. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware)
  • Re: Portents of Itanium death
    ... chips from AMD? ... those of Intel for the wintel market, then it doesn't matter if the chip is 64 ... for its chip to be succesful. ... IA64 server sales initially. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: INTC a good buy?
    ... And another AMD fanboy spreading false information on usenet, ... less power than the new Intel models. ... getting the very fastest Intel chip, then the fastest AMD chip (and ... with a very old single core chip with a new dual core chip. ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • Re: AMD vs Intel
    ... afford one of those dual core AMD chips. ... chip that wont even go into production for at least 6 months. ... was written by Intel and was optimized for the Intel processor. ... Conroe chip beats the pants off of AMD's FX dual core chip. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware)