Re: AMD vs Intel
- From: "Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)" <mikehalll@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 07:08:43 -0500
Ryan
Performance leader in benchmarks means nothing as both companies only run
tests that make their own product look best.. people will buy what gives
them the best bang for the buck unless, of course, they have more money than
sense..
--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User
"Ryan" <Ryan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:C294F1CE-AA0F-4685-9DFC-876C1779F402@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
With your recent comments regarding your "intelligent enough to to
research
available product(s) and make my purchase decisions based on testing and
suitability to my needs," my prediction is that will you end up buying a
Conroe chip simply because you will ultimately recognize after 3rd party
benchmarks it is clearly the performance leader.
Of course this will be after the chip has been released and you have had
adequate time to do your research and understand that Conroe is a winner.
By then, your precious X2 machines will be at the landfill.
"NoNoBadDog!" wrote:
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
.
- References:
- Re: AMD vs Intel
- From: Kerry Brown
- Re: AMD vs Intel
- From: NoNoBadDog!
- Re: AMD vs Intel
- From: Ryan
- Re: AMD vs Intel
- From: NoNoBadDog!
- Re: AMD vs Intel
- From: Ryan
- Re: AMD vs Intel
- Prev by Date: Re: Windows XP to auto-boot everyday
- Next by Date: Re: Virtual Memory in windows
- Previous by thread: Re: AMD vs Intel
- Next by thread: Re: AMD vs Intel
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
