• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Amd And Intel

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
I have never used anything but AMD chips ever since i got my first "compatible". I can now say, I am tired of having second best. In the day, it was hard to beat a AMD chip. How can AMD compete with a 800 FSB? It can't,plain and simple. I am jumping ship...

I won't miss it.
 
clash said:
I have never used anything but AMD chips ever since i got my first "compatible". I can now say, I am tired of having second best. In the day, it was hard to beat a AMD chip. How can AMD compete with a 800 FSB? It can't,plain and simple. I am jumping ship...

I won't miss it.
people started jumping ship when the northwood 1.6ghz came out, many have including myself and i dont hear to many people regreting it.
 
i jumped ship with the 1.6a northwood like azn said. definately no regrets on my end.
 
AZN said:

people started jumping ship when the northwood 1.6ghz came out, many have including myself and i dont hear to many people regreting it.

no regrets here, and I started out with a 1.6a too.

mica
 
AMD is all about price baby.

They weren't worth using until nforce2 boards started getting the new NB revisions and they are still buggy, but the rig in my sig (#1) is just as stable and faster then #2 when it was my primary and at 3 ghz.

I think you guys are being a little hard on the beaver.

Intel has the performance crown for sure, but AMD is the king of bang per buck.


ps how about some intel benchies with the new 400 mhz Dual DDR and 800 mhz FSB. I've been out of it for a while and would love to see how they perform. Thanks!
 
OC Noob said:
AMD is all about price baby.

They weren't worth using until nforce2 boards started getting the new NB revisions and they are still buggy, but the rig in my sig (#1) is just as stable and faster then #2 when it was my primary and at 3 ghz.

I think you guys are being a little hard on the beaver.

Intel has the performance crown for sure, but AMD is the king of bang per buck.


ps how about some intel benchies with the new 400 mhz Dual DDR and 800 mhz FSB. I've been out of it for a while and would love to see how they perform. Thanks!
simple intel browsing would show u scores all over the place. but i got 6300 MBs with sandra.
 
dustybyrd said:



1st, i'm definitely not an AMD fanboy...i've never even used one for more than 5 minutes...

2nd...for your duallie rigs...did you overclock either of them? i don't think tyan's can be overclocked...so what about the asus?
because if you didn't overclock the asus then 1.53 ghz on those 1800+'s is pretty slow...but add an additional 50% performance to that (raw speed and fsb increases) and how would it perform?

stability was worse....that's interesting....in what way was it worse?

i am really curious about all this...maybe i did the right thing building a dual p3 tualatin....

tyan couldnt be overclocked so it didnt last long in my arsenal. sold it off after using it in the office for a while. the thrill was quickly gone, then i replaced it with the asus which lasted about 4 mos. until the 1.6a hit the scene. the asus had a glitch where you could only run the juice up on one cpu, which severely crippled the board's overclocking ability, although i did overclock it a bit. the benchies were very good in some areas, but not where it really counted. i got fair scores in 3dmark2001se that were quickly surpassed by the scores on my northie rig using the same video card. plus, the duallies were both prone to blue screens and random reboots, something i never experience with northwood rigs.
 
hey guys, intel is intel, im getting one of those 2.4c setups in a couple of months... its just that i needed the best bang for the buck when i bought this comp and amd has served me well.

and pls intel dudes dont be that cocky, not all us amders are lamers... intel has still a place in my heart :)
 
OC Noob said:
Joking aside I was checking out anands site and found this:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1818&p=1

Pitting a 3 ghz C P4 (on an 875) and a 1.8 ghz Opteron (single processor) and the opteron get beat on Content Creation Winstone 2003 and almost all encoding & 3drendering test. The Opteron wins all the rests.

Check it out. Its a good read.

That is wrong wrong wrong. They're comparing apples to oranges.. good read btw :)
 


That is wrong wrong wrong. They're comparing apples to oranges.. good read btw :)


what do you mean?

that you can't make the comparison or that it is unfair because the opteron is for servers?

either way the comparison can be made...
 
dustybyrd said:



what do you mean?

that you can't make the comparison or that it is unfair because the opteron is for servers?

either way the comparison can be made...

Opteron is a 64bit chip, were the 3Ghz C is not. See, I'm not arguing whether this comparison can or can't be made, I'm just sayin' that it's _NOT_ the right comparison.. btw, does Itanium ring the bell? I'm even surprised why they didn't really compare it with a 3.06Ghz Xeon babe :D
 
Back