Printable View
What Do You Think?
PENTIUM 4 2.8GHZ E
PRESCOTT 1MB CACHE 800FSB S478 HT
$327
GA-8S661FXM-RSIS661FX,FSB800,MATX,DDR400,VGA,8XAGP,AC97,LAN,Prescott.
$125
KHX3200A-512
512MB DDR SDRAM, 400MHZ,CL2,184 PIN DIMM.
$248
N52128TE
FX5200/128MB/TV-OUT/8XAGP/POWER DVD/FREE GAME.
$114
CASE-4713W OMNI 4713 BEIGE P4 CASE W/USB 400W
$62
$327 for a 2.8??? I can get a 3.4 for under $300!!! If you're getting a Prescott, why not go with a socket-T and save some money.
i'm In australia where are you?
U.S.A.Quote:
Originally Posted by trajillo
there ya go
Get an AMD :01:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaigandhi5
agreed, because its a better value for the money :D
Yea go the AMD way and y can't u get ur parts off the internet and have it shipped to Aussie for cheap?
He was quoting Australian dollars, not US. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gam3Guy
AMD ... they suck...i'd rather spend more money on a Pentium 2.8 cause its better quality .. says me
And how exactly did you come to that conclusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by trajillo
Pentium 4 can make a faster system than an Athlon becuase it reaches such a high clock speed.
But the Athlon does outperform the P4 clock for clock for the most part... It's just AMD does not really have anything to match a 3.06GHz P4 with HT in my opinion... Also, the P4 has higher memory speeds, which result in better performance overall.
EGAD! :frusty: :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by trajillo
so what are you people saying...? AMD is better than INTEL?
In a nutshell....yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by trajillo
but the guy i;m guying off says he recommends Intel?
why would a sells man what you to spend more money? I'm shocked. :eek:
wtf? :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by trajillo
lol i didn't get this :huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by muchspl2
well how much should that ram cost...keep in mind i use australian moolaQuote:
Originally Posted by SingaBoiy
yeh all you AMD heads i got somthing for yah... AMD ARE CHEAP WATERY IMITATIONS OF INTEL.... SO STICK THAT UP YOUR TAIL PIPE!
:angry:
seriously they are known for there generaly "slower" then Intel processors
"There's One Born Every Minute" :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Djtima
ok your turn AMD guys... give us your side of the story? including reasons why i should get a AMD and compare it to intel..and please we are all over the age of saying "omg intel is sooo gay i dont like it cause its a fag" please....
Search.Quote:
Originally Posted by trajillo
Just cuz intel has a higher clock speed doesnt mean that its better in any way :dry:
there is more than just clock speed...n00b00b
We are not here to protect AMDs' side, buy whatever you want..if you post stuff here and ask if its okay, and then when they recommend AMD you ignore that...then whats the point...Quote:
Originally Posted by trajillo
as for AMD it has the fastest processors in fx 53 and 4000+ so how could they imitate Intel when they are whooping thier asses.
Look trajillo , i was like you before , i thought intel's were better and thinking of buying them than amd because of their speeds. but according to the i made, Amd athlon 64 bit 2800 & 3000+ could match up to the PERFORMANCE of of an Intel pentium 4 3.2GHZ , and guess how much they cost USD ? AMD's 3000 are about 150 USD , and intel 3.0 costs at arounf 215$ according to newegg.com . As a friend told me , think of amd athlon 64 running with fast without being tired and functioning properly and think of intel pentium 4 as running faster while being tired to do all the work. Anyways you ca go to http://forum.overclocking.com and ask them ;)
the 32bit AMD processors are cheaper for the exact same performance as an Intel processor.
The newer amd processors are around teh same price as Intel's best, but the AMD ones are 64bit.
Not sure why anyone would want to go with Intel. :huh:
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by trajillo
Apparently not.Quote:
yeh all you AMD heads i got somthing for yah... AMD ARE CHEAP WATERY IMITATIONS OF INTEL.... SO STICK THAT UP YOUR TAIL PIPE!
Anyway, it's easy to see, based on the seven forums that I belong to, that AMD is preferred by the majority of the enthusiast market.
My (completely unscientific) explanation for this is the price/performance ratio, where AMD handily outscores Intel.
The problem is that despite AMD telling everyone that numbers (MHz) don't matter, they then confused the issue by giving their products names like XP1700+, XP3000+ etc thus implying that numbers DO matter. Then when their clock speeds don't match the numbers it gives the uninformed a platform to say "Ooh, they aren't really as fast as they claim".
Ignore the clock speeds, the ONLY numbers which count for performance comparison are benchmarks. The AMD users here say that you get the same performance for less money, or more performance for the same money. If we are wrong you should go and buy Intel - I believe they've got a new Celeron out. :shifty:
So true.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Intel has painted itself into a similar corner though.
After convincing the public that the only thing that matters is clock speed, they hit a ceiling where heat became an insurmountable problem and now have to "reeducate" us about the joys of slower, dual core chips.
As Lynx pointed out, benchmarks will tell the truest tale and many folks find that the price/performance equation favors AMD...at least right now.
AMD also built a rabid fanbase by releasing a range of chips (Athlon) that, at least in the early days, were completely unlocked, so the enthusiast was able to really play with settings and tweak performance.
When they locked the multipliers on most of the chips, AMD severely hampered this pursuit, but the perception that AMD is the "hot-rodders" CPU of choice still remains.