Pentium Vs Amd

[Neo 721]

I would recomend to everyone to just wait for the new AMD 64 bit opterons to apear in numbers because theres bound to be a noticable performance increase, going from 32bit to 64.

[3rd gen noob]

when i bought my new system i went for amd

it wasn't anything to do with money at all, i just thought amd was better for gaming.
at the same clock speeds for amd and pentium, the amd owns the pentium (i don't like that word, but it's fitting).

pentium's ethos in chip design seems to be "no replacement for displacement" (or "no replacement for high clock speeds"), whereas amd aim for high efficiency from lower clock speeds.

this amd vs intel battle is very much like american cars vs the rest of the world.

americans are content churning out 8 litre engines producing 450hp, while japan, italy, uk etc are producing smaller engines with similar power outputs (e.g. McLaren F1: 6.1 litre, 627bhp. ferrari enzo: 6.0 litre, 660bhp. nissan skyline r34-gtr: 2.6 litre, 300bhp)

[bigdawgfoxx]

ok basicly the AMD says like 2800XP+...and it makes people think its clocked at like 2.8 Ghz....NOT it might be clocked at around 2.5 or 2.6...but not 2.8...Intel on the other hand tells you straight out...3.2 means 3.2....and the 3.2 intel whoops the amd 3200....im always having an intel sticker on my case

[adamp2p]

Okay I will sum it up for you...

Let's take a quick look at the Intel Celeron Line. What garbage...

No offense big dog and others with the celeron, but 128 kb of level 2 cache is puny. What is comes down to with performance/cost ratios is you can get a an excellent performing AMD chip for the price of a Intel Celeron at whatever gigahertz.

With most configs, it is actually cheaper to buy a new computer from a manfacturer, unless, of course, you buy AMD. That is the only way to beat the market.

As far as across the board performance, nobody will argue that Intel is the leader. But what is comes down to this: is the difference really noticeable enough at this juncture? The answer is no.

[Keikan]

Why are we looking at Celeron nody told me why AMD is better.

[Lamsey]

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@30 July 2003 - 01:47
ok basicly the AMD says like 2800XP+...and it makes people think its clocked at like 2.8 Ghz....NOT it might be clocked at around 2.5 or 2.6...but not 2.8...Intel on the other hand tells you straight out...3.2 means 3.2....and the 3.2 intel whoops the amd 3200....im always having an intel sticker on my case

clock speed (gigahertz) is not the way to measure the performance of a CPU.

[Keikan]

Originally posted by Lamsey@30 July 2003 - 01:39
clock speed (gigahertz) is not the way to measure the performance of a CPU.

Thats what the AMD site says but anyways so the AMD 3200+ 400fsb IS better than the Intel pentium 4 3.0ghz 800fsb for gaming???

[ilw]

nope in all the benchmarks the Intel 3GHz spanks even the amd 3200 silly. By Toms hardware benchmarks they reckoned the 3200 should be called a 2800

[bigdawgfoxx]

I know clock speed isnt it all and you need to look at benchmarks....but if your comparing those 2 you might not want to...ull fall in love with intel immediatly..hahaha but like my point was just that 2800 doesnt mean 2.8 like alot of people think

[lynx]

@bigdawgfoxx: what's a pentium celeron ?

Do you mean an Intel celeron 566 ?
Or they could use Amd naming and call it a pentium 350-.