AMD vs. Intel

[HailAntonLaVey]

I do disagree with som eof what has been said.Intel is going towards power over speed now that they have trashed the P4 4.0ghz cpu.A dual core cpu is in the works,not to metion the numbering system is changing.Now its going to be the 600 series,where bigger cache is one of the main points and not CPU rapping speed.AMD on the other hand,finally stop shooting themselves in the ass and made a processor that would place Intel years behind in the desktop market.The fx family of Cpus is years ahead of Intel at the moment,AMD saw that and proceeded as needed to finally fucker Intel to change there plans.With a cache size and speed to match and beat Intel,AMD has won the battle so far.For all of 05 Intel will take a back seat in the desktop market,while staying "strong" in the mobile area.Tell then adieu

[Storm]

AMD is about performance and Intel is about speed

what do you mean by that??? speed delivers performance and a big performance equals high speeds............

if you mean that intel chips are faster, yes, they have higher GHz....... but that doesnt nessisarily mean they perform less....... (they do perform less for your money though)

I do disagree with som eof what has been said.Intel is going towards power over speed now that they have trashed the P4 4.0ghz cpu.A dual core cpu is in the works,not to metion the numbering system is changing.Now its going to be the 600 series,where bigger cache is one of the main points and not CPU rapping speed.AMD on the other hand,finally stop shooting themselves in the ass and made a processor that would place Intel years behind in the desktop market.The fx family of Cpus is years ahead of Intel at the moment,AMD saw that and proceeded as needed to finally fucker Intel to change there plans.With a cache size and speed to match and beat Intel,AMD has won the battle so far.For all of 05 Intel will take a back seat in the desktop market,while staying "strong" in the mobile area.Tell then adieu

you can see intel streching inferior chips....... boosting the L2 cache, now as far as i know that shit is expensive........ so the intel chips with a shitload of cache might be really fast, but will be just as fast at emptying your savings account........

and dual CPU? sounds nice, but like the FX chips, i dont think you'll see them in the average home...... btw FX chips are the top of the market, do you know what these things cost?? theyre made for the fanatics....... the athlon 64 chips are the real deal (making a chip that's super fast isnt to hard, but making it at an afforable cost is, hell why not get a computer with 4 itanium CPU's while your at it )

i did hear about dual core chips that intel was workin on, but someone here (cant remember if it was clocker, vb or lynx) said that that wouldnt be happening till intel sorted out their heat problems......... so prolly just hot air (no pun intended)......... just nice to get intel some attention

anyway, to get back to the main question, there isnt really a noticable difference between intel and amd......

the only thing by which you'll really notice that you've gotten an intel or amd is in your wallet.....

intel chips are slower if you have a limited budget (unlimited budget wont mean theyre faster, just means that you'll end up paying more for the same )

[mr. nails]

anyway, to get back to the main question, there isnt really a noticable difference between intel and amd......

lol, wtf r u talking about? sure there is.

[peat moss]

lol, wtf r u talking about? sure there is.

Hmm , and how is that ,other than a Amd 64 bit? In other words the price is actualy higher now with Amd over Intel. With top end systems , I look for other varibles than just Cpu's, like mobos and chip sets ! I like both by the way no preference .

[twister]

for 90 bucks (USD) you can get a AMD Athlon XP 2500+ and just up the fsb to 400 then u basicly have a 3200 @ 2.2ghz, which in theory is equivalent to a 3.2 ghz Intel chip

so basicly you can save a shit-load of money going with AMD chip

[Tifosi]

Dual core CPUs already exist :p
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/resu...1014-03442.asc

An Athlon 3000+ is equivalent to a 3.0GHz Athlon based on their original core, not an equivalent Pentium

[lynx]

Dual core CPUs already exist :p
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/resu...1014-03442.asc

An Athlon 3000+ is equivalent to a 3.0GHz Athlon based on their original core, not an equivalent Pentium

If you want to bring the Power5 chip into the question, then all bets are off. That thing will eat both Intel & AMD, but at a price of course.

[Storm]

lol, wtf r u talking about? sure there is.

?????

i bet my right hand that if i build 2 comps for you, one AMD, one intel and lets you goof around in windows or whatever, you wont notice any difference (no lookin at whats in the comp smartass )............

[_John_Lennon_]

for 90 bucks (USD) you can get a AMD Athlon XP 2500+ and just up the fsb to 400 then u basicly have a 3200 @ 2.2ghz, which in theory is equivalent to a 3.2 ghz Intel chip

so basicly you can save a shit-load of money going with AMD chip

But for 70 bucks, u can by a Celeron D processor, and OC it to 3.2Ghz.....

[HailAntonLaVey]

But for 70 bucks, u can by a Celeron D processor, and OC it to 3.2Ghz.....

A celeron is a basic CPU,it doesnt have performance enchancements that the Pentium has or AMD-64.Not to mention we werent talking about lower end CPU's,yet i suppose we are now.