Intel Vs. Amd

[asmithz]

You have more ram thats why your computer goes faster not the processcer.

[ooo]

i just recently made an amd 2400 and an intel 2.4ghz they both seemed fairly similar... minor differences that ppl wont notice

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by Amarjit@6 September 2003 - 11:45
Fastest Over-Clocked CPU
AMD - ??GHz
Intel - 3.71GHz

so is this a joke then?

[asmithz]

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob+6 September 2003 - 07:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3rd gen noob @ 6 September 2003 - 07:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Amarjit@6 September 2003 - 11:45
Fastest Over-Clocked CPU
AMD - ??GHz
Intel - 3.71GHz

so is this a joke then?

[/b][/quote]
Look real but illigal becuase there are modifiying it.

[3RA1N1AC]

ugh... not the clock speed comparisons again...

would you prefer a 3.5ghz Celeron (or a 3.5ghz VIA C3?) over a 3ghz Pentium 4 or Athlon XP 3000? i wouldn&#39;t.

yes, the latest P4s are stronger performers than the latest Athlon XPs, but the clock speeds are coincidental to the differences between Intel and AMD chips&#39; performance. clock speed is an invalid performance indicator when comparing two different microchip designs. not that synthetic benchmarks are much better at predicting "real life" performance, but obsessing over clock speed is absolutely the most simplistic and misguided approach to the issue.

also see: comparing clock speeds of ATI vs Nvidia graphics cards to make a claim about the inherent superiority of one or the other = your thread instantly goes down in flames.

[aintgottime]

overall AMD are better&#33;

[RGX]

in my experience, AMD out performs P4 in the real world, under everyday conditions, which is what realy counts

I often find lag on games with p4&#39;s, even with pretty high clock speeds, wheras AMD chips are rock solid....even with the same amount of memory, same graphics cards in each machine

this could be down to the motherboard but I have a sneaking suspicion its the chips, could well be wrong though, anybody got independant performance comparisons, rather than those by AMD?

[BabyGeniuses]

The age of 20Ghz processing power has already arrived. It just will be awhile before it becomes suitable for home-usage.
The Windows XP architecture, 64 bit edition, can now support somewhere around 10 CPUs all in a row. It can also support 1 TB of ram, supposedly.
Of course, a (super) computer such as this is extremely unaffordable to any home-user, minus perhaps Richie Rich...
But considering the logical choice for each of the 10 CPUs, you could easily hit 30Ghz of processing power if you wanted...

[Snee]

I prefer AMD, but they say intel ones runs colder, which means they are harder to fry.

Oh, and scientists have been saying lately that in twenty years comps. will be able to out-think us.

[Lamsey]

The fact remains that AMD offer almost exactly the same performance as Intel at a fraction of the price.

Unless you&#39;re the kind of idiot who will happily pay 150% of the price to get 105% of the performance, go with AMD.