36 replies to this topic

[Fatal]

Yes, folding is exactly like what I was referring to when I said that Intel chips are better designed for one process. =P Folding is a complex calculation, but it IS only one process. A calculation. Heh. So of course an Intel would be faster, especially an overclock Intel.

But for NORMAL computing - in which people actually use a variety of programs, often at once, there is in no question that AMD is superior. And you will have to point out where you said AMD was more efficient - because I cannot find that. I have said it before, in many things in life, Efficiency is King. A fast clocking speed does not mean didly squat if the processing is inefficient.

And is it QUICK encoding? =P That is the key, here. I did not say Intel could not encode, I said that AMD does it quicker.

I don't know WHY you continue to argue this. Marine has already said, hands down, that he prefers AMD over Intel. So it is not like you are going to get him to buy Intel. =P

AMD's are not over-priced. The problem is that people go for the higher clock speeds because they somehow think that a 2.0Ghz chip is inferior to an Intel chip of the same price, and it is not, by a long shot.

And it does not matter how well you think your Intel chip runs the Counter-Strike server. The AMD runs it better. That is why all professional server hosts have switched to AMD dual cores over Intel dual cores. Although some of their cheaper servers still use Xeons. Not that Xeons aren't good servers...they are...but they have been well overshadowed.

AMD 2.2Ghz ~ Intel 4.2-4.4 when it comes to performance. For reasons I have already listed. An Intel simply cannot out-perform an AMD. Now, the Conroe will equalize the playing field a bit for the current AMD chips; it is a large step on Intel's part. However, AMD will have a new chip out by then, as well.

Equalise? more like, fucking own it by 60fps?


2.66ghz conroe on air ties a FX-60 @ 3.60 on phase



Um.. funny... show me some legit benchmarks of 2.2ghz owning 4.4... link me


Pricewise my point was, a 940 will clock 4.4-4.6........ = about a 3.0ish AMD.... again, not many hit 3ghz and the weeks/steppings have a huge part in AMD whereas they dont in Intel, basicly only revision matters for intel


Ok heres a little comparison:


According to Sandra, my 2.8E @ 3.62 is beating an Intel 570 (3.8ghz) I guess because of the increased bus speed... now heres a benchmark comparing a 570 and a 3700+ sandy..... keep in mind a 570 is worse than a 670

http://img204.images...207241708bt.png[/img][/url]


Divx 6?

http://img210.images...207241703ar.png

PCMark 05 - CPU?

http://img210.images...207241580xn.png


WinRar?

http://img210.images...207241585is.png

Lame MP3 Encoder?

http://img210.images...207241584ef.png


XviD...

http://img210.images...207241587rj.png

Edited by Fatal, 20 May 2006 - 03:45 AM.

[Fatal]

uhh I dont know where you've been, but Intels have been better multi taskers all this time... which is why HT was created. huge images? it fits perfectly on the page? lol you must be using a low res... time to upgrade that monitor... and i dont know how to change them now so ...

Edited by Fatal, 20 May 2006 - 03:36 AM.

[Fatal]

ok heres proof, even with background apps:


http://www.anandtech...spx?i=2389&p=11

gg

[Fatal]

this matters why? AMD was winning more a year ago then now.. do you have any explanation for my link? ... think your getting stuck right here



EDIT:




You are comparing a single core to a dual core when it comes to mulit-tasking? Nice.


uhh look at the 630........... read please?


630 = single core .. gg

Edited by Fatal, 20 May 2006 - 03:50 AM.

[Rush]

i have never seen a girl so good with computers: (PS: i am not sexist )
my suggestion for a bigger harddrive thats cheaper: Clickie

Edited by Rush, 20 May 2006 - 05:51 AM.

[Vegas]

For anyone following this, we've taken this over to IMs. =P

But I did misread the article.

It seems we agree to disagree, but AMD has always, and continues, to be the better multi-tasking. =P You can't take one example and say that's that.

Aww I was learning alot or useful info from both sides of view.

If you guys ever come to agreed on which is the better processor-overall-between Intel and AMD processors(yeah not even) post it.

And correct me and teach me if I'm wrong but I heard Seagates are the best brand for hard drives.

[Fatal]

Seagates are very reliable and still have good performance, but usually not "THE BEST"... Like I said , Hitachi and Western Digital are the best right now. But anyways Intel has been winning in games for a while now, with the Dothan and Yonah



Link:


Yonah @ 2.92Ghz on AIR... BEATS an FX-60 @ 3.37Ghz on VapoChill (Phase)

http://www.xtremesys...ead.php?t=90743

Air would be like 30c temps, and phase would be like -100c

EOCF Discussion Thread:

http://forums.extrem...ad.php?t=211531


OK I asked some people @ EOCF.




Windows Live PWNZ BIOHazard87 @ [EOCF] | says:
Do you think Intel HT's multi task better than AMD single cores?

UberL33tJarad says:
Yes



Windows Live PWNZ BIOHazard87 @ [EOCF] | says:
Do you think Intel HT's multi task better then AMD single cores?


x/X/x kev182 [EOCF] says:
lol yea
for sure




Windows Live PWNZ BIOHazard87 @ [EOCF] | says:
Do you think Intel HT's multi task better than AMD single cores?


BrettVanKirk @ EOCF says:
Of course
anyone should agree with that




Windows Live PWNZ BIOHazard87 @ [EOCF] | says:
Do you think Intel HT's multi task better than AMD single cores?


. corey says:
yea

Edited by Fatal, 20 May 2006 - 04:13 PM.