new upgrade

Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 3:54 pm

Kobaytso wrote:

illogical wrote:

Quote:

The directx 9 and open gl benchmarks are also on that page. The gap is much smaller, but it's still there. Did you even look?

Nope but as I work with PC's everyday, I'm a hardware support tech', I know in real world everyday use the AMD is the winner, that's ignoring how much faster it's gonna be when it has proper 64 bit apps etc to run, the Pentium is stuck in the past as a 32 bit CPU quite simply there is no real reason to compare, the AMD wins all round especially when cost comes into the equation.
Good prices and service for UK buyers; http://www.overclock.co.uk/customer/home.php
If you can only use PayPal then probably, Dabs is your best bet. Cool

well dabs is very expensive the amd athlon 3500 is $255 while in tigerdirect its just $179 , and the 6800 gs is for $205 while in tigerdirect its for $179 , i was hoping to find a site with tigerdirect prices or even better , and ships worldwide ofcourse and doesnt only accept paypal from the us , kind of really hard but i know there has to be a site

It would help if you tell us what country you're in. Rolling Eyes

As for Intel vs. AMD... (when did it become Intel vs. AMD anyway?)
OMGzers! Intel is TEH SUX0RZ! AMD is good in EVERY WAY. Look at me! I'm an AMD fan! It is my religion! Laughing

Seriously though. I think AMD makes better chips. Compared with Intel chips, they tend to be faster, at least for games, lower cycle rate for similar performance means they also consume less power, produce less heat, and can be more easily and safely oced. That's basically the same thing I said in the other thread that joe linked. So there, am I in the cool crowd now? Cool

When they label a 2.2 ghz chip "3600+," it's of course faster than a 2.2ghz intel, but is it actually faster than 3.6ghz? You guys should stop treating AMD as god and whatever they say as words of god. Remember, coporates are driven by greed, and they are the same everywhere, even at AMD. When I cited the benchmarks and pointed out their marketing ploy as what it is, everyone just responded by: OMG, looking at this hethen! Badmouthing our God! Let's all bash her (or "smite" as you guys put it). Ignore the facts, just jump on her and pounce. Twisted Evil

Stop turning everything having to do with cpus into some sort of infantile tug-of-war between Intel and AMD. I simply pointed out to AMD's marketing ploy. Sorry for badmouthing your God. I'm atheist and whatnot... Rolling Eyes

Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 4:25 pm

If you'd read all the posts, you'd know he's in Israel. Laughing

Edit: And I've already proven that AMD chips are faster.

Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 5:16 pm

joenobody wrote:

If you'd read all the posts, you'd know he's in Israel. Laughing

Edit: And I've already proven that AMD chips are faster.

Oh yeah, with what? Floating points? And against what? Earilest builds of P4? Rolling Eyes

In any case, the timeless arguments of "the cpu in my own comp is better than yours, or, my daddy is bigger than yours" has nothing to do with the marketing ploys of AMD. Cool

Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 5:23 pm

dagger906 wrote:

joenobody wrote:

If you'd read all the posts, you'd know he's in Israel. Laughing

Edit: And I've already proven that AMD chips are faster.

Oh yeah, with what? Floating points? And against what? Earilest builds of P4? Rolling Eyes

With a well established benchmarking program using the latest MDAC. And since my CPU is older that the P4 processors stated, what exactly is your point? I'm willing to go head to head against any 3ghz P4 with any type of benchmark just to to prove how wrong you are.

Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 5:25 pm

joenobody wrote:

dagger906 wrote:

joenobody wrote:

If you'd read all the posts, you'd know he's in Israel. Laughing

Edit: And I've already proven that AMD chips are faster.

Oh yeah, with what? Floating points? And against what? Earilest builds of P4? Rolling Eyes

With a well established benchmarking program using the latest MDAC. And since my CPU is older that the P4 processors stated, what exactly is your point? I'm willing to go head to head against any 3ghz P4 with any type of benchmark just to to prove how wrong you are.

Oh yeah, "my comp is better than yours." So, how about anything not floating points? And take other aspects into consideration, not just compare with the few bare cpus on minimum specs machines they listed for comparasion purposes. Cool

Besides, other people have already done the benchmarking. Click on the site I linked. Twisted Evil

In any case, why are you still arguing "AMD is better than Intel," when all I said is that AMD chips are not as fast as their "XXXX+" titles claim to be. Idea

Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 5:32 pm

Your taking the piss right. I said any benchmark. Its not a case of my computer is better than your computer, its a case of you making unfounded comments about things you dont really know anything about. And using benchmark results that cannot be replicated by the public holds no water, both in my book and in the overclocking community in general. You state that an AMD 3000+ CPU isnt as fast as a 3ghz Intel, I say it is. And I stand by my challenge.

Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 5:46 pm

joenobody wrote:

Your taking the piss right. I said any benchmark. Its not a case of my computer is better than your computer, its a case of you making unfounded comments about things you dont really know anything about. And using benchmark results that cannot be replicated by the public holds no water, both in my book and in the overclocking community in general. You state that an AMD 3000+ CPU isnt as fast as a 3ghz Intel, I say it is. And I stand by my challenge.

Tomshardware is the leading authority on independent cpu and gpu benchmarking(despite how its name sounds), and also naturally the most cited. And yeah, their results are definately duplicated. Google is your friend. Cool

Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 6:33 pm

Well I've tried googleing for a benchmark to replicate Tom's Hardwares benchmarking claims, but guess what? There isn't one. So perhaps you can provide a download link? What I did find however was lots of posts from o/c forums declaring them as a joke, biased, and some claims of them being just down right liers. So, at least I got some interesting reading out of it. Laughing

Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 6:38 pm

Kiddies in some unnamed forums declaring professionals liars? Gee... Rolling Eyes

Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 6:42 pm

I imagine you use the term 'Professionals ' loosly. The easiest way to prove your self right, is to make it impossible for others to prove you wrong. Now how about that link?

Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 7:05 pm

joenobody wrote:

I imagine you use the term 'Professionals ' loosly. The easiest way to prove your self right, is to make it impossible for others to prove you wrong. Now how about that link?

The link doesn't exist and whatnot... They're the only ones who aren't affliated with manufacturers that's doing extensive benchmarking. Rolling Eyes

You're too naive, thinking AMD wouldn't try to boost sales by using misleading titles. Believing that a self proclaimed "3600+" chip at 2.2ghz is faster than an actual 3.6ghz comparable Pentium chip is just silly. The benchmarks are there. Cool

Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 7:22 pm

Yes their benchmark results are there. 53 seconds to compress a 178mb file using WinRAR v.3.0. If I replicate their test with a 185mb file, WinRAR compresses it in 54 seconds. So what now?

Edit: And just for fun, using the 'Store' method of compression 8 seconds.

Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 7:30 pm

joenobody wrote:

Yes their benchmark results are there. 53 seconds to compress a 178mb file using WinRAR v.3.0. If I replicate their test with a 185mb file, WinRAR compresses it in 54 seconds. So what now?

So it's accurate, isn't it? Cool

Anyway, don't be so serious. I've never started anything about Intel vs. AMD, that's just you and the few other guys twisting that around. Going by the only comprehensive benchmarks available, AMD is falsing presenting their chips as faster than they actually are, to get more business. If you don't believe it and keep thinking they're some kind of saints and above coporate greed, you're entitled to that and whatnot... Rolling Eyes

Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 7:38 pm

He He, its all good fun init. Its just that you're blatently wrong. You keep saying that AMD are over-inflating claims about speed, I can and have proved you wrong. Just accept it, and stop defending Intel. They're rubbish, and cost to much. Very Happy

Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 7:42 pm

joenobody wrote:

He He, its all good fun init. Its just that you're blatently wrong. You keep saying that AMD are over-inflating claims about speed, I can and have proved you wrong. Just accept it, and stop defending Intel. They're rubbish, and cost to much. Very Happy

Oh-ho, big words! PROVE me wrong, heh? So, how did that happen? Cool