Overclock.net banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
41 - 60 of 91 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Ropey

Canned synthetic benchmarks do not show real life productivity and use.

I prefer to look at each processors merits and I have both machines. I have had dual machines since the release of the A64 which is clearly a better processor for gaming at the moment. The Intel is better at multi-tasking. Yes, even the X2 Athlon while taking many benchmarks does not have the snappiness of the Intel on multi-tasking environments in real time work, not benchmarks.
R

These are all non synthetic benchmarks and are real world applications being multitasked....

This first one is running Mcafee Viruscan and Dr Divx at the same time...
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7....html?tag=lnav

These are real world applications being multitasked as well....
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/...33885-4,00.htm

How can you toss out these figures and state that Intel is better at multitasking? I just don't see it.
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by sccr64472

I just don't see it.

Do you know the difference between multi-tasking and task-switching? When Intel is doing two events and switching between other at the same time it is snappier. These "Canned" benchmarks do not show this and never can as they do not perform in the real world.

R
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by rcantec

ok your (DELETE!!!) and amd is the best.

Thank you for your amazing insight. Truly you have a command of English vernacular and a taste of logical proof.

R
 
lots of practical every day use on both chips. Real world app performance. AMD rules. I guess you could come to work with me and see for your self because im not going to draw a graph for you.
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by rcantec

AMD rules.

Ok, I am not going to discuss this anymore. If you believe that AMD is the best totally in all CPU functions then do so.

Goodnight,

R
 
Intels maybe better at multi-tasking but is this a noticable issue? also if you aint got much money go amd, i picked up the athlon64 3000venice and overclocked it to 2.6 (so far) at near stock volts 24/7, the highest my cpu temps are getting is 41c no matter what i push it to do. When those nice 500quid dual core processors drop in price to make way for the new babys then il pick one up. If you got the money though just go for any new dog, my 2pence
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by Ropey

Do you know the difference between multi-tasking and task-switching? When Intel is doing two events and switching between other at the same time it is snappier. These "Canned" benchmarks do not show this and never can as they do not perform in the real world.

R

Your statement claimed that Intel was better at multitasking, not switch tasking. You commented that on your 2 machines, your wife likes switching tasks better on the Intel, not that you believed that is the only place Intel holds an edge. Also, when comparing 2 machines, you have to look closely at the entire machine. Did they have equal amounts of ram? Equal hard drives, etc. I can't comment on "switch tasking" on a daily basis because I don't use dual cores on a daily basis. Are you modifying your statement to say that Intel is better at switch tasking only or are you still saying that Intel holds an edge in multitasking as well? If it's the latter, I still don't see it.
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by sccr64472

I still don't see it.


Multi-Tasking and Task-Switching. Not Multi-Tasking or Task-Switching. If you have intensive tasks being performed in the background while you switch between tasks in the foreground there is a hesitation on the AMD machines and this has always been there since K7.

And yes, those are synthetic canned benchmarks you show. They are scripted to perform in conjunction. No one is using the computer for real life work while the script performs it's duties. No one states the peformance of real life work whilst the scripted canned benchmark is underway. They are concerned with quantification only. But this is useless for me to try and have you see what I am saying as even possible let alone probable.

You don't see it, refuse to even look at what I am saying as a possibility. You prefer to fall on your Canned Synthetic Benchmarks as "Proof" and this is why this is a useless argument.

R
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by Ropey

Multi-Tasking and Task-Switching. Not Multi-Tasking or Task-Switching. If you have intensive tasks being performed in the background while you switch between tasks in the foreground there is a hesitation on the AMD machines and this has always been there since K7.

And yes, those are synthetic canned benchmarks you show. They are scripted to perform in conjunction. No one is using the computer for real life work while the script performs it's duties. No one states the peformance of real life work whilst the scripted canned benchmark is underway. They are concerned with quantification only. But this is useless for me to try and have you see what I am saying as even possible let alone probable.

You don't see it, refuse to even look at what I am saying as a possibility. You prefer to fall on your Canned Synthetic Benchmarks as "Proof" and this is why this is a useless argument.
R

How am I refusing to look at what you're saying as a possibility?
I just asked you to restate your claim more clearly, so I can be clear of what you're saying. If that's your idea of refusing to look into it, then this is a waste of my breath. Decoding a DVD and running a Viruscan simultaneous IS multitasking, regardless of how the processes were initiated. You're claiming there would be a slight pause when switching to the second task to initiate it. Even if you grant those few seconds to the Intel, it's still not performing the 2 simultaneous tasks quicker. I also don't rely exclusively on benchmarks, but it's the only measurement of performance we have. You cannot compare 2 computers sitting in your house and assume that the performance is 100% reliant on the 2 processors. There are so many variables that enter into it. These tests are at least run on fresh installs of windows on as equal of hardware as can be expected. I'm not refusing to look at what you're saying. I wouldn't have asked any questions or replied if I wasn't interested in what you had to say.
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by sccr64472

How am I refusing to look at what you're saying as a possibility?


What I had responded to in my entire postings on this thread was that it was and is (in my opinion, and I could be wrong) foolish and in error to grant an exclusivity on performance totality either to Intel or AMD.

No more, no less. When someone says AMD rules, well rules means only one thing. A complete and total domination as per a ruler. This is clearly (as I said) not the case. There are events in which Intel dominates. I mentioned two of those events. One being multi-media encoding. The other being a "Snapiness" when moving between alternative tasks and especially so when performing these tasks quickly. Even more so when performing these tasks quickly with other intensive background tasks taking place. I was stating that these indicate (to me at any rate) that Intel has even now abilities that surpass AMD in certain functionality. Just as AMD has abilities that even now surpass Intel in certain functionality.

This was all I was stating. You can post benchmarks and I can post benchmarks with each of the sides showing some wins and losses.

There is no clear holistic CPU ruler. There is NO ONE CPU to rule them all. This is was and shall ever be what I was trying to state and when others were saying that AMD is the best at all tasks I begged to differ.

I still do differ. However, there is no use arguing when it becomes repetitive and I become bored with repetition. You stated that in Dual Core, AMD wins across the board. I disagree. So you are saying that what I say is in error and that you believe the X2 Dual Core AMD to be the One CPU that rules them all. You can read into this post what I think of your words. So we have little to say. Sometimes it is just best for me to steer clear of foolish threads and these "Which one is Best" threads are such posts and those of you who state a clear ruler of all instances.

R
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by Ropey

Multi-Tasking and Task-Switching. Not Multi-Tasking or Task-Switching. If you have intensive tasks being performed in the background while you switch between tasks in the foreground there is a hesitation on the AMD machines and this has always been there since K7.

And yes, those are synthetic canned benchmarks you show. They are scripted to perform in conjunction. No one is using the computer for real life work while the script performs it's duties. No one states the peformance of real life work whilst the scripted canned benchmark is underway. They are concerned with quantification only. But this is useless for me to try and have you see what I am saying as even possible let alone probable.

You don't see it, refuse to even look at what I am saying as a possibility. You prefer to fall on your Canned Synthetic Benchmarks as "Proof" and this is why this is a useless argument.

R

Look, benchmarks are mesurable, your wifes take on "Snappieness" is not. We all know benchmarks arn't perfect, but they are still a good mesurement of real world situations.
 
Okay, I'll just restate what Ropey's been saying the last two and a half pages, so everyone can understand it:

AMD does not beat Intel at everything. Intel does not beat AMD at everything. There is no clear winner. IT'S ALL OPINION. You choose which chip you like better for the task you need it to perform.

No one can really say outright which company makes better chips. So stop trying to.
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by Ropey

There are events in which Intel dominates. I mentioned two of those events. One being multi-media encoding. R

I challenge your statement of Intel domination of encoding. If you wish to debate this, PM me. This statement is completely incorrect and can be easily verified by a wide range of benchmarks for encoding,editing,decoding.
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by sccr64472

I challenge your statement of Intel domination of encoding. If you wish to debate this, PM me. This statement is completely incorrect and can be easily verified by a wide range of benchmarks for encoding,editing,decoding.

The last thing I wish to do is debate such idiocy. Here's the thing. Take it or leave it as your wish.

Quote:


Originally Posted by sccr64472

AMD dual core cpus outperform Intel dual cores across the board.

You need to show 100% proof of your statement that AMD wins out entirely. Your 100% proof can not stand to a single proof of error as you say "ALL" which encompasses any and every testing platform and model.

You wish to debate such idiocy? I need to show just one proof to take down your statement as logically false. Look to this post for a benchmark that makes your statement incorrect. Thus you have already lost the debate before it has begun.

You challenge it? LMAO Thank you for the chuckle. I needed it today.

And this posting is done. I will not re-enter it.

R
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by Ropey

The last thing I wish to do is debate such idiocy. Here's the thing. Take it or leave it as your wish.

You need to show 100% proof of your statement that AMD wins out entirely. Your 100% proof can not stand to a single proof of error as you say "ALL" which encompasses any and every testing platform and model.

You wish to debate such idiocy? I need to show just one proof to take down your statement as logically false. Look to this post for a benchmark that makes your statement incorrect. Thus you have already lost the debate before it has begun.

You challenge it? LMAO Thank you for the chuckle. I needed it today.

And this posting is done. I will not re-enter it.

R

I've never stated that AMD wins every benchmark. My statement was regarding AMD dual core processors winning across the board versus Intel processors, meaning that they hold the advantage in every performance category. Never did I state 100% dominance, but rather a performance edge in every category of computing. Look at reviews, this isn't going out on a limb. I'm surprised you used such words as idiocy and logically false directly after making a false claim that "Intel dominates" in multitasking. Dominates?
It doesn't even win, much less "dominate." They are both very good processors, but there is no category where the Intel dual cores are superior. The AMD dual cores have proven to hold an edge in each category, but I'm not saying it's a landslide. A "domination" would be an even bigger exaggeration
 




Do you know what "Across the board" means. (rhetorical question - hence no question mark) Not what you mean by the statement but what the statement actually means because what you say it means and what it in point of "Fact" actually means seems to be rather different.

R
 
41 - 60 of 91 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top