Overclock.net banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
61 - 80 of 91 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by sccr64472

after making a false claim that "Intel dominates" in multitasking. Dominates?


Quote:


Originally Posted by Ropey

There are events in which Intel dominates.

I said events in which Intel dominates. That is not in your words: across the board. but simply "events". So Intel does not dominate in Multi-tasking. Just in certain events in multi-tasking.

You take my statment out of context. In multi-media encoding of three different sse3 streams (one event) Intel Dominates. I could go on but it is useless.

R
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by Ropey





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

My statement of across the board, as I just reiterated, was meaning categorically. You're picking encoding, AMD dual core processors hold the edge. If you're going to debate this, we can begin a new thread and focus exclusively on who is faster at encoding, AMD or Intel dual core processors. You're jumping around from subject to subject. You first rediculed benchmarks as being inaccurate measures of performance, but then expect us to rely on your wife's perception that her Intel dual core is "snappier" than the AMD dual core in the house? I stand by my statement that AMD holds an advantage in every category of computing and that includes encoding. I don't think you can find a single professional review backing your belief that Intel still holds the encoding crown, but I can find several backing mine.
 
This is my


The Intel Pentium D 920 is sub $250. (price cut to around $200 on 24 March). It has been easily overclocked to 4.0Ghz+ on air without a sweat. (about 41% increase in FSB! on air!)

Overclock Australia did an excellent review of the Intel 920/955 and AMD X2 3800+ and FX60. They compared the chip at stock speeds where AMD kicked butt, then they overclocked to what they considered the average enthusiast could do on water, and then compared them:

Quote:


For dual core entry-level products we see the situation like this: The X2 3800+ runs faster in gaming than a Pentium D 920. In applications both processors run neck-to-neck with a slight advantage for the 3800+. On the other hand a Pentium D 920 is between 15% and 20% cheaper and overclocks clearly better: We achieved with air-cooling a 45% frequency increase and believe that 40% (or around 3900 MHz) are achievable with almost every air-cooled 920. Overclocked to its maximum stable frequency we found the 920 outrunning a maxed out X2 3800+ in almost all benchmarks.


Quote:


For the time being we recommend a buyer considering an entry level dual core processor to have a good look at Intel's Pentium D 920.


Quote:


To sum it up: The general battle order between Intel and AMD has not changed with the introduction of the 9xx series, but Intel's single and dual core desktop products have improved their relative position quite a lot to their advantage.

and on Intel move to 65nm processors:

Quote:


Unlike the move from 130nm to 90 nm 2 years ago, this time Intel got it right.

Sounds to me like an PD 920 build is the way to go for your needs.

Link to article http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=452447
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by sccr64472

. I don't think you can find a single professional review backing your belief that Intel still holds the encoding crown, but I can find several backing mine.

To debunk your statment that AMD holds the holistic crown (Across the board) I need but one proof otherwise and I think that I have (see above) shown that.

Why I keep entering this foolishness is beyond me. Enough. I am out. I am now just being stupid arguing this stupidity. I have more important things to do.

I came to this site to help people. Not to argue in such a way.

R
 
I find it highly amusing that a AMD user is getting called a Intel fanboy by some???
Ropey uses an opteron an obviously is not a fanboy. He has been showing valid proof that intel does a better job at encoding.

Other than that I guess I will just sit here untill the thread gets more out of hand so I can close it.
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by Ropey

To debunk your statment that AMD holds the holistic crown (Across the board) I need but one proof otherwise and I think that I have (see above) shown that.

Why I keep entering this foolishness is beyond me. Enough. I am out. I am now just being stupid arguing this stupidity. I have more important things to do.

I came to this site to help people. Not to argue in such a way.

R

Holistic crown?
You keep trying to sidestep the discussion at hand and your claims are easily discussed without reducing this to a flamewar or fanboyish thread. You continue to run circles without commiting to a focus. I claim that AMD dual cores currently hold an advantage in all aspects of computing. You claim that Intel is better at encoding. I can find many professional reviews backing my claim, can you find any backing yours? Again, this is a very simple topic. There's no reason to sidestep it and attempt to change the meaning of what I posted. I know what I meant, I wrote it. If you would like to continue discussing the performance of the dual core processors and defend your encoding statement, feel free to back it up.
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by sccr64472

Holistic crown?
You keep trying to sidestep the discussion at hand and your claims are easily discussed without reducing this to a flamewar or fanboyish thread. You continue to run circles without commiting to a focus. I claim that AMD dual cores currently hold an advantage in all aspects of computing. You claim that Intel is better at encoding. I can find many professional reviews backing my claim, can you find any backing yours? Again, this is a very simple topic. There's no reason to sidestep it and attempt to change the meaning of what I posted. I know what I meant, I wrote it. If you would like to continue discussing the performance of the dual core processors and defend your encoding statement, feel free to back it up.

If the two of you want to scrap, do it via PM. Lets keep it friendly and on topic here.

The guy isn't looking for the top benchmarked computer it would seem. Nonwon can tell the difference between a 955 XE and a FX60, guranteed. I think this guy would be much happier sticking to a processor that performs great and it 20% cheaper than it's competitor. Hence, I think the Pentium D 920 is the way to go. Please read my previous post.
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by sccr64472

Holistic crown?
You keep trying to sidestep the discussion at hand and your claims are easily discussed without reducing this to a flamewar or fanboyish thread. You continue to run circles without commiting to a focus. I claim that AMD dual cores currently hold an advantage in all aspects of computing. You claim that Intel is better at encoding. I can find many professional reviews backing my claim, can you find any backing yours? Again, this is a very simple topic. There's no reason to sidestep it and attempt to change the meaning of what I posted. I know what I meant, I wrote it. If you would like to continue discussing the performance of the dual core processors and defend your encoding statement, feel free to back it up.

Please show us then. I have seen many reviews as well that show both so should we just say that this is undecided? Why is it that he has posted benchmarks and you just sit there taunting him? And as I mentioned above you can not have a AMD rig and be a Intel Fanboy.
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by SpookedJunglist

I find it highly amusing that a AMD user is getting called a Intel fanboy by some???
Ropey uses an opteron an obviously is not a fanboy. He has been showing valid proof that intel does a better job at encoding.

Other than that I guess I will just sit here untill the thread gets more out of hand so I can close it.


3 graphs of encoding is valid proof that intel does a better job at encoding? C'mon, you can't be serious. These are all in rebuff of your statement that Intel dominates multimedia encoding......
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7....html?tag=lnav
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7....html?tag=lnav
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/...9197754,00.htm
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,120656,00.asp

Again, a few graphs mean nothing. I can link you to professional reviews stating that AMD dual core processors hold an edge in encoding. Can you show me any that claim Intel is better at encoding?
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by sccr64472

3 graphs of encoding is valid proof that intel does a better job at encoding? C'mon, you can't be serious. These are all in rebuff of your statement that Intel dominates multimedia encoding......
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7....html?tag=lnav
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7....html?tag=lnav
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/...9197754,00.htm
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,120656,00.asp

Again, a few graphs mean nothing. I can link you to professional reviews stating that AMD dual core processors hold an edge in encoding. Can you show me any that claim Intel is better at encoding?

And please tell me how many people can tell the difference between the AMD and Intel rig? Absolutely none! It is just about the benchmarks.

Quote:


This is my

The Intel Pentium D 920 is sub $250. (price cut to around $200 on 24 March). It has been easily overclocked to 4.0Ghz+ on air without a sweat. (about 41% increase in FSB! on air!)

Overclock Australia did an excellent review of the Intel 920/955 and AMD X2 3800+ and FX60. They compared the chip at stock speeds where AMD kicked butt, then they overclocked to what they considered the average enthusiast could do on water, and then compared them:

Quote:


For dual core entry-level products we see the situation like this: The X2 3800+ runs faster in gaming than a Pentium D 920. In applications both processors run neck-to-neck with a slight advantage for the 3800+. On the other hand a Pentium D 920 is between 15% and 20% cheaper and overclocks clearly better: We achieved with air-cooling a 45% frequency increase and believe that 40% (or around 3900 MHz) are achievable with almost every air-cooled 920. Overclocked to its maximum stable frequency we found the 920 outrunning a maxed out X2 3800+ in almost all benchmarks.


Quote:


For the time being we recommend a buyer considering an entry level dual core processor to have a good look at Intel's Pentium D 920.


Quote:


To sum it up: The general battle order between Intel and AMD has not changed with the introduction of the 9xx series, but Intel's single and dual core desktop products have improved their relative position quite a lot to their advantage.

and on Intel move to 65nm processors:

Quote:


Unlike the move from 130nm to 90 nm 2 years ago, this time Intel got it right.

Sounds to me like an PD 920 build is the way to go for your needs.

Link to article http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=452447

 
Quote:


Originally Posted by sccr64472

3 graphs of encoding is valid proof that intel does a better job at encoding? C'mon, you can't be serious. These are all in rebuff of your statement that Intel dominates multimedia encoding......
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7....html?tag=lnav
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7....html?tag=lnav
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/...9197754,00.htm
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,120656,00.asp

Again, a few graphs mean nothing. I can link you to professional reviews stating that AMD dual core processors hold an edge in encoding. Can you show me any that claim Intel is better at encoding?

If you did not notice the second thread I created, here it is. Notice the part where I mention that I have seen both?

Quote:


Originally Posted by SpookedJunglist

Please show us then. I have seen many reviews as well that show both so should we just say that this is undecided? Why is it that he has posted benchmarks and you just sit there taunting him? And as I mentioned above you can not have a AMD rig and be a Intel Fanboy.

Being the nice and helpful person that I am. I was suggesting that you show your proof instead of talking about it. When you sit there and talk about it for 10 posts you end up looking like you have no ammo. And now that you have shown links this thread is now more complete.

I hate it when I see a post that contains NO proof. It is like you only want to talk about it all day long to no end. Which is pretty typical of Flame wars. I will give this thread a couple more minutes before I close it.


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Merged post:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Alrighty love those reviews


Not one of them contain the new Intel chips.... Keep digging I am sure you can come up with a few more
I personally have seen them...
 
scc's proof shows no Intel 9xx series and certainly no 955 series processors and not very valid.

It also does not show 100% of multi-media encoding. In his proofs there are certain tests that show Intel wins. Anyone can show some proof but he said "ACROSS THE BOARD". This means his view can not stand up to a single proof against him. My view of certain events can and does stand up to his partial wins.

Edit - WHY AM I STILL IN HERE?

R
 
Yes, bottom line is that both Intel and AMD chips are good and will run (most) anything you try to. AMD's current chips are, for the most part, better for gaming, than Intel's current chips right now. Intel's current chips are, for the most part, better at work tasks (encoding, etc.) than AMD's current chips.
 
I am an AMD fan but the mention of the AMD Socket M2 as being something better then the Athlon 64's and Opteron's right now is a little misleading. If the Athlon does indeed go to DDR2 memory then it will actually be a step backwards in performance. From what I have read DDR2-667 will be equivalent to DDR-400, because the DDR2 suffers much longer latencies then DDR. Not until we see memory around the DDR2-800 range the AMD Socket M2 will not shine. Of course there may be some processor speed increases that might counteract this, but clock for clock they AMD2 might not be the answer. For this reason the socket 939 like the 754 will be here for quite some time.

And to all you Intel fans out there remember when the P4 came out and it was being outperformed by the P3's out on the market. Quite the embarassment. The idea of a 65nm processor is exciting no doubt, and it might very well overtake AMD. Unless the rumors of the AMD Socket M2 going to DDR3 memory are true, then it truely will be a wait and see scenario.
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by SpookedJunglist

I double post because I can
Alrighty love those reviews


Not one of them contain the new Intel chips.... Keep digging I am sure you can come up with a few more
I personally have seen them...

Type in "AMD versus Intel Dual core encoding" on Google and those are the first 4 threads you'll receive. I'm not interested in cutting and pasting graphs to skew my point. I'm looking for real, accurate results comparing the dual core processors of both companies. I didn't even read all of them. Those are 4 random links that should show AMD being better at encoding if my original statement is correct. You stated above that I never posted links backing my claims,but that is just untrue. If you read carefully, you can see that the person I was discussing this with changed the focus and I was trying to pinpoint exactly what needed to be debated. It begin with "multitasking"...switched to "switchtasking" then to "encoding", then finally resting on "multi media encoding." If you have reviews showing Intel hold the encoding crown, by all means, post them. Prove me wrong, my goal is not to "win", but to get to the truth. I'm not a fanboy of AMD,Intel,Nvidia, or Ati. I just hate bad information and when I read that Intel is better for multitasking, this began.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: SpookedJunglist
Quote:


Originally Posted by Ropey

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

R

 
Quote:


Originally Posted by sccr64472

Type in "AMD versus Intel Dual core encoding" on Google and those are the first 4 threads you'll receive. I'm not interested in cutting and pasting graphs to skew my point. I'm looking for real, accurate results comparing the dual core processors of both companies. I didn't even read all of them. Those are 4 random links that should show AMD being better at encoding if my original statement is correct. You stated above that I never posted links backing my claims,but that is just untrue. If you read carefully, you can see that the person I was discussing this with changed the focus and I was trying to pinpoint exactly what needed to be debated. It begin with "multitasking"...switched to "switchtasking" then to "encoding", then finally resting on "multi media encoding." If you have reviews showing Intel hold the encoding crown, by all means, post them. Prove me wrong, my goal is not to "win", but to get to the truth. I'm not a fanboy of AMD,Intel,Nvidia, or Ati. I just hate bad information and when I read that Intel is better for multitasking, this began.


You misread my post again. I said i have proof that AMD leads in encoding
But it is a mixed bunch of reviews. As far as multitasking goes I will admit that the stronger systems it is too hard to tell. But depending on how many applications you have open I would say it could go either way. The 955EE IS very good at multitasking but so is the FX60. But the best test for this just to test CPU power would most likely be super PI.

Running super pi with 2 instances the FX60 wins, But if you run it 4 instances
the 955 EE wins.
The linkage
 
at this time in the q seasons. id wait! conroe is coming out and so is fx62 and 5000+! and all we got is theorys of what one will actualy be best!
 
Quote:


Originally Posted by sccr64472

Type in "AMD versus Intel Dual core encoding" on Google and those are the first 4 threads you'll receive. I'm not interested in cutting and pasting graphs to skew my point. I'm looking for real, accurate results comparing the dual core processors of both companies. I didn't even read all of them. Those are 4 random links that should show AMD being better at encoding if my original statement is correct. You stated above that I never posted links backing my claims,but that is just untrue. If you read carefully, you can see that the person I was discussing this with changed the focus and I was trying to pinpoint exactly what needed to be debated. It begin with "multitasking"...switched to "switchtasking" then to "encoding", then finally resting on "multi media encoding." If you have reviews showing Intel hold the encoding crown, by all means, post them. Prove me wrong, my goal is not to "win", but to get to the truth. I'm not a fanboy of AMD,Intel,Nvidia, or Ati. I just hate bad information and when I read that Intel is better for multitasking, this began.


and this is your example of:

Quote:


I can link you to professional reviews stating that AMD dual core processors hold an edge in encoding.

 
Quote:


Originally Posted by pauldovi

and this is your example of:



No, read closer and you'll find that I just told you what those links were. Those are the first 4 threads on Google. I can't type that any clearer. There are professional reviews everywhere comparing dual core processors. I've never seen a single one stating that Intel holds an edge in encoding. Have you?
 
61 - 80 of 91 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top