[SINISTER]

Has there been any charting done to compair AMD TO INTEL CPU's

like amd 2600+ what does this cpu compair to at stock settings 1.8 to intel or 2.0 intel. ive been looking for a chat but cant find one anybody knows a such a chart..........

 

[Armend]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SINISTER Has there been any charting done to compair AMD TO INTEL CPU's like amd 2600+ what does this cpu compair to at stock settings 1.8 to intel or 2.0 intel. ive been looking for a chat but cant find one anybody knows a such a chart..........

i havent seen one but id go with amd if ur looking to buy something

 

[YiffyGriffy]

There's never been a direct comparison because of the simple fact that it causes a lot of hostility. But you can look around on sites that review the new AMD chips and they'll often compare them to a similar Intel system. Here is good, look under platform, good ol' Tom's Hardware also has some in the CPU section, and here is also good.

 

[ENTERPRISE]

Well for pure speed its intel all the way baby

 

[SINISTER]

well ive only been building amd i was just wondering what are the amd compairs too.for as cpu to cpu..and far as buliding a new system im just waiting for $$$$$ lol i wouldnt mind staying with amd like the fx 53 ect.. as long as i can overclock the $h!t out of it with wawa..hehe

but would just like to know the cpu campairasion

like the example above..2600+ is equal to a 2.0 intel < example >

 

[YiffyGriffy]

a 2600 is supposed to compare to a 2.6 Northwood

 

[ENTERPRISE]

Well for overclocking its gonna have to be intel

 

[Lostnhell]

I think I will have to add my two cents.

Intel has been the only CPU that I have ever ran, they are reliable, but I think some of their features of the Intel chips have negative aspects; for instance the HT does hinder me from running some extensive processes but it allows me to multi-task well.

Right now I look at Intel like Microsoft and AMD like Microsoft and Linux, each has their own great features which gets them fans, but I am quickly turning away from Intel and Microsoft.

 

[x86-64]

For pure speed go with intel??

more like bigger numbers...only a cave man would conclude that a P4 3.0 Ghz is faster than an Athlon 64 3000+ running at 2 Ghz.

 

[SINISTER]

Quote:

Originally Posted by YiffyGriffy There's never been a direct comparison because of the simple fact that it causes a lot of hostility. But you can look around on sites that review the new AMD chips and they'll often compare them to a similar Intel system. Here is good, look under platform, good ol' Tom's Hardware also has some in the CPU section, and here is also good.

not bad from what they said that the fx 55 out performs intels extreme cpu but the intel still beats amd with there encoding

 

[YiffyGriffy]

That's true and if you do alot of encoding or media editing a P4 or even better, a Xeon system would better suit you, but if you want some insane FPS, AMD is the way to go

 

[x86-64]

Those P4 extreme editions arent too extreme at all
even lower end single channel athlon 64s and high end semprons all at stock can surpass P4 EEs on benchmarks.

Tom's hardware is biased towards Intel; although i do still read the stuff they have.

i prefer Anandtech.

 

[YiffyGriffy]

EEs are just a bowl of snot, $1000 for a processor that is about 10% faster than it's non EE cousin, and it is surpassed by AMD's value market. That's a processor aimed at people with big wallets and no common sense that think the word extreme automaticaly denotes awesome performance

 

[x86-64]

i agree

my friend seems so passionate about those P4s with extreme written on it. Quite disappointing. Imagine that kind of cache on any current AMD.

 

[Armend]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SINISTER not bad from what they said that the fx 55 out performs intels extreme cpu but the intel still beats amd with there encoding

i dont care about encodinggggggggggg i love my gameeeessss

 

[YiffyGriffy]

I just whish AMD hadn't ruined the Athlon 64s with the NewCastle core, but I guess they had their reasons, ClawHammers probably have lower production yields for whatever reason, and that's probably why FXs cost so much

And the next big thing, Toledo, dual core Athlon 64 FX-57, mid-2005 can't wait to see those benches, and with Intel's dual core chips almost a year later, it's gonna be funny

 

[SINISTER]

yea when the prices come down and when longhorn comes out ill see and will be using wawa dd for the cpu koolance wont hold for insane ocing,.in the review they only over clocked the fx 55 to only 2.8 so ill be hoping for more..maybe next year when they come down in price..i wonder home much tho 600 bucks lol..just wishing its 857.00 a newegg geeze .dual core Athlon 64 FX-57, mid-2005 lol rgr hmm dual wawa blocks lol

 

[Armend]

Quote:

Originally Posted by YiffyGriffy I just whish AMD hadn't ruined the Athlon 64s with the NewCastle core, but I guess they had their reasons, ClawHammers probably have lower production yields for whatever reason, and that's probably why FXs cost so much And the next big thing, Toledo, dual core Athlon 64 FX-57, mid-2005 can't wait to see those benches, and with Intel's dual core chips almost a year later, it's gonna be funny

well latest benchmarks i've seen wit 3.6ghz intel and 3.4 EE the fx-55 deff eats them!

 

[x86-64]

Im sure glad i got a dual socket mobo 754/939.

But i still plan to use this Newcastle for awhile.

 

[YiffyGriffy]

That review Lando posted, even the 3500 and 3800 put the hurt on the EXTREME *laughs* edition P4 with 1066FSB

With a sudden and abrupt stop of cash flow, looks like my 3200 is going to have to laste me a year...oh well

If I can get 2.7 with the DFI board, I'll be happy