"AMD is overclocked."

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: rh71
until you can show me a practical difference in minutes, I'm not going to worry about who's faster in seconds.

It can make a difference if your paycheck is dependant on computing speed. Take a company like Pixar for example, if they can render frames 25% faster, then they can make a movie in 10% less time. (dependant on the other non-rendering tasks). Less time==less paying people to monitor the systems==easier to meet deadlines.

 

[maziwanka]

i had not heard of the "AMD is overclocked" story before.

 

[Trente]

Since when a degree grants anyone with the knowledge that gurus have access to through the internet?!

 

[ch33zw1z]

i use both, i prefer AMD because of the prices...but both work just as well as the other. as an unbiased PC enthusiast, i must say whoever wrote that is useless. unfortunately...people with CS degrees aren't always the brightest. i work with a kid who is a CS major and can barely manage windows 98. he's supposed to be supporting users at a college, but instead we support him.

 

[biostud]

....There're lots of overclocked AMD processors out there 😛

 

[Injury]

Tell your friend he should be embarrassed because he paid twice as much for a processor that does the same or less amount of work.

 

[AlienCraft]

Isn't this essentially a "Ford vs Chevy" kind of arguement?
Don't both companies prduce chips which do the job for which they are designed, i.e. get you to work and back home again?
Are there any REAL, substantive differences that would cause one to prefer AMD over INTEL, beyond price?
So far as I've been able to discern, INTEL gets more for their chips based on market share and branding, which as we all know, isn't indicative of anything based on performance.
Seriously, I'm asking what if any differences might exist as I am starting to assemble a pile of stuff for a new computer and I've yet to decide on a motherboard / chipset.

 

[Dubb]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: rh71
until you can show me a practical difference in minutes, I'm not going to worry about who's faster in seconds.

It can make a difference if your paycheck is dependant on computing speed. Take a company like Pixar for example, if they can render frames 25% faster, then they can make a movie in 10% less time. (dependant on the other non-rendering tasks). Less time==less paying people to monitor the systems==easier to meet deadlines.

slightly OT...but renderfarms like pixar's don't buy processors based on which processor is fastest, they buy based on a ratio of heat & power consumption/performance. when you have a room full of 2500-5000 processors, the one that does the most using the least power is the one you buy. Not too long ago I read about ILM upgrading to 2500 1600MPs, and this was well after the opteron had come out...

but for home-based small time folks like me, yes, If I can do a 1 week render in 5 days, that's a big plus.

/pats his lv xeons gently

 

[neonerd]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: SaturnX
The whole "AMD is overclocked" argument is that essientially AMD makes slower CPUs, then overclocks them prints a new model number on them and sells them for higher prices. Basically they're just using the same chip for a lot of their CPUs just throttling the speed on it to charge you more/less.

--Mark

...oh right, because EVERY intel chip is different....

Wow, I'm sure intel had to do extensive research to bring the core speed up from 2.4 to 2.53...2.8 is unspeakable :roll: