AMD or INTEL..

[The Godfather]

1) If you want to see who I'm talking about visit my post at General Hardware with the name Dual 2.5Ghz G5..
2) this person also argued that there isn't much difference between the AMD and the Intel processors
3) i explained the whole process and why the amd is much better
4) he thinks intel is better because of MORE GHZ
5) i told him that an AMD 2.0ghz is equal to a 3.0 Intel
6) he said no
7) i explained the whole ELECTRON PROCESS
8) still doesnt believe me
9) guide him in the right path
10) thanks

 

[Tarrant64]

in before lock

 

[The Godfather]

No offence my friend..

 

[Tarrant64]

It's cool. I was just messin'. But yeah, i get your point. I was just hopin' when i popped in here it was gonna be another AMD vs Intel thread to add to the other 1.5billion of them. If he hasn't found any links to answer his question yet on these forums, he doesn't deserve to even be here. There are 'too' many threads on it.

I feel your pain.

 

[KoolDrew]

First of all a 2.0 GHz AMD is NOT equal to 3.0GHz Intel. Take a 3000+ Sempron for example that runs @ 2GHz then compare it to a 3200+ @2GHz. The Athlon 64 3200+ Winchester would perform much better. It also depends on the application being used when comparing AMD and Intel, but AMD CPU's can perform more instructions per clock. You should never judge actual CPU speed by GHz. Also AMD CPU;s perform much better in gaming. AMD CPU's also give you more performance for what you pay. The only reason to go Intel is if you are doing high end video editing where the extra cost will not be an issue and Intel CPU's perform better in this area.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Point him to the CPU tab at the top of the page. Articles with lots and lots of easy to read charts! So pretty!

 

[The Godfather]

I know, im saying comparing a AMD 64bit 2.0ghz against the Intel x86 64 bit... it will take 3.0 at least to get to the amd machine.

 

[amol]

GHz does not equal Performance

he has succumb to the MHz Myth

hard not to find anyone who hasn't

 

[fishmonger12]

but 3 is bigger tahn teh 2 so intel is bettar.

if everyone just read some benchmarks, they would realise which processor is best for which applications.

edit: for all you dense people out there the first sentence is a joke :\

 

[Tarrant64]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
First of all a 2.0 GHz AMD is NOT equal to 3.0GHz Intel. Take a 3000+ Sempron for example that runs @ 2GHz then compare it to a 3200+ @2GHz. The Athlon 64 3200+ Winchester would perform much better. It also depends on the application being used when comparing AMD and Intel, but AMD CPU's can perform more instructions per clock. You should never judge actual CPU speed by GHz. Also AMD CPU;s perform much better in gaming. AMD CPU's also give you more performance for what you pay. The only reason to go Intel is if you are doing high end video editing where the extra cost will not be an issue and Intel CPU's perform better in this area.

Actually, a 2.0ghz AMD is better than an Intel 3ghz Intel. And comparing a Sempron with a A64 doesn't make sense when talking about AMD to Intel...
In such tests such as games, it's better than a 3.8ghz Intel.

 

[KoolDrew]

Actually, a 2.0ghz AMD is better than an Intel 3ghz Intel.

Not in everything.

And comparing a Sempron with a A64 doesn't make sense when talking about AMD to Intel...

What I was trying to point out was that even AMD CPU's at the same GHz rating perform different. So you can't just say a AMD CPU at 2.0GHz performs lie something else because a Sempron would perform much worse at the same speed.

 

[The Godfather]

GHz does not equal Performance

WHat??? Yes it does... WHy do you think amd needs less ghz to perform the same even better? it uses a 1 way transfer rate of electrons, where the intel uses a two-way... in other words it needs more power to transfer the electrons while amd does not.... (Who knows maybe im wrong, you guys are all engineers)

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: The Godfather
GHz does not equal Performance

WHat??? Yes it does... WHy do you think amd needs less ghz to perform the same even better? it uses a 1 way transfer rate of electrons, where the intel uses a two-way... in other words it needs more power to transfer the electrons while amd does not.... (Who knows maybe im wrong, you guys are all engineers)

No, it's that the AMD uses faster electrons.

 

[KoolDrew]

(Who knows maybe im wrong, you guys are all engineers)

We all are not engineers. In fact I am a 15 year old sophmore in high school.

 

[The Godfather]

Ok.. there are MANY engineers, if not anandtech wont be one of the best forum sites for help. Anyway, you have to be a genius dude... probably pcs are your thing.. im 15 and im in advanced algebra

 

[Tarrant64]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Actually, a 2.0ghz AMD is better than an Intel 3ghz Intel.

Not in everything.

And comparing a Sempron with a A64 doesn't make sense when talking about AMD to Intel...

What I was trying to point out was that even AMD CPU's at the same GHz rating perform different. So you can't just say a AMD CPU at 2.0GHz performs lie something else because a Sempron would perform much worse at the same speed.

Well, i didn't mean in everything. I should have clarified that. But for overall usage and gaming, AMD can't be beat. It's been literally proven. However for video editing and what not Intel is doing very well in holding it's own.

 

[thirdlegstump]

Intel runs Windoze while AMD runs better OS. AMD is better.

 

[Tarrant64]

Originally posted by: The Godfather
Ok.. there are MANY engineers, if not anandtech wont be one of the best forum sites for help. Anyway, you have to be a genius dude... probably pcs are your thing.. im 15 and im in advanced algebra

 

[The Godfather]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Intel runs Windoze while AMD runs better OS. AMD is better.

AMD DOES NOT RUN ON OS.... ONLY WINDOWS, LINUX, UNIX etc. Not the OS X or anything appleish

 

[KoolDrew]

Ok.. there are MANY engineers, if not anandtech wont be one of the best forum sites for help. Anyway, you have to be a genius dude... probably pcs are your thing.. im 15 and im in advanced algebra

Yes PC's are my hobby.

Well, i didn't mean in everything. I should have clarified that. But for overall usage and gaming, AMD can't be beat. It's been literally proven. However for video editing and what not Intel is doing very well in holding it's own.

Yes you are correct. Another major point is AMD is generally cheaper. That is why I only see a point in going Intel if you are doing some high end video editing.

AMD DOES NOT RUN ON OS.... ONLY WINDOWS, LINUX, UNIX etc. Not the OS X or anything appleish

He was joking (Hopefully)

 

[The Godfather]

Haha hope so.

 

[blackinches]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Intel runs Windoze while AMD runs better OS. AMD is better.

blackinches would like to know what that means.

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: blackinches

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Intel runs Windoze while AMD runs better OS. AMD is better.

blackinches would like to know what that means.

KoolDrew thinks you need to stop talking in third person.

 

[GnomeCop]

KoolDrew doesnt know WTF he's saying.

 

[blackinches]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Originally posted by: blackinches

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Intel runs Windoze while AMD runs better OS. AMD is better.

blackinches would like to know what that means.

KoolDrew thinks you need to stop talking in third person.

why so bitter?