Originally posted by: Duvie
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: myocardia
You know, there are obviously fanboys of both camps around here. What I don't understand is why those of you who are on the Intel side don't love the sh*t out of AMD. Haven't any of you been using computers long enough to remember when the fastest Intel chip went for over $1,000 and six months later, when they finally produced one faster, the the now-next-fastest cpu barely went down in price at all. Intel's slowest processor available at the time (they're obviously all too slow to use for anything buy keychains now) was ~2/3 the price of the fastest, because Intel owned the market. It stayed that way until AMD finally came out with the original Athlon. A 500 mhz Athlon would wipe the floor with a 600+mhz PIII in everything, including media encoding, so Intel had to start dropping their prices slightly. It took the Barton first, then finally the A64 to come out, before Intel's chip's finally became reasonable priced on a price/performance scale. Anyway, I can guarantee every one of you that if AMD went out of business tomorrow, as soon as the stocks of AMD chips were all sold, the prices you would have to pay for ANY Intel chip, including a Celeron would double, if not triple. So actually, these AMD fanboys are doing you a favor by buying AMD's chips. They're keeping them in business, and you can still buy whatever chip you wish to buy, even if that's a ~$1,000 3.4EE. And before you respond to this AMD fanboy's post, look at a little of the advice I give to people who are considering a whole new system. I'm thinking I recommend P4 more than anything else, if the person's need fit a P4.
well said. I have no idea why they buy Intel still after taking it up the coolo so long. Also, It just bleeds stupidity to spend more money for same performance. IMO. I mean a watch, car or anything with a touch/feel/sense of style/ I can understand but chip? I don't get it. We buy memory based on price/performance alone why not processors and video cards. Oh well.
I don't spend too much...I buy a low super overclocker and jack it up...So in the long run I am saving casholla.....Find me a Barton chip (at the time I bought my 2.4c was the best out) that would have for the cost at the time equalled this 3.5ghz oc'd ofcouse....Try hard!! I don't game and I had a 2500+@3200+ right along side of it and it got its ASS_HANDED to it.....NOt even close even when I ran it at 2.3ghz with 1.7v....In the apps I run my 2.4ghz stock was faster in some of the apps versus the 2500+@3200+......
If I didn't OC I would agree I would likely would buy amd chips in the recent past....Hence why I did for my family and friends....
I bought the best out there at the time....
I am not a fanboy....I buy, recoomend and built AMD systems for 4 family members and 2 friends in the last 8 months, purchased my workstation at work as an AMD...Only Intel system was my own and my centrino work laptop....
I am far less of a fanboy then most of you AMD users...I run both...I may buy an opteron for my startup company...I go for the best at the best price...
I find the AMD humor lame in this case only cause the implications that intel ripped off amd's 64bit is defamation. You magically intelligent 12-21 year olds who likely mommy and daddy gave you the cash to buy your pc seem to think a processor is desgned in 1year or less...News flash!!! It takes years and only thing Intel will have of likeliness of the amd 64bit cpu is th code because they are being forced to by Microsoft who does not wish to write for another version of a cpu...seems reasonable.....No ripoff here and it is just the type of thing ppl not knowing all the specifics of buy hook line and sinker and spread about...The internet is by the way the best source of FUD and misinformation, many of which seems to originate from the likes of ppl here....
Facebook
Twitter