Originally posted by: firstep
Interesting. As to the peformance competition, I think Intel and AMD teams are better candidates to argue which one is "superior", and some 3rd-party academia or industry instituition can be the referee. And I'm not an Intel advocate. But, I don't think you can just say AMD is far superior to Intel. I think it's safe to state that neither AMD nor Intel CPU can beat the other in every benchmark. Super-pi is just a popular benchmark. Assuming what you say is right, this benmark is more friendly to Intel. But can I say those benchmark with which AMD does better are more friendly to AMD? What's wrong with "more friendly"?
I'm not building a system, I'm not tuning up the performance. So super-pi just serves as a good enough estimation. I think for the first-order approximation, memory latency can be ignored here as long as the major factors such as DDR 400 or DDR2 533 are determined. Of course you can argue there are more parameters and brand does matter. To me, I just need a rough estimation. So I don't care.
I see you have some AMD system that you are proud of. However, does it really meet your real requirements, or it just get some high scores in 3DMark and you feel satisfied? To measure whether a system really meets personal use, probably you need some log software to record your personalized actions. Then you analyze it and get the conclusion whether a prospective system meets what you need. But I don't think PC users have intention to do that.
Ok first off the fact of the matter is, that in reality right now AMD offers a much better desktop solution and that is a given.
Better bang for buck or price performance ratio.
Produces less heat under load and idle operation
Doesn?t throttle
Literally holds the performance crown
HT well that is now moot, since both AMD and Intel are in the SMP era
?Just rolled off the top of my head?
And so on, I am not bias before you try and make this distinction. I run an AMD setup like most on this forum, not because I am a fanboy loyalist but because for my limited home use/needs, it suits my profile. Not to mention Intel doesn?t bring anything to the table with its current netburst processors which shouldn't interest anybody (except if your only upgrading the processor on your current setup). FYI I have just bought my second DELL laptop, which is a Yonah Core Duo laptop, and previous to that was a Dothan variant, and I am also awaiting on the new Conroe when it is released later this year, as a possible upgrade solution. I make educated decisions on what I purchase, so to make sure it fore fills my needs. My sig computer is just purely my enthusiast computer So don?t try and brand me. I use a range of computers that satisfy my every need (work and home related).
Also my reference to more friendly, wasn?t that the Super PI coders purpose built this to be bias for Intel, but infact it just ended up this way, as the program exploited an Intel processors more so than an AMD. And my main focus was that this has no relevance to real world performance, which is what each end user seeks right? For example if you analysed data from a range of processors tested by Super PI, could you then conclude a definitive winner from you results? I should hope not, and yes the argument is true for AMD also on a vice versa basis. But in reality AMD is in fact better, even in your scenario. Please do some research
To measure whether a system really meets personal use, probably you need some log software to record your personalized actions. Then you analyze it and get the conclusion whether a prospective system meets what you need. But I don't think PC users have intention to do that.
^^ Not really, for a single user, if you find out what their specific needs are (keeping in mind a PC is just a tool for a job), you can then ascertain there requirements quite quickly and work off a cost basis, and tailor a system so forth. Of course this is different in a corporate situation, in my job I have had the opportunity to work within an integration team, whom are responsible for designing complete system network infrastructures, and designing/working off custom ?life cycles? for given projects/rollouts (which have been designed around a business need), this can be tremendous work, but this is on the flip side from your situation which is quite simple.
Please be aware I am not stating AMD is superior as a company (which is evident if you read what I have previously said), in fact my opinion was aimed at the desktop market, in which AMD currently dominates. You must have been living under a rock if you haven?t realised this over the last year or so! Desktops aside, I would personally say that Intel have a firm grasp on the laptop (Mobile market), and as a result I have two laptops (well soon to be two) which has Intel hardware incorporated (processor, chipset, wireless), and at a good price.
Facebook
Twitter