Is it just me or is Intel just stupid?

[alfa147x]

Originally posted by: t3h l337 n3wb

Originally posted by: alfa147x

Originally posted by: Sonikku
Not necessarily. A techie that I know informed me that his Intel Pentium 4 was faster then my Athlon 64 3500+ Venice because the Intel was running at a whopping 3 ghz vs the 2.2 of my chip.

Ugh...

agree as you see here Text

the intel chip whopps a$$

...

You have to factor in many other things besides just performance you know... AMD CPUs are cheaper than Intel CPUs that offer the same performance. Also, Intel's inefficient and retarded Netburst architecture leaves it with an enormous amount of energy consumption and heat generation. This also makes AMD CPUs a lot more overclockable. Next time, don't just go blowing off how something kicks ass until you actually know some stuff.

dude, i was looking at the fact that amd's top cpu STOCk was doing worse then INTELS STOCK chip, overclocking cant be taken in to consideration, due to the fact that over all AMDs are HOTTER cpu's then Intel. Thats why My dads notebook is cooler than my moms (almost same specs, except my dads he has a faster GPU)

 

[t3h l337 n3wb]

Wtf...

Overall, AMD CPUs are hotter than Intels?! The only cool-running chip Intel has is the Pentium M, and that's their only great product ever since Netburst was introduced. Athlon 64s are far cooler than Pentium 4s. And what's this about STOCK AMD CPUs doing worse than the STOCK Intel CPUs. Read the article again, and this time look at ALL THE BENCHMARKS. Your fanboy bull$hit isn't contributing anything to this topic.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: alfa147x

Originally posted by: Sonikku
Not necessarily. A techie that I know informed me that his Intel Pentium 4 was faster then my Athlon 64 3500+ Venice because the Intel was running at a whopping 3 ghz vs the 2.2 of my chip.

Ugh...

agree as you see here Text

the intel chip whopps a$$

ALSO here Text

here too

Text

maybe not here

Text

But here

Text

still in there

Text


Case closed

Neither of the cpu's Sonikku metioned are refrenced an any benchmark you provided. Where is the relevancy?

Also the cpu's in these benchmarks are all dual core, with the exception of the fx-57. Comparing amd and intel dual core using PR numbers is screwy, as the AMD PR is usually a close comparison to Intel single core chips (even if they say it's derived differently).

The point of the post you quoted was that most people are easily swayed my marketing. The only thing that a 3.0 P4 beats a 3500+ Venice in is possibly media encoding, as that is one of the strong point's of the netburst design.

Originally posted by: alfa147x
dude, i was looking at the fact that amd's top cpu STOCk was doing worse then INTELS STOCK chip, overclocking cant be taken in to consideration, due to the fact that over all AMDs are HOTTER cpu's then Intel. Thats why My dads notebook is cooler than my moms (almost same specs, except my dads he has a faster GPU)

Two things:

1. If that p4 is a 3.0C, it should overclock nicely just as the athlon should.

2. In the current generation of desktop processors, the Athlons are running quite a bit cooler than the p4's something even intel is willing to admit. On the mobile front however, Intel chips (P-m) are cooler which is the reason Intel is dropping the netburst architecture and introducing Conroe on the desktop, but Turion doesn't consume too much power either.

 

[Confusednewbie1552]

Go ahead and laugh, but I like some of IBM's laptops 😱

 

[CalvinHobbs]

Originally posted by: Confusednewbie1552
Go ahead and laugh, but I like some of IBM's laptops 😱

:laugh:

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: calvinHobbs

Originally posted by: Confusednewbie1552
Go ahead and laugh, but I like some of IBM's laptops 😱

:laugh:

Don't disparage IBM (Lenovo) laptops.

 

[Sonikku]

Originally posted by: alfa147x

Originally posted by: Sonikku
Not necessarily. A techie that I know informed me that his Intel Pentium 4 was faster then my Athlon 64 3500+ Venice because the Intel was running at a whopping 3 ghz vs the 2.2 of my chip.

Ugh...

agree as you see here Text

the intel chip whopps a$$

ALSO here Text

here too

Text

maybe not here

Text

But here

Text

still in there

Text




Case closed

I'm sorry, but what do all those comparisons have to do with claims of an aging Pentium 4 at 3ghz being faster then a 3500+ Venice at 2.2 ghz in games?

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: t3h l337 n3wb
Wtf...

Overall, AMD CPUs are hotter than Intels?! The only cool-running chip Intel has is the Pentium M, and that's their only great product ever since Netburst was introduced. Athlon 64s are far cooler than Pentium 4s. And what's this about STOCK AMD CPUs doing worse than the STOCK Intel CPUs. Read the article again, and this time look at ALL THE BENCHMARKS. Your fanboy bull$hit isn't contributing anything to this topic.

Ur right about Amd cpu's being overall better than intels now, but i would not say that all p4's sucked, lets go back where it was p4c vs athlon xp and compare which one was faster cooler etc. Problem is that intel has been riding a dead donkey (Netburst) after introducing the prescot.

Oh and i got no idea what that guy was on about before, about amd's being hotter wtf???
Might be the steriotype of Athlons still around. 😛

 

[3chordcharlie]

Too bad about the intel, something like OSX on an X2/Opteron platform would have been an awesome option for frustrated PC users. But Apple is so controlling over hardware, and intel is still 6 months to a year from catching AMD in the desktop space. (I'm assuming yonah will be truly competitive, especially in 64-bit performance, once it hits mainstream).