System Critique please

[Goi]

Me? AMD fanboy? FYI I've only had this A64 here that I'm currently typing on for less than a week. Every single CPU that exists in the main system I use has been an intel one since the 386. Does that make me look like an AMD fanboy?

The P4 isn't miles inferior to A64s. I never said that. I didn't even suggest that. I just implied that they are slower. Read carefully next time.

Generalizations are there because in general, that's the case. Look at the majority of gaming benchmarks out there for example, and tell me that an an equivalently rated A64 isn't beating a P4 consistently. Of course there will be exceptions, but that's what they are - exceptions, not the rule.

 

[IanE]

I'd recommend the Athlon 64 as well... but the Tsunami Dream, excellent choice. I wish I had one.

 

[pookie69]

Originally posted by: Goi
Me? AMD fanboy? FYI I've only had this A64 here that I'm currently typing on for less than a week. Every single CPU that exists in the main system I use has been an intel one since the 386. Does that make me look like an AMD fanboy?

The P4 isn't miles inferior to A64s. I never said that. I didn't even suggest that. I just implied that they are slower. Read carefully next time.

Generalizations are there because in general, that's the case. Look at the majority of gaming benchmarks out there for example, and tell me that an an equivalently rated A64 isn't beating a P4 consistently. Of course there will be exceptions, but that's what they are - exceptions, not the rule.

Apologies mate - not singling you out in particular - just generalising

Just that i've read about quite a few threads/posts today, and i'm hearing so many ppl saying the same thing over and over again, which basically amounts to "A64s are great, P4s suck" and i was just getting a lil miffed. There does appear to be a definite AMD fanboy-ish-ness here at AT forums at the moment.

Anyways, hope your new A64 works out well for you :thumbsup:

 

[pookie69]

Originally posted by: IanE
I'd recommend the Athlon 64 as well... but the Tsunami Dream, excellent choice. I wish I had one.

So do i. Sexy sexy case.

 

[Goi]

Originally posted by: pookie69

Originally posted by: Goi
Me? AMD fanboy? FYI I've only had this A64 here that I'm currently typing on for less than a week. Every single CPU that exists in the main system I use has been an intel one since the 386. Does that make me look like an AMD fanboy?

The P4 isn't miles inferior to A64s. I never said that. I didn't even suggest that. I just implied that they are slower. Read carefully next time.

Generalizations are there because in general, that's the case. Look at the majority of gaming benchmarks out there for example, and tell me that an an equivalently rated A64 isn't beating a P4 consistently. Of course there will be exceptions, but that's what they are - exceptions, not the rule.

Apologies mate - not singling you out in particular - just generalising

Just that i've read about quite a few threads/posts today, and i'm hearing so many ppl saying the same thing over and over again, which basically amounts to "A64s are great, P4s suck" and i was just getting a lil miffed. There does appear to be a definite AMD fanboy-ish-ness here at AT forums at the moment.

Anyways, hope your new A64 works out well for you :thumbsup:

Well, it might look that way, coz so many people are chiming in that A64s are faster in general than their equivalent P4s, but that's coz that's true in most cases. For some applications though, I'd still recommend a P4 system.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: pookie69

also one cannot simple say "but for games an A64 is better" because although in general that may be true, firstly the difference is not as great as some ppl make out, and secondly is a generalisation and not the case everytime.

A64 is faster for gaming. I do agree with you that the difference in gaming is somewhat exaggerated since it is the videocard that is by far the most important component, especially once you start enabling AA/AF and high rez, at which point cpu difference has all but minute effect on performance.

Now, the funny part is, XP was much slower than P4 back in the days and a 2.4 C 800 HT would often beat XP2800+ in gaming benchmarks, and many AMD lovers never wanted to admit that fact saying that 2500+ is actually faster than 2.4C at gaming :laugh: But the difference between P4 and A64 in gaming is actually much less than between XP and P4 back in the days, yet no one was screaming that XP was slow back then....Of course it's price was well below $100 when P4s were up in $200s -- I guess that would explain it.

There is no doubt about it, that a 2.8 or 3.0C processor overclocked to 3.6ghz+ is a fast rig. Still amd's forward looking 64-bit support, and faster office apps performance also give it a slight nod towards a recommendation in the eyes of many -- so it is not just about gaming.

 

[Yanagi]

My McDonalds analogy doesnt state AMD is SUPERIOR to P4. It explains why a slower clocked AMD cpu is just as fast as a faster clocked INTEL cpu. Now, AMD CPUs are a tad faster than intel cpus in most cases, except for socket 754 which lack the lead in encoding. But this is the way it is. In some time intel will have the lead again, maybe not next month or the month after. But they might have a lead throughout 2005. and then AMD strieks back in 2006.

Also, many people praise the A64 because its innovating. Its a whole new core, while the Presscot is kind of like old tech to start with. It's still the P4 which was introduced,, 2000? Now, if Dothan would be released for Desktop at around 2.4GHz with 2MB cache and a 800MHZ fsb... Thats some interesting stuff. Add 64bit extensions and you'd have A LOT of recomendations towards the dothan core IMO.