FelixDeCat
Lifer
- Aug 4, 2000
- 31,034
- 2,688
- 126
Um no. AMD processors cant handle extreme overclocking. They putter out. They crap out. They just - die.
Um no. AMD processors cant handle extreme overclocking. They putter out. They crap out. They just - die.
Wow, you are a moron. Only processor that ever had a consistant problem with deaths due to overclocking were the early northwoods. SNDS it was called.
It's a constant wonder to me that we (I) get sucked into posting about THE most over discussed subject in computerdom: AMD vs INTEL. Without going into it, comes down to "I bought "this" and I'm not an idiot and you bought "that" so you must be an idiot"...But, I wouldn't want to deprive anyone of a flame opportunity or an emotional outburst...Soooo, go ahead, I did!!
AMD all the way, just look at the new "emergency edition" cpu, it has no real-world performance gain whatsoever. Don't listen to a Troll like Felix, he even sold his "perfect cpu...." cuz it was crap.
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Marketing is a key factor, but you wouldnt market something that wouldnt fatten your bottom line. AMD is always "just surviving" because they sell on occasion, quality products. However, my experience has been, with two dead Athlons, one dead iwill mobo, is that they make crap. You cant market crap.
AMD, bless their puny little pathetic souls, is at least pouring everything into R&D and some quality control improvements. Perhaps this will bode well for them - someday.
whatever man......
2 dead Athlons? user error. I've personally never seen a CPU just die, it either dies cause the heatsink is not attached correctly, or the power supply/mobo die and take it with it. and I've built a few hundred machines in my days.
All I can say is AMD's CPU's are NO LESS in quality than Intel's, and in my opinion, they are even better. I have had ZERO problems with AMD, ever since I started using them with my T-Bird 900 (which I still have at work and runs perfectly), and while I haven't had really any major problems with Intel either, except for my 2.4B /EPoX mobo junk system, they charge too much for what you get from AMD for less money.
yes, i am going with an AMD Athlon 3400+ and a Asus K8V SE mobo because of the extremely dropping prices, and i think i will be happy with that.
The reason i'm not going with an Intel is the closest Intel processor to this CPU in gaming is a 3.2 EE, and those are ONLY $650 more...i wonder what's the better buy? And AMD has future 64 bit apps to look forward too...
The reason i'm not going with an Intel is the closest Intel processor to this CPU in gaming is a 3.2 EE, and those are ONLY $650 more...i wonder what's the better buy? And AMD has future 64 bit apps to look forward too...
I have no particular bias toward either brand, but I do like to tinker. I just picked up a 3.4EE to give it a try before I dump my Intel platform.
Regardless of the fanboys talk around here, it is also a performance beast. Windows seems to perform slightly smoother and snappier with the 3.4EE than my 2.4C@3.0. Games are smoother as well, but I ran no benchmarks. 3DMock01 comparison wen up about 3500 points. I ran a couple of Sandra benchies at 3875mhz:
Cpu
Integer 11339
Floating Point 4910/8574
Multimedia
Interger 29492
Floating Point 42228
As I have posted elsewhere in this forum, it sucks down the juice. The mosfet temps on my AI7 shot up from 36C to 76C(and still rising) when I tried to prime at default voltages. This is pretty scary. I have no A64 experience to compare the EE to. But I do believe that an A64 is probably the more sensible choice.
EE are decent chips and perform well for benches. But for games it's at best a tie and usually a loss for them to much more affordable A64 chips. If I could buy a 3.4ee (478) @ $200? I probably would buy it. At $900 (or whatever it is right now) it's an absolute joke.
There is no doubt that an EE or FX?? is not worth the money that is charged for one. Im not even sure I believe anything 939 to be worth the current $40 surcharge over 754. Upgradability is a non-issue to me as I rarely keep a setup more than a few months. The upgradability argument of 939 w/ an AGP slot is even less compelling with PCIe here now.
i respect Lithan on his views. unlike felix, lithan is open minded and at least backs up his statements and etc. Felix, on the other hand, just talks out of his ass.
FelixDeCat
Lifer
- Aug 4, 2000
- 31,034
- 2,688
- 126
FelixDeCat
Lifer
- Aug 4, 2000
- 31,034
- 2,688
- 126
FelixDeCat
Lifer
- Aug 4, 2000
- 31,034
- 2,688
- 126
And you are a jealous troll. What else is new? Oh yes, the Celeron D is new. I reccomend people check out the Celeron D.
FelixDeCat
Lifer
- Aug 4, 2000
- 31,034
- 2,688
- 126
I'm getting an intel this month, to sit beside my A64
I decided to wait until 939 matures before I go SLI.
I decided to wait until 939 matures before I go SLI.
Do me a favor: Show me some intelegent support to back up your claims. Maybe some benchmarks or claims by a respectable indavidual in computer hardware that isn't obviously biased towards intel. I'll even start this off. The front page of anandtech there are some benchmarks, as well as some reccomendations on the lesser processors that compete against eachother at given price ranges. It seems to sway the way of amd for the majority of tests (even though intel does have its' advantages). So my claim is that at the given pricepoint that anand pointed out in his comparison, amd is typically the better processor for the majority of users. I would appreciate it if you could attempt to logically prove me wrong through counter evidence.
-Note that this message was made possible by an overclocked amd processor running at ~3300+ that had cost me $55
(AXP 2500+ -> 3300+, prime95 stable)
Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
- May 16, 2002
- 27,282
- 16,122
- 136
You forget that Felix never backs up anything. If you are new here, ignore the troll.Originally posted by: Marsumane
Do me a favor: Show me some intelegent support to back up your claims. Maybe some benchmarks or claims by a respectable indavidual in computer hardware that isn't obviously biased towards intel. I'll even start this off. The front page of anandtech there are some benchmarks, as well as some reccomendations on the lesser processors that compete against eachother at given price ranges. It seems to sway the way of amd for the majority of tests (even though intel does have its' advantages). So my claim is that at the given pricepoint that anand pointed out in his comparison, amd is typically the better processor for the majority of users. I would appreciate it if you could attempt to logically prove me wrong through counter evidence.
-Note that this message was made possible by an overclocked amd processor running at ~3300+ that had cost me $55
Felix, you seem like the type of guy who'd argue any point just for the hell of it.
Lemme guess, a sharpened, pointy stick is a more powerful weapon than an AK-47 Assault Rifle?
Word up.
Lemme guess, a sharpened, pointy stick is a more powerful weapon than an AK-47 Assault Rifle?
Word up.
FelixDeCat
Lifer
- Aug 4, 2000
- 31,034
- 2,688
- 126
Look newbcheese, if you listen to that jealous troll markfw900 thats your problem. I have posted benchmarks and can attest to AMDs (that number two chip maker) crappiness. So please, dont be influenced. Markfw900 is so jealous of me he lies and just makes stuff up whenever he turns green with envy about me and my setup. I guess Id feel bad too if had had an inopertron.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter