we should ban intel CPU

[0roo0roo]

<--refuses to buy intel now

remember paying over 600 for my p2 400 when it was tops.. dare i say 800, but i can't rememeber clearly.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Phocas
I motion for a OP BAN!

Seconded.

- M4H

 

[Vic]

I think we should ban jjyiz28 (the OP) and I haven't bought an Intel cpu in at least 3 years!

edit: thirded

 

[BatmanNate]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo <---- Uses the money he saves to buy extra vaseline.


<--refuses to buy intel now

remember paying over 600 for my p2 400 when it was tops

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Phocas
I motion for a OP BAN!

*CONFIRMED*

 

[jjyiz28]

whats a OP ban??


i agree with you guys that said OEM is key. i think HP is selling AMD systems.

batmannate: "So let me get this straight...we ban Intel, there is no competition for AMD, and we're back to paying 5 large for a CPU? You genius, you. "

nathan, you are an idiot. you overvalue anandtech. you think all computers uses are on AT, and if all of AT users ban intel, intel has no business. you are DUMB. again, another idiot that didn't read my post carefully

 

[OmarGustav]

ok

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: jjyiz28
more stupid drivel

Please stop posting. I can't get any work done while I'm too busy laughing at your lack of intelligence.

- M4H

 

[FoBoT]

we were an intel only shop until this year, we are buying 15,000 HP AMD Athlons instead for our annual refresh

just trying to help

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Anubis
the large comp distributors need to start selling AMD systems again gateway and Micron used tu but they stoppef for some reason. sure i can get a prebuilt AMD sys from Voodoo or Falcon NW but these cost more then my car the main stream chips are teh same prce AMDs usially being cheaper. why dont retailers sell them in thericomps?

HP has an Athlon business line , D325's (see my post above)

 

[BatmanNate]

Originally posted by: jjyiz28
whats a OP ban??


i agree with you guys that said OEM is key. i think HP is selling AMD systems.

batmannate: "So let me get this straight...we ban Intel, there is no competition for AMD, and we're back to paying 5 large for a CPU? You genius, you. "

nathan, you are an idiot. you overvalue anandtech. you think all computers uses are on AT, and if all of AT users ban intel, intel has no business. you are DUMB. again, another idiot that didn't read my post carefully

Incoherent English was never my stong suit, what exactly are you trying to say with your post? It sounds to me like you're just a brand whore who thinks no one serious about computers should buy Intel. If AMD made a processor that crunched MPEG4 as fast as a 3.3GHz P4c then I'd be all over it, but they don't. When the dual Athlon XP rig was the performance leader in this category, that's what I used. Now that the Pentium 4 has outpaced it by a substantial amount, that is what I use. You see, some of us buy the processor that is most suited for what we use our computers for instead of trying to promote the success of any one brand for reasons other than the merits of the product and its value toward our application. Pull your head out of your ass.

 

[Jmmsbnd007]

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: jjyiz28
whats a OP ban??


i agree with you guys that said OEM is key. i think HP is selling AMD systems.

batmannate: "So let me get this straight...we ban Intel, there is no competition for AMD, and we're back to paying 5 large for a CPU? You genius, you. "

nathan, you are an idiot. you overvalue anandtech. you think all computers uses are on AT, and if all of AT users ban intel, intel has no business. you are DUMB. again, another idiot that didn't read my post carefully

Incoherent English was never my stong suit, what exactly are you trying to say with your post? It sounds to me like you're just a brand whore who thinks no one serious about computers should buy Intel. If AMD made a processor that crunched MPEG4 as fast as a 3.3GHz P4c then I'd be all over it, but they don't. When the dual Athlon XP rig was the performance leader in this category, that's what I used. Now that the Pentium 4 has outpaced it by a substantial amount, that is what I use. You see, some of us buy the processor that is most suited for what we use our computers for instead of trying to promote the success of any one brand for reasons other than the merits of the product and its value toward our application. Pull your head out of your ass.

A64. Onboard memory controller.
I'm *still* waiting for some dumb@ss to try and say AMD cpus are less "reliable" and produce more heat (Prescott anyone?).

 

[BatmanNate]

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: jjyiz28
whats a OP ban??


i agree with you guys that said OEM is key. i think HP is selling AMD systems.

batmannate: "So let me get this straight...we ban Intel, there is no competition for AMD, and we're back to paying 5 large for a CPU? You genius, you. "

nathan, you are an idiot. you overvalue anandtech. you think all computers uses are on AT, and if all of AT users ban intel, intel has no business. you are DUMB. again, another idiot that didn't read my post carefully

Incoherent English was never my stong suit, what exactly are you trying to say with your post? It sounds to me like you're just a brand whore who thinks no one serious about computers should buy Intel. If AMD made a processor that crunched MPEG4 as fast as a 3.3GHz P4c then I'd be all over it, but they don't. When the dual Athlon XP rig was the performance leader in this category, that's what I used. Now that the Pentium 4 has outpaced it by a substantial amount, that is what I use. You see, some of us buy the processor that is most suited for what we use our computers for instead of trying to promote the success of any one brand for reasons other than the merits of the product and its value toward our application. Pull your head out of your ass.

A64. Onboard memory controller.
I'm *still* waiting for some dumb@ss to try and say AMD cpus are less "reliable" and produce more heat (Prescott anyone?).

I'm aware that the A64 has an onboard memory controller, but it still crunches DiVX slower than the P4 in every bench I've seen.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: BatmanNate
You see, some of us buy the processor that is most suited for what we use our computers for instead of trying to promote the success of any one brand for reasons other than the merits of the product and its value toward our application.

good idea -> Use the right tool for the right job!

the pc's we buy/use just run one proprietary in-house program, so speed/hyperthreading/SSE , all that stuff isn't an issue, any new box/cpu runs it super fine, so we want CHEAP! the AMD's are cheaper and faster than the cheapest Celery/Celeron

we use trailing edge technology

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo <---- Uses the money he saves to buy extra vaseline.


<--refuses to buy intel now

remember paying over 600 for my p2 400 when it was tops

u fail a test today? or are you just depressed that your life sucks or something.

 

[Jmmsbnd007]

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: jjyiz28
whats a OP ban??


i agree with you guys that said OEM is key. i think HP is selling AMD systems.

batmannate: "So let me get this straight...we ban Intel, there is no competition for AMD, and we're back to paying 5 large for a CPU? You genius, you. "

nathan, you are an idiot. you overvalue anandtech. you think all computers uses are on AT, and if all of AT users ban intel, intel has no business. you are DUMB. again, another idiot that didn't read my post carefully

Incoherent English was never my stong suit, what exactly are you trying to say with your post? It sounds to me like you're just a brand whore who thinks no one serious about computers should buy Intel. If AMD made a processor that crunched MPEG4 as fast as a 3.3GHz P4c then I'd be all over it, but they don't. When the dual Athlon XP rig was the performance leader in this category, that's what I used. Now that the Pentium 4 has outpaced it by a substantial amount, that is what I use. You see, some of us buy the processor that is most suited for what we use our computers for instead of trying to promote the success of any one brand for reasons other than the merits of the product and its value toward our application. Pull your head out of your ass.

A64. Onboard memory controller.
I'm *still* waiting for some dumb@ss to try and say AMD cpus are less "reliable" and produce more heat (Prescott anyone?).

I'm aware that the A64 has an onboard memory controller, but it still crunches DiVX slower than the P4 in every bench I've seen.

Kyle Bannit may be a sh!tface, but his reviews aren't too bad accuracy wise.

We're seeing much different results here than we did with our MP3 conversion. Both flavors of the Athlon64 CPUs clearly lead the category over the Pentium 4s. The AthlonFX finished approximately 9 minutes faster than the P4, and if you're ripping a lot of movies back-to-back this could certainly make a difference.

What's probably most noteworthy about this graph is not the fact that the Athlon64s outpaced the P4, but that the AthlonXP 3200+ got outpaced as well by the Athlon64 3200+. Also consider that the P4 and the P4EE came in at a dead tie, which suggests that the extra CPU cache is not a factor in this benchmark. If cache is not a factor here, then it would make sense that pipeline enhancements made to the new K8 core certainly did impact instructions per clock as can be seen when comparing the two 3200+ rated CPUs side by side.

 

[BatmanNate]

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: jjyiz28
whats a OP ban??


i agree with you guys that said OEM is key. i think HP is selling AMD systems.

batmannate: "So let me get this straight...we ban Intel, there is no competition for AMD, and we're back to paying 5 large for a CPU? You genius, you. "

nathan, you are an idiot. you overvalue anandtech. you think all computers uses are on AT, and if all of AT users ban intel, intel has no business. you are DUMB. again, another idiot that didn't read my post carefully

Incoherent English was never my stong suit, what exactly are you trying to say with your post? It sounds to me like you're just a brand whore who thinks no one serious about computers should buy Intel. If AMD made a processor that crunched MPEG4 as fast as a 3.3GHz P4c then I'd be all over it, but they don't. When the dual Athlon XP rig was the performance leader in this category, that's what I used. Now that the Pentium 4 has outpaced it by a substantial amount, that is what I use. You see, some of us buy the processor that is most suited for what we use our computers for instead of trying to promote the success of any one brand for reasons other than the merits of the product and its value toward our application. Pull your head out of your ass.

A64. Onboard memory controller.
I'm *still* waiting for some dumb@ss to try and say AMD cpus are less "reliable" and produce more heat (Prescott anyone?).

I'm aware that the A64 has an onboard memory controller, but it still crunches DiVX slower than the P4 in every bench I've seen.

Kyle Bannit may be a sh!tface, but his reviews aren't too bad accuracy wise.

We're seeing much different results here than we did with our MP3 conversion. Both flavors of the Athlon64 CPUs clearly lead the category over the Pentium 4s. The AthlonFX finished approximately 9 minutes faster than the P4, and if you're ripping a lot of movies back-to-back this could certainly make a difference.

What's probably most noteworthy about this graph is not the fact that the Athlon64s outpaced the P4, but that the AthlonXP 3200+ got outpaced as well by the Athlon64 3200+. Also consider that the P4 and the P4EE came in at a dead tie, which suggests that the extra CPU cache is not a factor in this benchmark. If cache is not a factor here, then it would make sense that pipeline enhancements made to the new K8 core certainly did impact instructions per clock as can be seen when comparing the two 3200+ rated CPUs side by side.

Anand seems to disagree.

DivX Encoding
We have been using a DivX encoding test as a part of our CPU benchmarking suite for quite some time now, however the performance test has never been truly realistic as it wasn't geared towards producing a high quality DivX rip - rather it was designed to stress CPU performance.

We have since revised our benchmark and now follow the DivX 5 encoding guide published at Doom9.net. For our test title we use Chapter 9 from The Sum of All Fears DVD. We conduct a 2-pass encoding process and report the encoded FPS from both passes averaged together. The results are lower than our previous Xmpeg tests, however they are much more applicable to real-world usage.



Intel continues to do extremely well under content creation applications such as DivX encoding; the clear leader here is still Intel.


This is important to me as I crunch DiVX in a nearly identical manner as Doom9's guide. Kyle's test wasn't very realistic as far as how people actually encode a DiVX movie if they are at all quality minded.

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

good idea -> Use the right tool for the right job!

the pc's we buy/use just run one proprietary in-house program, so speed/hyperthreading/SSE , all that stuff isn't an issue, any new box/cpu runs it super fine, so we want CHEAP! the AMD's are cheaper and faster than the cheapest Celery/Celeron

we use trailing edge technology

Hey, can I use that for my signature?

 

[jjyiz28]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
we were an intel only shop until this year, we are buying 15,000 HP AMD Athlons instead for our annual refresh

just trying to help

attaboy, good man.

 

[yllus]

It's a shame that being an innovative company that legitimately has won dominance in the marketplace through hard work is pissed upon by people who have absolutely no sense of how economics or markets work.

 

[BatmanNate]

Originally posted by: yllus
It's a shame that being an innovative company that legitimately has won dominance in the marketplace through hard work is pissed upon by people who have absolutely no sense of how economics or markets work.

It seems to be the common trend among techie elitists to desire the downfall of successful companies. Look at all the Microsoft protesters on this forum, and the Intel haters. I do not know if it is just an extreme leftist political desire to balance everything or merely common jealousy of success that breeds it, but it's cool to hate whoever is on top for no other reason than that they're number one.

 

[Zugzwang152]

 

[MAME]

anyone who says AMD isn't as good as Intel is biased. They are both just as stable. The only thing AMD is better than Intel is the price/performance ratio. That includes the 64 and p4 3.2 .Otherwise it's pretty much the same thing. (of course chipsets aren't so simple).

 

[jjyiz28]

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: yllus
It's a shame that being an innovative company that legitimately has won dominance in the marketplace through hard work is pissed upon by people who have absolutely no sense of how economics or markets work.

It seems to be the common trend among techie elitists to desire the downfall of successful companies. Look at all the Microsoft protesters on this forum, and the Intel haters. I do not know if it is just an extreme leftist political desire to balance everything or merely common jealousy of success that breeds it, but it's cool to hate whoever is on top for no other reason than that they're number one.

let me make this simple for you.

those "haters" hate monopolies. monopolies means higher costs, therefore they favor the underdog.

 

[BatmanNate]

Originally posted by: jjyiz28

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: yllus
It's a shame that being an innovative company that legitimately has won dominance in the marketplace through hard work is pissed upon by people who have absolutely no sense of how economics or markets work.

It seems to be the common trend among techie elitists to desire the downfall of successful companies. Look at all the Microsoft protesters on this forum, and the Intel haters. I do not know if it is just an extreme leftist political desire to balance everything or merely common jealousy of success that breeds it, but it's cool to hate whoever is on top for no other reason than that they're number one.

let me make this simple for you.

those "haters" hate monopolies. monopolies means higher costs, therefore they favor the underdog.

Please tell me how Intel has a monopoly on the CPU market? They are a succesful company, but by no means do they prevent other companies from entering the business by maintaining any sort of strangehold on key resources or channels. Look at AMD, Motorola, IBM, VIA, SUN, etc. Do you think that because a company is good at what they do and gain market share through hard work that they ought be regulated out of existance? What motivation should any company then have to succeed? Your ineptitude at business rivals your punctuation in your ridiculous posts. Troll elsewhere.