What If................ (im not trying to start another flame war)

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: Intelfanboy
yeah i agree. but ill always stay intel.

tbh i wish i had both...do lots of encoding, and a intel hyper threading system would be much better at divxing than my a64 3200, while being cheaper than a dual cpu set up

but then my games would suffer lol, but i love gaming more, and can jus divx over night. i do also wish AMD had better multitasking ability. intel are much better at that

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
tbh i wish i had both...do lots of encoding, and a intel hyper threading system would be much better at divxing than my a64 3200, while being cheaper than a dual cpu set up

but then my games would suffer lol, but i love gaming more, and can jus divx over night. i do also wish AMD had better multitasking ability. intel are much better at that

Using Divx on and AMD is sillyness. Break out Xvid, you will see a huge increase in encoding speed, its also an all around better codec from what i've read/seen.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
tbh i wish i had both...do lots of encoding, and a intel hyper threading system would be much better at divxing than my a64 3200, while being cheaper than a dual cpu set up

but then my games would suffer lol, but i love gaming more, and can jus divx over night. i do also wish AMD had better multitasking ability. intel are much better at that

Using Divx on and AMD is sillyness. Break out Xvid, you will see a huge increase in encoding speed, its also an all around better codec from what i've read/seen.

really? nice, are the file sizes about the same?

i use divx as, well ive paid for DrDivx coz im too lazy to learn gordian knot, and my Kiss DP-1000 DVD player is DivX Home cinema certified and i do enjoy watching the entire matrix trilogy off one disc

can typically fit 4-5 movies on 1 4.7Gb DVD-R

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

the codecs are VERY similar, if you get really good and learn to fully use gordian knot and xvid settings you can achieve better pictures and size. you can try autoGK if your lazy

but yes, Divx is P4 optimized, Xvid is open source and optimized for AMDs, and even on P4s from what i've seen its faster than Dvix.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

cheers dude

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: clarkey01
otispunkmeyer you dont make sence ?

Believe it or not, a 3 Ghz AMD part (athlon 64) WOULD MONSTER A 3GHZ Penitum 4. Why ? in the short the athlon 64 has a higher IPC.

sorry lol im always clumsy with putting my point across, basically i have been trying to say what u said there

amd do more work per mhz, and beat intel hands down in games. i just never heard of the IPC bit

 

[clarkey01]

Instructions Per Clock, no worries mate.

 

[Mik3y]

if amd had a 3.0ghz cpu, that would KILL intel's cpu. instead of asking, "why does amd have a slower frequency then intel and is still able to compete?", the question should be, "why does intel have a higher clockspeed and is still slower then amd's cpu's." this way, it should be understood that frequency isnt everything. this isnt just an amd vs intel topic, it's a pentium 4 vs pentium M argument as well. the pentium M will eventually replace the P4 in hte future because of its vast potential. why is it that a pentium M at 2.5ghz kills the P4 3.6ghz in most applications?

 

[Mik3y]

intelfanboy, your argument is based on pure intel biasness and no real support for your argument. you should note that 3.0ghz for an amd cpu is FAR faster then a 3.0ghz P4 system. if a game requires a 3.0ghz cpu, they are referring to intel. an athlon 64 at 1.8ghz newcastle will destroy the P4 in gaming. also, tho i'm an amd fan, i'm not hardcore. i like intel a lot too. i try to base my arguments on facts, not opinions.

 

[hondAS2ooo170]

also thats y they post it on game boxes the requrement for anything simmillar to intel because they know if it was an amd requirement intel wont be able to play that game.

 

[imported_Intelfanboy]

i dont necisarlly think that a 1.8ghz ams would destroy a p4 at 3.

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: Intelfanboy
what if someday a game requires a 3.0GHz cpu and AMD doesent have any. well i was thinking of this when i was on my way up to my lakehouse. would all the amd users be screwd? please dont Flame this thread into WWIII.

Either you're serious, and need some careful enlightening. ... - Or ... You're an AMD fanboy in disguise, looking for some fun. I'm sort of leaning towards the later

Just to humor you, why would a game care about clockrate?

 

[clarkey01]

well, not destory, but id say 60% of the time it would win. In Doom III it comes within 2 FPS of a 3.4 EE. Says alot.

But you allowed to think what you want. What I say is not gosble.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: Intelfanboy
i dont necisarlly think that a 1.8ghz ams would destroy a p4 at 3.

a64 newcastle 1.8ghz is a 3000+. it performs better hten a p4 3.2ghz on gaming and is still a faster cpu in general. since your initial post was comparing a 3.0ghz amd to a 3.0ghz intel, that itself explains to all of us that you dont understand how cpu's work. in this case, you "thinking" that a 1.8ghz amd isnt comparable to a P4 3.0ghz is total bull.

 

[Mik3y]

btw intel fanboy. what is currently intel's single most fastest consumer based processor (not including itanium)? i'll quiz you on that.

 

[clarkey01]

Itanium......Didnt see that coming did ya

 

[Hyperlite]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
look again

people are already pushing their FX-55's to over 3.0Ghz on air, theres no reason AMD cant make them and sell them at that speed either

the simple fact is they dont need to, they have no one to beat.

if a game requires a 3.0ghz AMD cpu, then intel with their current architecture would need over 4Ghz to keep up

exactly, that should end the discussion

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: clarkey01
Itanium......Didnt see that coming did ya

haha, i revised question. thanks for the reminder.

 

[clarkey01]

Lol no worries, X86 might be more clear.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: Mik3y
if amd had a 3.0ghz cpu, that would KILL intel's cpu. instead of asking, "why does amd have a slower frequency then intel and is still able to compete?", the question should be, "why does intel have a higher clockspeed and is still slower then amd's cpu's." this way, it should be understood that frequency isnt everything. this isnt just an amd vs intel topic, it's a pentium 4 vs pentium M argument as well. the pentium M will eventually replace the P4 in hte future because of its vast potential. why is it that a pentium M at 2.5ghz kills the P4 3.6ghz in most applications?

ah but to the average guy on the high street its much different. because of intels marketing for starters they're probably not gonna look at anything that hasnt got the intel badge even if it is a celeron. and in their world higher numbers mean more performance (ie more horsepower in a car means more performance) so the uneducated are gonna apply that higher/bigger is better model to the world of cpu's

then theyre gonna see 2.6ghz vs 3.8ghz and get signing the cheque for the intel system

 

[hondAS2ooo170]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: Mik3y
if amd had a 3.0ghz cpu, that would KILL intel's cpu. instead of asking, "why does amd have a slower frequency then intel and is still able to compete?", the question should be, "why does intel have a higher clockspeed and is still slower then amd's cpu's." this way, it should be understood that frequency isnt everything. this isnt just an amd vs intel topic, it's a pentium 4 vs pentium M argument as well. the pentium M will eventually replace the P4 in hte future because of its vast potential. why is it that a pentium M at 2.5ghz kills the P4 3.6ghz in most applications?

ah but to the average guy on the high street its much different. because of intels marketing for starters they're probably not gonna look at anything that hasnt got the intel badge even if it is a celeron. and in their world higher numbers mean more performance (ie more horsepower in a car means more performance) so the uneducated are gonna apply that higher/bigger is better model to the world of cpu's

then theyre gonna see 2.6ghz vs 3.8ghz and get signing the cheque for the intel system

sorry horse power on the car doesnt mean verymuch.

edit its about torque

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: hondAS2ooo170

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: Mik3y
if amd had a 3.0ghz cpu, that would KILL intel's cpu. instead of asking, "why does amd have a slower frequency then intel and is still able to compete?", the question should be, "why does intel have a higher clockspeed and is still slower then amd's cpu's." this way, it should be understood that frequency isnt everything. this isnt just an amd vs intel topic, it's a pentium 4 vs pentium M argument as well. the pentium M will eventually replace the P4 in hte future because of its vast potential. why is it that a pentium M at 2.5ghz kills the P4 3.6ghz in most applications?

ah but to the average guy on the high street its much different. because of intels marketing for starters they're probably not gonna look at anything that hasnt got the intel badge even if it is a celeron. and in their world higher numbers mean more performance (ie more horsepower in a car means more performance) so the uneducated are gonna apply that higher/bigger is better model to the world of cpu's

then theyre gonna see 2.6ghz vs 3.8ghz and get signing the cheque for the intel system

sorry horse power on the car doesnt mean verymuch.

edit its about torque

again im talking bout the uneducated to them bigger means better, in real life i know its not always the case

course i know for a fact a ricer with 400bhp would have a very hard time against a 300bhp V8

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: Mik3y
if amd had a 3.0ghz cpu, that would KILL intel's cpu. instead of asking, "why does amd have a slower frequency then intel and is still able to compete?", the question should be, "why does intel have a higher clockspeed and is still slower then amd's cpu's." this way, it should be understood that frequency isnt everything. this isnt just an amd vs intel topic, it's a pentium 4 vs pentium M argument as well. the pentium M will eventually replace the P4 in hte future because of its vast potential. why is it that a pentium M at 2.5ghz kills the P4 3.6ghz in most applications?

ah but to the average guy on the high street its much different. because of intels marketing for starters they're probably not gonna look at anything that hasnt got the intel badge even if it is a celeron. and in their world higher numbers mean more performance (ie more horsepower in a car means more performance) so the uneducated are gonna apply that higher/bigger is better model to the world of cpu's

then theyre gonna see 2.6ghz vs 3.8ghz and get signing the cheque for the intel system

lol, thats entirely true, but i'm was hoping intelfanboy to have just a hint of computer knowledge over the average joe (seems like he doesnt).

 

[hondAS2ooo170]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: hondAS2ooo170

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: Mik3y
if amd had a 3.0ghz cpu, that would KILL intel's cpu. instead of asking, "why does amd have a slower frequency then intel and is still able to compete?", the question should be, "why does intel have a higher clockspeed and is still slower then amd's cpu's." this way, it should be understood that frequency isnt everything. this isnt just an amd vs intel topic, it's a pentium 4 vs pentium M argument as well. the pentium M will eventually replace the P4 in hte future because of its vast potential. why is it that a pentium M at 2.5ghz kills the P4 3.6ghz in most applications?

ah but to the average guy on the high street its much different. because of intels marketing for starters they're probably not gonna look at anything that hasnt got the intel badge even if it is a celeron. and in their world higher numbers mean more performance (ie more horsepower in a car means more performance) so the uneducated are gonna apply that higher/bigger is better model to the world of cpu's

then theyre gonna see 2.6ghz vs 3.8ghz and get signing the cheque for the intel system

sorry horse power on the car doesnt mean verymuch.

edit its about torque

again im talking bout the uneducated to them bigger means better, in real life i know its not always the case

course i know for a fact a ricer with 400bhp would have a very hard time against a 300bhp V8

u got that right

 

[zakee00]

Originally posted by: Intelfanboy
i dont necisarlly think that a 1.8ghz ams would destroy a p4 at 3.

you are 200% wrong, it actually beats the 3.2GHz intel. just stfu, and stop wasting peoples time.

http://www.firingsquad.com/har...cpu_shootout/page6.asp

(winchester 64 athlon 3000+ is 1.8GHz, newcastle is 2.0GHz.)