Why does everyone always choose AMD ??

[gherald]

The way to play the game is to watch the market.

I bought a 1.4ghz T-bird back when they were kicking some major Williamette ass.

Then I got a 2500 Barton when they first dropped to $120. Intel had some better chips at the time, but they were all more expensive.

Then, when the "C" Northwoods started to get cheap, I got my 2.6C P4.

I guess my point is brand loyalty is stupid, we WANT Intel and AMD to compete. It makes things cheaper for us.

If I was going to go out and build a system now, it would be an A64. I think anyone with a clue will tell you that, as things stand, it totally kicks the Prescott's ass, both in current value and future promise.

Northwoods are still a fine option though, especially if you're on a moderate budget.

And if you want a cheap OC wonder chip, mobile Bartons are the way to go.

Ignore the whole P4EE vs A64 FX thing. That performance crown is for bragging rights only, what really counts is price/performance.

 

[justly]

Athlon64 3400+: Part 2

My, my ... isn't this a pickle, out of 17 tests the Athlon FX51 won 12. Lets not stop there, out of the 17 the Athlon FX51 beat the P4 3.2EE 16 times. But wait, the P4 3.2EE did win 1, and we all know what that was in don't we, yes it won the encoding test.

If encoding is your thing then the P4 is the best choice, but I fail to see how you can claim that Intel is a better package all around, it sure looks as if you do indeed believe all of Intels hype.

If this is not true then maybe you should prove me wrong...

After all this I wouldn't be surprised to hear you back up Intels claim that SSE makes the internet faster

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: caz67

As of yet however 64bit hasn't proven its worth.

A64 hasn't proven it's worth yet, but the 3.2EE has?

...and I think Suse would have a thing or two to say about x86-64 not being proven...

 

[caz67]

Hi Tom

I loan out my second PC to family and friends.. They use it for weekends etc.

Your Rig might beat mine, but that isnt really the point is it??

I didnt build mine to beat other systems. Benchmarks and stuff, are a waste of time IMO.

I can't justify spending another huge amount on a new RIG, as i have just started a new business.

This will have to last me for 2 years at least.

I then will look at a new Rig.

However once i build a new Rig, i will get all the latest tech at the time.
I will then consider all the facts, and reviews. I will buy what offers me the best value at the time.

 

[caz67]

The FX is a very fast CPU. I never said, that it wasn't a great product. It does beat the 3.2EE, but not the 3.4EE.

The 3.4EE is the fastest gaming processor on the planet. It beats the Athlon64 and FX series in every test except one.

If you are willing to pay top $$$$, you should get the best.

the Athlon FX and 3.4EE, are approx, the same price..They are hardly cheap, which proves that Intel top end and AMD top end are very evenly priced.

So the top end price/performance ratio is about the same..buy my reckoning??

IMO, i stated that the Intel offered me the best allround performance.

Im not a fool, i buy things on performance, and reputation, and use. I have never had any issues whatsoever with Intel.

Review

 

[EeyoreX]

Im not a fool, i buy things on performance, and reputation, and use. I have never had any issues whatsoever with Intel.

I am not a fool either. I buy things based on performance, and reputation, and use. I have never had any issues whatsoever with AMD.

\Dan

 

[caz67]

In summary..

I think that its fair to assume, that AMD offer better value, in low to mid range,generally speaking.

Intel and AMD offer approx, equal performance in veryhigh end.

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: caz67
Intel and AMD offer approx, equal performance in veryhigh end.

That may be your opinion and you're entitled to it, but you shouldn't start these flamebait threads. You asked why everyone chooses AMD. The answer, obviously, is that they believe it offers a better price/performance ratio. Under most configurations and circumstances, it does.

Asking someone for their opinion and then telling them they are wrong is flamebait and I hope you're banned for it. We're all computer enthusiasts here, and no one really cares that caz67 likes Intel more than AMD. Go away.

 

[caz67]

Asking someone for their opinion and then telling them they are wrong is flamebait and I hope you're banned for it. We're all computer enthusiasts here, and no one really cares that caz67 likes Intel more than AMD. Go away.

I never said anyone was wrong???

Not once have i abused or bagged anyones comments.

Its just my opinion .

Just like i respect all of yours.

regards

 

[JungleMan1]

AMD owns Intel in the lower end market (Mobile XP or Duron vs Celeron, no contest)
AMD owns Intel in the mid-high range market (A64 beats ANY similarly/higher priced P4C)
AMD runs with Intel in the highest-end market and costs less ($420 A64 3400+ easily runs with $1000 P4 EE)
AMD beats the bejeezus out of any Prescott chip (and doesn't generate 100w+ of heat at stock)
AMD runs cooler, supports 64 bit where it will blow any Intel chip out of the water, costs less, and overall has a much, much better price/performance ratio.

This post is coming from someone who owns a P4 I own a P4 because I am a hardware reviewer and I need to test on the P4 platform as well as AXP, and the time hasn't come for me to shell out the money for an A64 yet. I like my P4, but I recommend A64 whole-heartedly and would buy one myself if my P4 died tomorrow...

 

[caz67]

I was referring to the FX series and the 3.4EE as the very high end.

 

[JungleMan1]

I suppose you are right that the 3.4EE is the fastest chip in the world, but how many people can really shell $1000 for a computer chip? Can you?

If so, more power to you, but the other 99.999% of the population would rather take a 1% performance hit (ooh, god forbid we get 399fps in Quake instead of 400 ) and pocket the other $500.

Also, the EE won't retain its crown for long, as S939 chips will be faster due to no requirement of ECC, and will cost less. Not to mention that AMDs will get a big performance boost once 64 bit software is out (already in progress)

 

[AIWGuru]

a 1% performance hit (ooh, god forbid we get 399fps in Quake instead of 400

Wouldn't 1% of 400 be 4, not 1?

 

[JungleMan1]

Yeah, but 399fps vs 400fps just sounds better than 396.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: caz67
The FX is a very fast CPU. I never said, that it wasn't a great product. It does beat the 3.2EE, but not the 3.4EE.

The 3.4EE is the fastest gaming processor on the planet. It beats the Athlon64 and FX series in every test except one.

If you are willing to pay top $$$$, you should get the best.

the Athlon FX and 3.4EE, are approx, the same price..They are hardly cheap, which proves that Intel top end and AMD top end are very evenly priced.

So the top end price/performance ratio is about the same..buy my reckoning??

Athlon64 3400+: $416 (3.4C)
FX-51: $745 (3.2EE)
FX-53: $?, but going to be very high.
P4 3.2EE: $939
3.4C: $424 (3400+) (go competition)
3.4EE: about $1040 (3400+/FX-53) (No Newegg listing)
The P4 3.4GHz EE is pure marketting EVIL. The FX almost is, except it is at the same price as the Opteron 148, so not too much complaining you can do.

IMO, i stated that the Intel offered me the best allround performance.

Im not a fool, i buy things on performance, and reputation, and use. I have never had any issues whatsoever with Intel.

Review

/me widens eyes
<5% best case, and even then losing a few times!? That's not worth $1040 (more than double the price of the normal 3.4!), no matter how much performance matters. "Beating" another CPU is nothing if it is by less than a margin of error that configuration will make (IE, 2-2-2-7 RAM vs. 3-4-4-10 RAM could make the difference in some benchmarks where it is around 2% or less difference...not to mention hard drive and sound card)

 

[justly]

You may not have openly attacked anyone, but the deception you used to try to prove your opinions are unfounded.

Now you claim that the 3.4EE is the ?fastest gaming processor on the planet?. So what happened to ?i like to use my pc for more than that? or that no one will see a difference up to 10% in games, can we all say double standard.

The thing is the 3.4EE has only recently become available (that is if you want to call three listings on pricewatch available). The FX 51 has been available for months and considered by most sites the leading high performance processor (except in encoding) since its introduction.

I think that it?s fair to assume, that you just can?t handle the truth.

 

[civad]

It's simple...

1. AMD = Amount of Money to Deduct from your CPU/system budget.
2. AMD = Actually Means Delivering as promised (performance-wise)
3.AMD = my initials.

 

[policy11]

Originally posted by: caz67

What are you doing that would require a 3.4EE or an FX chip?

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: policy11

Originally posted by: caz67

What are you doing that would require a 3.4EE or an FX chip?

DL pr0n

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: biostud666

Originally posted by: policy11

Originally posted by: caz67

What are you doing that would require a 3.4EE or an FX chip?

DL pr0n

LOL - Did not know any of the outfits could afford High-Def cams and tools. Not sure I want to see in HD either!

 

[Regs]

I like AMDs technology. I like their shorter pipeline for processing instructions. Intel has great technology as well, just that I don't like wasted clock cycles.

AMD is just as stable and just as fast as Intel.

Other than that.... can't really say much else. Maybe I just like the under dogs. Or maybe I just like to prove other people wrong.

Like you.

And yes, AMD 64's are about as much expensive as Intels on that offer the same performance etc etc. I dont feel like I have to lecture about how not "everyone" always chooses AMD. That's just a joke.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
I can't speak for anyone but speaking for myself it is a price/performance issue- and it effects the AMD/Intel balance on two different fronts.

First off is the general processor performance versus price issue. You can almost always buy a chip that has ~85% of the performance of the top tier parts for ~20% of the price, throw in a nice overclock and you are all set. To me that makes buying a top tier processor a ludicrous proposition. To be clear, if the performance difference warranted the cost then I'd have no problem spending the extra money. I have ~$200 headphones and a ~$700 CRT- I'll spend more money without issue if I think it's worth it. Dropping an extra $500 for 10FPS? No.

Since that general rule of thumb is out(and I apply price/performance to all things, not just PC hardware), then it comes down to the chips in the lower priced(~$100-$200) bracket and how they stack up. Here is where Intel overcharges by a rather enormous amount compared to their counterpart. They simply are not competitive in this market segment normally, not even close frequently. Not all that long ago Intel was on their whole RAMBUS kick which really helped out AMD in the enthusiast market. Either you went the only slightly more then AMD route and paired a P4 with SDRAM and had horrible performance, or you paid a couple hundred percent more for roughly equal performance. This may sound like a good reason for a while back but not today, you still have people with AMD mobos that will take a more up to date AXP, that makes sticking with AMD a fairly easy choice.

Right now at the highest end of the market AMD is dominant in gaming- cost no object. Factor in cost and it is a more dire situation for Intel. Intel is doing well in the middle high end range right now, but the mid and budget lines are pretty much dominated by AMD in terms of dollars/performance. For most of the people on these forums, gaming is what drives them to spend as much money as they do on hardware. For those that are more interested in bragging rights, gaming benches are the ones that are the staple of that line of reasoning too.

Brand identity doesn't have much to do with processors outside of your genuine fans. They all work on the same code, which one gets it done quicker or for less- or some combination of both which is the case most of the time- is going to be the driving factor for the majority of the enthusiast market. This same market likes to shop in the ~$150 range of chips(they tend to upgrade every year to year and a half with two years at the outside). Factor these things in and it is pretty hard to justify Intel most of the time.

Mainly my post is focusing on gaming- the advantages you bring up for the P4 such as media encoding(I rip my CDs once, don't do much with AVI on my PC) aren't frequent typical use here. Multitasking advantages are pretty hard to convince people of if they can't see any slowdown at all with their current processor and are thinking of upgrading beyond that. You find a forum with tech enthusiasts that revolves around media encoding and the like and you will probably find they lean as much towards Intel as these boards do towards AMD.

Well said. Price has nothing to do with it for me. I could afford an 64FX or EE pentium, 9800XT, all scsi 15000rpm in Raid 0, promedia etc but what the hell for? 20-25% more performance for 500% more money? Ya that's real intelligent allocation of resources when even a Duron/xp with 5900NU is plenty fast for me in every app I've tried. I prefer to buy my son a new mototcycle or just bank the difference or buy stuff where I will really notice striking differences. AMD is the heavy weight champion of price performance. Just look at the 4 recent buyers guides here, all AMD and all signifigantly less money for equal or better performance. And Video cards are the most drastic improvement a gamer can make not the processor.


Where you people *should* be paying the premium prices is things you don't because you pay too much attention to frame rates/memory bandwith/benchmarks since it's a simple quantification being they are numerically decided in your hardware, however insignifigant they are you notice for some strange reason. Things people should be paying attention to are computing interface like highend monitors which make a dramtic improvment to your computing experiance over cheap ones. A high qulaity mouse and tactile keyboard that conforms to you hand and feels very comfortable for better feel more pleasant experiance in general and elimination carpel. Speakers which there is wide variation and $200 is well spent. Highquality case and PSU for asthetic/stability/noise issues. Cable modem/DSL for obvious reasons.



Anyway I think everyone in the know should choose AMD simply to keep them around so intel deos'nt begin charging $500 for their chips again. Then we are all screwed again.

 

[caz67]

thanks for your opinions.

I admit, that i have been given an education on AMD.

OK.. I am looking at building my eldest son a new PC, and i was going to bulid an Intel.

I am now willing to try AMD.. I have $2500.

Please bulid me the best gaming pc, for this amount of money.

Your help would be greatly appreciated.

regards

 

[Zebo]

Here you go they have all four tyoes of systems...highend..budget..midrange..and OCing.

The only thing I always disagree with about the "budget and midrange" recommendations is to get the performance systems video card instead.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: caz67
thanks for your opinions.

I admit, that i have been given an education on AMD.

OK.. I am looking at building my eldest son a new PC, and i was going to bulid an Intel.

I am now willing to try AMD.. I have $2500.

Please bulid me the best gaming pc, for this amount of money.

Your help would be greatly appreciated.

regards

OK, thats a big budget. Also, to you need everything including monitor, speakers, etc... ? Do you need a burner ? You really need to be more specific on what you want. Do you want a LCD ? I like crts for gaming. Do you need a modem ? or just a NIC ?

That said, take my sig, and run 1 gig of ram, and a couple of Raptors on raid0, and then a 160-250 meg IDE for storage, add a 19 inch CRT, and a dvd drive, and thats what I would probably recommend. If you answer the questions, I could build a wish list on newegg.