Why would anyone go AMD?

[Mloot]

Felix, thanks for showing me what an idiot you are. Or, maybe it's my fault for not seeing what kind of person you really were, long after others already knew. I even defended you in your recent 3.4 EE thead. I thought you were a reasonable enough guy, but this post shows you as nothing but a fanboy with a desire to start a flame war.

:thumbsdown:

 

[RobsTV]

This makes no sense.
More then likely, some idiot kid jumped on his PC, trying to have some fun, and when he notices this, I'm sure he will apologize to the world for such stupidity.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Manzelle

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: Manzelle

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: Manzelle
My last Intel chip was a 486 DX4-100...I have had 6-8 AMD chips since and not one has "crapped" out...you're an idiot...

Your an idiot if you havent had an Intel chip since the 486.

Had no reason to get one...why pay premium prices for second rate hardware?

My point exactly about my brotha. The entire AMD universe of chips and boards is built around the fact of trying to undercut Intel with low quality crap. Just consider yourself lucky.

Just look at all the people complaining about the amd64 chips! :shocked:

I see the same amount if not more complaining about their Prescott chips...in my opinion it boils down to the user and not the hardware 95% of the time...

I have had hundreds of AMD's and NEVER had a chip go bad. My last Intel was a 2.4b, but it sucks(compared to a 2400+, the 2.4b was on sale at Frys that day for $5 less and I thought I would give Intel a try again). Before that was a Pentium 100.. I think there is plenty of people and facts to backup the fact that either you are the unluckiest bastard around, or a lying SOB.

 

[caz67]

I have never owned or used an AMD Processor. However i am considering for my next upgrade.

 

[Dallascisco]

I have more requests for amd cpu's from my customers due to their customer friendly pricing. I haven't had a customer yet come to me and ask about a cpu they could overclcok. Most just want an up to date pc that can handle normal tasks plus perform other things like modest gaming. The only time I really suggest an intel cpu is if they want a power machine to due heavy calculations or any software that requires heavy input/output.

Builds for intel cpu's are one for every 10 amd's. I can build someone a decent computer for 600-700 bucks and still make a good profit. That way i can be competititve with those cheapy Dell computers that people love.

 

[ectx]

:thumbsdown:

Please do not spread misinformation.

 

[clarkey01]

This thread reminds of that noob head who asked "Whats faster a 2Ghz P4 or 2Ghz A64"

 

[dennisjai215]

felix is a moron end of discussion stop now

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Well Felix, you will need to reach into your bag of tricks pretty deep to pull out something that will salvage credibility on this one I think this may be a case of the 'Pavlov effect" though, and you are just ringing the bell to see who salivates. If not, I would say you simply haven't had hands on experience with contemporary AMD products. They have achieved parity with Intc in every area from performance to thermal overheat protection, and in fact offer buffer overflow protection and 64bit support for the desktop user that Intel has yet to release. It is debatable wether 64bit is needed yet, but AMD is driving the industry to migrate to the new tech. This includes Intel, which has chosen to use these innovations sooner, rather than later as they originally intended to.

In the final analysis, parity between the two companies products now exists, and AMD actually has the overall performance lead. Consequently, AMD is not only a viable alternative to Intel now, they are a preferable one for some

 

[charloscarlies]

Originally posted by: dennisjai215
felix is a moron end of discussion stop now

 

[Lithan]

Hahaha.
Simply not being an idiot would tell you that your logic doesn't stack up here. Amd's profit margin is so low to begin with that if you add in any sizable failure rate they would not only lose money, they would do so dramatically. The only logical conclusions are either you have really bad luck, or you have no clue what you are doing. Due to your assumptions and behavior here, I'm guessing it's the latter option.

 

[marine73]

The last shootout/massive cpu review run at, I believe, Anandtech, listed pretty much all the currently available CPUs. So, according to the charts, a 2.0 GHz AMD = 3.2/3.4 Ghz Pentium. Intel has to run their chips 50% faster to achieve the same performance. I don't think there is really any question which CPU is the more advanced technically. And the competition from AMD is probably about the only thing keeping Intel in the mix. Without that Intel would already be a bloated, unresponsive monopoly. Oh wait....

 

[FelixDeCat]

I want to thank everyone for their replies especially:

dapunisher
mloot
shimmishim
mechbgon

But to certain people - you cant handle the truth!!!

What I said is gospel, and because I said it, you get all enraged and post emotional drivel. Shame on you! Especially markfw900. We all know he is nothing but a trollish threadcrapper wannabe.

Carry on...

 

[charloscarlies]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
I want to thank everyone for their replies especially:

dapunisher
mloot
shimmishim
mechbgon

But to certain people - you cant handle the truth!!!

What I said is gospel, and because I said it, you get all enraged and post emotional drivel. Shame on you! Especially markfw900. We all know he is nothing but a trollish threadcrapper wannabe.

Carry on...

Nah...just can't handle your massive amounts of BS.

 

[klah]

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Intel fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Intel(a P4 2.5GHz w/1024 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Athlon 1GHz, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Intel, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Intels, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Intel that has run faster than its AMD counterpart, despite the Intel's faster chip architecture. My Athlon 500MHz with 32 megs of ram runs faster than this 2.5Ghz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Intel is a superior machine.

Intel addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Intel over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

 

[CaiNaM]

part of the problem with amd and stability was chipsets from via. the nforce 2 and 3 chipsets have proven solid in almost every regard (tho with early amd chips, the amd chipsets proved quite solid, th0 perhaps lacking in features). nvida chipsets are now to amd what intel chipsets are tin intel cpus.

that athlon xps were better than the original p4. the northwood changed that, but a lot could still be said for the barton in price/performance. then the athlon64 and knocked off the p4c. the prescott (p4e - what ever happened to d?) has unimpressed, at least that current clockspeeds. the longer pipelines may prove advantageous with higher clockspeeds, but it's still much less efficient than the a64 in almost every area. then the p4 emergency edition was released.. still unable to top the a64 in most areas.

in most apps the athlon64 is faster than a comparably rated intel, even in media encoding (not as good at video, but better at sound in recent tests).

the athlon64 is faster in games, with a couple exceptions.

until recent intel price drops, the comparable amd chips were also less expensive.

they consume less power, and output less heat.

those are facts, not opinions, and quite undisputed (except by flag waving fanboys).

i still question it's ability to multitask with multiple apps requiring large cpu time, however in all almost all other areas the amd 64 is either comparable or flat out better than the intel.

Originally posted by: klah

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Intel fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Intel(a P4 2.5GHz w/1024 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Athlon 1GHz, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Intel, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Intels, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Intel that has run faster than its AMD counterpart, despite the Intel's faster chip architecture. My Athlon 500MHz with 32 megs of ram runs faster than this 2.5Ghz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Intel is a superior machine.

Intel addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Intel over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

what thread was the above comments taken from? it's almost as silly as the original comment in this thread.. file copying has more to do with pci bus and/or storage drive than cpu. sounds kind of like there's a problem with that pc/os, not the platform it's on....

was this thread in response to that one? it's just as stupid....

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
I want to thank everyone for their replies especially:

dapunisher
mloot
shimmishim
mechbgon

But to certain people - you cant handle the truth!!!

What I said is gospel, and because I said it, you get all enraged and post emotional drivel. Shame on you! Especially markfw900. We all know he is nothing but a trollish threadcrapper wannabe.

Carry on...

wannabe like you?

 

[Lithan]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
I want to thank everyone for their replies especially:

dapunisher
mloot
shimmishim
mechbgon

But to certain people - you cant handle the truth!!!

What I said is gospel, and because I said it, you get all enraged and post emotional drivel. Shame on you! Especially markfw900. We all know he is nothing but a trollish threadcrapper wannabe.

Carry on...

I'm pretty sure this amounts to an admission of trolling.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Q. Why would anyone go AMD?

A. For a list of reasons

1. faster
2. less expensive (from low end to mid range to high end)
3. just as stable

Taking a look back at the most recent entry level, mid range, high end, and overclocking guides here on AT, EVERY recomendation has been for AMD, and whenever we do see a recomendation for Intel it is as an alternative.

Entry recomendation is: AMD
Entry alternative is: AMD

Midrange recomendation is: AMD
Midrange alternative is: Intel

Highend recomendation is: AMD
Highend alternative is: Intel

Overclocker PERFORMANCE recomendation is: AMD
Overclocker PERFORMANCE alternative is: Intel

And Intel almost didn't make it as the alternative

This month, it was particularly difficult to decide between the Single-Channel Socket 754 Athlon 64 and the new Intel Socket 775 for the Performance Overclocking alternative.

Overclocker VALUE recomendation is: AMD
Overclocker VALUE alternative is: AMD

So I guess 7 of the 10 recomended systems being AMD is really bad information and we should all boycott Anandtech for such misleading suggestions.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: Lithan

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
I want to thank everyone for their replies especially:

dapunisher
mloot
shimmishim
mechbgon

But to certain people - you cant handle the truth!!!

What I said is gospel, and because I said it, you get all enraged and post emotional drivel. Shame on you! Especially markfw900. We all know he is nothing but a trollish threadcrapper wannabe.

Carry on...

I'm pretty sure this amounts to an admission of trolling.

Trolling? To make an observation based on firsthand experience and allow others to share theirs without them spouting off?

Try again.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Q. Why would anyone go AMD?

A. For a list of reasons

1. faster
2. less expensive (from low end to mid range to high end)
3. just as stable

Taking a look back at the most recent entry level, mid range, high end, and overclocking guides here on AT, EVERY recomendation has been for AMD, and whenever we do see a recomendation for Intel it is as an alternative.

Entry recomendation is: AMD
Entry alternative is: AMD

Midrange recomendation is: AMD
Midrange alternative is: Intel

Highend recomendation is: AMD
Highend alternative is: Intel

Overclocker PERFORMANCE recomendation is: AMD
Overclocker PERFORMANCE alternative is: Intel

And Intel almost didn't make it as the alternative

This month, it was particularly difficult to decide between the Single-Channel Socket 754 Athlon 64 and the new Intel Socket 775 for the Performance Overclocking alternative.

Overclocker VALUE recomendation is: AMD
Overclocker VALUE alternative is: AMD

So I guess 7 of the 10 recomended systems being AMD is really bad information and we should all boycott Anandtech for such misleading suggestions.

I still build AMD on the low end, and yes quality has improved thanks to the nVidia.

 

[nick1985]

this coming from a guy you BOUGHT a 3.4EE....

 

[fishmonger12]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Ive delt with 100s of P4s and a few AMDs the past couple of years. The two AMDs either crapped out immediatley with a some aggressive overclocking and one pentium was DOA (hyperthreading didnt work).

Now, you might be thinking, "Wait just a damn minute - you said 100s of P4s and two AMDs - does that mean you broke 100s or what?"

No Pedro. I have bought and sold them and most were pretested prior to shipping to check for DOA. One AMD was a 1700+ on a Iwill board that went tits up with the chip. Another was 1800+ I gave to my nephew that lasted about 18 months at stock. Yes AMD cheerfully RMAd them but damn! 100% failure rate of chips and a few boards.

Sure Ill bet if I had been dealing with 100s of AMDs (which believe me there is a alot of demand for and money is money no matter which chip it comes from) the statistical failure rate would have been alot lower.

But why bother?

Oh I know why - all your friends are buying them and all the benchies claim this that and the other.

Well I say phooey on that. I like reliability and stability, and the ability to take a good overclocking for a prolonged period of time.

Way to stir up a hornet's nest.

i've owned both amd's and intels, and they both perform relatively well. Any discrepancies between the two are going to be minute, and you could probably argue both ways on those few minor details. I do know that AMD has a higher marketshare of desktop PC's than Intel does right now, though, despite the fact that major manufacturers like dell only run p4s.

Overclocking decreases stability. Period. I don't care what processor you use. Any overclock you make is going to decrease your processor's stability.

 

[Manzelle]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Q. Why would anyone go AMD?

A. For a list of reasons

1. faster
2. less expensive (from low end to mid range to high end)
3. just as stable

Taking a look back at the most recent entry level, mid range, high end, and overclocking guides here on AT, EVERY recomendation has been for AMD, and whenever we do see a recomendation for Intel it is as an alternative.

Entry recomendation is: AMD
Entry alternative is: AMD

Midrange recomendation is: AMD
Midrange alternative is: Intel

Highend recomendation is: AMD
Highend alternative is: Intel

Overclocker PERFORMANCE recomendation is: AMD
Overclocker PERFORMANCE alternative is: Intel

And Intel almost didn't make it as the alternative

This month, it was particularly difficult to decide between the Single-Channel Socket 754 Athlon 64 and the new Intel Socket 775 for the Performance Overclocking alternative.

Overclocker VALUE recomendation is: AMD
Overclocker VALUE alternative is: AMD

So I guess 7 of the 10 recomended systems being AMD is really bad information and we should all boycott Anandtech for such misleading suggestions.

Felix = Owned

Unless you are proclaiming to be more knowledgeable than the entire Anandtech staff I wouldn't post in this thread again. Take tail, insert between legs and walk away.

 

[AngleDust]

i've used both, my current system is intel, my brother's current system is amd. i've never had problems with either chips, but i did have motherboard troubles (ie via and msi boards).