wth is with tom's hardware

[fatty4ksu]

There is nothing crappy about Intel's desktop chips if you use them fore encoding/multitaksing.

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
There is nothing crappy about Intel's desktop chips if you use them fore encoding/multitaksing.

...dude. You just don't give up. X2's beat P-Ds at everything. End....of....THREAD!

 

[carlosd]

They seem crappy compared to X2 CPUs, specially because when you are going to multitask hard and encode, the X2 is the chip to get.
Also, you stated that the PIV 1.8Ghz was faster in ecoding than an AMD 64, so don't talk about encoding troll, you have lost selfrespect.

 

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
There is nothing crappy about Intel's desktop chips if you use them fore encoding/multitaksing.

...dude. You just don't give up. X2's beat P-Ds at everything. End....of....THREAD!

Also that...and you forgot the HEAT:sun:

 

[Shenkoa]

Originally posted by: Zarubable
Too funny.
You people call anybody who sticks up for Intel a troll.
That doesn`t make any sense.
Can`t Intel and AMD co-exist on these forums?

I guess not.
Probably the answer might me - well as long as the Intel people know there palace we have no issue with them.

I have an AMD system which I am very happy with.

I guess people can`t even stick up for Intel people around these forums.

Have fun. Peace-Chow

There is a difference between sticking up for Intel and acting like a troll on public forums with claims that you cant even backup. Saying all this empty minded garbage withought proof or any technical details as to why you beileve what you beileve - My definition of a Troll.

BAN!

 

[fatty4ksu]

Yeah, but the X2's are MUCH more expensive than the PD's.

However, in single core competition, the P4's (while the same price as their counter part AMD 64's) blow out the 64's in Mulitasking/Encoding.

hth.

 

[route66]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
Yeah, but the X2's are MUCH more expensive than the PD's.

You get what you pay for.

 

[Shenkoa]

Blow out??? maybe win but blow out???

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
Yeah, but the X2's are MUCH more expensive than the PD's.

However, in single core competition, the P4's (while the same price as their counter part AMD 64's) blow out the 64's in Mulitasking/Encoding.

hth.

No they aren't...The lowest rated Pentium D that even comes close (meaning within 10% of the 3800 X2 is the PD 830. The price is $320 versus the $345 of the still significantly faster X2. If you add the cost of decent DDR2 vs decent DDR, they are the same or the X2 is cheaper.
You must also take into account that if you do buy a PD, then you are reducing your speed in most single threaded apps for the sake of saying you own a "dual core".

As to your single core "blowout" claims, I consider a blowout to be 10% or higher...please provide links to all of those (from anywhere but Tom's Haha Gotcha) and we should discuss it. If you could also note the apps that A64 blows out on the P4, it will help with a balanced discussion.

Cheers

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
Yeah, but the X2's are MUCH more expensive than the PD's.

However, in single core competition, the P4's (while the same price as their counter part AMD 64's) blow out the 64's in Mulitasking/Encoding.

hth.

First after you replace the factory HSF with something adequate, the X2 3800 is only $50 more. Also, in single-core the Athlon64 is only a few % behind (~8-10%) unless you figure in cost, in which case the same priced CPU's are almost tied in encoding.

Go crawl back under your bridge fatty.

 

[Shenkoa]

Lets not forget games, ahh the reason we buy video cards???? do you want yout $500 card not working up to its max???? then buy Intel.

 

[Lithan]

Originally posted by: Vee
Intel P4 tend to perform its best on media apps and some benchmarks that have been custom tailored for it. More precicely exactly those benchmarks *carefully* selected and used by tomshardware.com, and not much else.

(Which is one reason why you shouldn't trust tomshardware. Another reason you shouldn't trust them is because they are not satisfied with the selection alone, they also cheat some when benchmarking. A third reason you shouldn't trust them is because their general manager have a 'peculiar personality'. You can check it out here, in this unmasked (after a beer too many?) rant:


http://www.tgdaily.com/2004/02/18/intel/


I believe it's a case of what is generally called "Intelfanboy"? Is it not?
Note the immature, childish gloating.
A fourth reason is that you will find there is a whole crowd that will tell you "don't trust tomshardware.com". Their reputation is one of bias, dishonesty, incompetence.)

Intel P4 perform solid on anything modern concerned with media. Particularly video.
And the top P4s have the advantage of ht, which allows Windows to shedule it two threads, avoiding some blockages.
(Still, a good trick to inflate Intel's performance vs AMD on videoencoding is to drop audio and lower quality. Not relevant to real performance perhaps, but useful if one wants to slant a benchmark.)

Intel P4 perform remarkably poorly (compared to AMD) on code that has been little or not at all optimized specifically for the P4 architecture. That happens to be a lot of real software. But there have been no such benchmarks since the days of the Willamette, so this is not a fact that is much present in peoples awareness today. (The Northwood core got an awful lot of credit for "improvements" that were partly due to changed benchmarks.)
But this may be part of the background to the saying that "AMD is faster in real use".

A more quantified and verified example of this proverb is this spectacular test on Extremetech that successfully demonstrates that the real use superiority of AMD goes far beyond what the figures of an even honest benchmark would indicate.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1854788,00.asp

It's hard to rekommend Intel these days. AMD is cheaper, faster, cooler and far less trouble and problems.

When it comes to Intel, wait for Intel's Conroe (P5?). Don't buy their sh**ty P4.

I read your first link. Man, that guy is pretty amazingly stupid. We're talking boxer who took a few too many punches stupid here.


And Fatty, there are actually programs that AMD (single core vs intel single core w/ HT) typically wins in media work. But those aren't benchmarked because...

a. AMD performs best on them
B. Intel doesn't perform best on them
c. Amd beats intel on them.
d. All of the above.


I'd be curious to see if you took the best program for use on amd and the best program for use on intel and benched them against eachother @ the same quality settings which would perform better. Not curious enough to care, but curious enough to wonder why I've never seen anyone do it.

 

[Shenkoa]

No No the P4 is better because.

A. It has a 31 stage pipeline (YAY)
B. The 240VAC comming from your wall is all being sucked up by the p4 YAY!
C. The P4 runs hotter then a waffle iron
D. LGA 775 is better because it breaks the pins off of your processor.
E. Intel is better cause its 1 Jigahertz faster.
F. Its made by Intel! and they have been around for a while!
D. Because its cheaper, oh wait you have to buy DDR2! oh NM!
E. Its on the TV a lot more often.
F. Because Dell uses em!
G. I spend $1200 for this EE and the venice which costs $1050 less is not as good, oh wait!
H. Intel has HT
I. It only performs sub 6 instructions per clock cycle.
J. Its cache has more lantency then my GMA's walker oh wait!
K. Its better at multitasking!, hmm oh wait AMD has the X.. NM!
L. It keeps my house warm during the winter
M. Intel has a better instruction set, oh wait they are about the same!
N. Intel has more money, so they make their processors better.
O. Because Tom sezz it is!
P. The P4 has been around for years and years so its more experienced.

You know as a kid I always liked Intel, I thought they were the best. And then the P4! and now they are criminals whose practices are no better than the Music and Movie Industry.

 

[VertigoLabs]

wow so much venom
Peace

1 both are good. lets be honest about how much power one needs and whats the diffrence between 140 fps and 145 fps if you can tell the diffrence in gameplay ill be amazed
2 AMD costs less
3 AMD produces less heat
4 AMD overclocks better
5 did i mention they cost less ?
6 for the price diffrence you can take you friend out to dinner with all the money you saved

make sure you work the phrase "owndizzled" into the conversation
this will surely irritate the intel fanboy

 

[swatX]

Originally posted by: VertigoLabs
wow so much venom
Peace

1 both are good. lets be honest about how much power one needs and whats the diffrence between 140 fps and 145 fps if you can tell the diffrence in gameplay ill be amazed
2 AMD costs less
3 AMD produces less heat
4 AMD overclocks better
5 did i mention they cost less ?
6 for the price diffrence you can take you friend out to dinner with all the money you saved

make sure you work the phrase "owndizzled" into the conversation
this will surely irritate the intel fanboy

1. intel are much more efficient at multitasking
2. The diffrence between Intel heat production and AMD isnt large
3. i have seen a lot people take their 3.2 to 4.0 on air

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: swatX


1. intel are much more efficient at multitasking
2. The diffrence between Intel heat production and AMD isnt large
3. i have seen a lot people take their 3.2 to 4.0 on air

1. Why do you say that (in other words, what links do you have to support your claim)?
2. The difference in heat can be as much as 100%. The Venice 3200 runs at 30w on average under full load, and maxes out (at standard clock under 100% load) at ~35 C.
The P4 3.2 GHz is about double that under the same conditions. These are the mainline "sweet spot" processors for the current market.
3. If you could do us a favour and try to convince them to take a few screen shots for us to peruse, it would be appreciated!

 

[Shenkoa]

Mutitasking should be out of the question for single cores, if you want to multitask then buy a X2.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Shenkoa
Mutitasking should be out of the question for single cores, if you want to multitask then buy a X2.

Agreed. Whatever mutlitasking advantage Intel had in the desktop segment is essentially dead thanks to the X2.

 

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: swatX


1. intel are much more efficient at multitasking
2. The diffrence between Intel heat production and AMD isnt large
3. i have seen a lot people take their 3.2 to 4.0 on air

1. But how? the X2 kicks in the ass to any intel CPU in multitasking.
2. The diference is pretty large, as viditor says it can be as high as 100%, isn't 100% large enough??
3. O really? Where? , anyway you can take the 3000+ venice to 2.7 in air costs less than a p43.2, it would be much cooler, and will kick the P4 at 4GHz, so why bothering taking a P4 to 4GHz, you will need a lot of cooling, that would be wasted money.

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: swatX

Originally posted by: VertigoLabs
wow so much venom
Peace

1 both are good. lets be honest about how much power one needs and whats the diffrence between 140 fps and 145 fps if you can tell the diffrence in gameplay ill be amazed
2 AMD costs less
3 AMD produces less heat
4 AMD overclocks better
5 did i mention they cost less ?
6 for the price diffrence you can take you friend out to dinner with all the money you saved

make sure you work the phrase "owndizzled" into the conversation
this will surely irritate the intel fanboy

1. intel are much more efficient at multitasking
2. The diffrence between Intel heat production and AMD isnt large
3. i have seen a lot people take their 3.2 to 4.0 on air

wow, how can you say that with a straight face?

 

[Shenkoa]

Yeah really LOL!!!!!!!

:laugh:

 

[fatty4ksu]

[/quote]

1. intel are much more efficient at multitasking
2. The diffrence between Intel heat production and AMD isnt large
3. i have seen a lot people take their 3.2 to 4.0 on air


[/quote]
:thumbsup:
Agreed, the single core AMD vs Intel chips are pretty close outside of gaming. The Dual-core chips are x2 dominated...but you do pay a hefty price.

 

[VertigoLabs]

hey swatx i can back up my claims can you ?

Im not sure but i think you just got served ? and by a newb no less....

 

[Shenkoa]

By a n00b! OMG!!! not by a n00b! thats just @\/\/fu1.

 

[dexvx]

Oh god, if you're going to argue for Intel, at least argue with some intelligence.

Desktop solution for enthusiasts is definitely going to be a 865/875PE board with a Sonoma Pentium-M/2MB/533 FSB or on a budget the C0 stepping of the Celeron-M/1MB/400. These do 2.4+ Ghz at 200+FSB with that dinky stock Aluminum heatsink/fan. Thats for a relatively low cost (around $250 for a new Asus 865PE board/CT-479/Pentium-M 730) and will pretty much match an overclocked Athlon64 while using about 35W of power. The only downside is that there are no SLI boards for them and Pentium-M's are known to be poor performers in *some* obscure applications (usually the ones that Pentium-4's get extremely high marks on).