Dolphin, the GameCube and Wii emulator - Forums

AMD/ATI all the way. :p [/fanboy]

I can't imagine AMD having higher performance CPUs than Intel. AMD dominates on value and always scores highest on those CPU benchmark sites for points/dollar. However, Intel CPUs always dominate on pure performance alone. There's really no reason for that to change, as it offers good options for every customer.

Before Conroe when it was k8 vs Netburst, AMD did have the better performing cpus, despite in most cases have a clocked difference near 1ghz. Oh, that Netburst used a lot of power and put out a ton of heat.

Also dominated against P3 and P4 with K7 until the end when they were a GHZ behind but they were so cheap we didn't care. $85 XP2500 that can easily overclock to 3200 and multi unlocked mobile chips that could go further.

(07-13-2011, 11:36 AM)HawaiianPunch Wrote: [ -> ]I can't imagine AMD having higher performance CPUs than Intel. AMD dominates on value and always scores highest on those CPU benchmark sites for points/dollar. However, Intel CPUs always dominate on pure performance alone. There's really no reason for that to change, as it offers good options for every customer.

Well put there, spot on.
I also can't imagine AMD having higher performance then Intel, I mean that would be an upside world, and more worse then a polar shift. Unthinkable at least.

Well, that's because both of you have very little imagination. It's not like AMD didn't proved in the past to equal or surpass Intel in terms of performance. And now with all of ATI's arsenal of gpu technology, I'm sure the best is about to come.

(07-14-2011, 06:02 AM)kernel64 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, that's because both of you have very little imagination. It's not like AMD didn't proved in the past to equal or surpass Intel in terms of performance. And now with all of ATI's arsenal of gpu technology, I'm sure the best is about to come.

May the better team win!

*cough*Go Intel!!!*cough*

wow, 19s for 1m super pi ?
that's doubel what sandy bridge capable of )
my SB can do it less than 9 second (@ 4.2)
considering super pi only use single thread, if they were tsting super pi, bulldozer would kick turbo and get 4.2 also (cmiiw)

lol, only half per HZ/per core performance from sandy bridge.
from other bench, that bulldozer get slightly better result because of extra core

(07-13-2011, 12:22 AM)silveruniverse Wrote: [ -> ]4.2GHz on 4 cores seems very interesting, but one thing i've learnt on this forum is that the architecture sometimes matters more than the clock speed. besides, doesn't AMD normally make less powerful but more cost effective processors?

not that interesting actually
i ran my SB 4.2 daily on all 4 core
5GHz also easy feat

(07-13-2011, 11:36 AM)HawaiianPunch Wrote: [ -> ]I can't imagine AMD having higher performance CPUs than Intel. AMD dominates on value and always scores highest on those CPU benchmark sites for points/dollar. However, Intel CPUs always dominate on pure performance alone. There's really no reason for that to change, as it offers good options for every customer.

actually, there were time when AMD was actually have better performance per clock

AMD CPUs - fine. Radeons - yuck... Not hardware itself but shitty drivers.

NV's are so great.