06-16-2010, 04:34 AM
Quote:but THAT's what i exactly said, only shorter and no arguments. you're basically saying the same thing. but in overall don't you think both processors ARE good. one might be less good than the other, but no fanboy(yes,not even a fanboy), unless a 10year old child, sais one of the processor makers are trash, because it's simply not true by ANY stretch of fanboyism. altho the phenoms are weaker than i5/i7, no one sais they're not good...each processor has a good side and a bad side period.
Ugh...I really don't want to get into an argument with you so I'll skip responding to the first statement.
I don't like to say that either brand is better or that they are on the same level just better at different things. Because neither is true. If you go with the first statement than someone can easily point out times when the other brand clearly had the upper hand. If you go with the second statement someone can clearly point a time when one brand had a cpu that was much better than the competition in every way. So I do with cpus what I do with every other product I buy, I look at the product itself not the company that made it. So if you ask me to compare two microarchitectures I can easily do that, but if you ask me to compare intel to amd and tell you which is better or if they are both good that is statistically impossible unless you use a very short period of time (like 2009 instead of 1990-2010). And yes I do agree with what I think you are trying to say, although you should replace the word "processors" with the word "companies", and again near the end replace the word "processor" with "company" and then I agree with your statement. Because although I don't believe either company to be OVERALL better, I do certainly believe one processor to be superior to another, but I think you just used that word by mistake.
Remember that the marketing divisions of both companies price their cpus according to competition. Not to sound like a fanboy here but the phenom CPUs wouldn't have such great bang per buck if AMD hadn't had to lower their prices in response to the release of core i7. What I'm saying is that when you have only 2 major competitors in an industry in a tech industry you tend to get one that holds the crown (has the best/fastest product) and one that has better bang per buck (because you have to in order to compete with the company with the crown).
I think I can summarize my arguement into:
Intel is better: No. Athlon was better than pentium 3, athlon xp was better than pentium 4, athlon 64 was better than prescott, athlon x2 was better than pentium d.
AMD is better: No. Pentium Pro was better than K5, Pentium II was better than K6, Pentium IV was better than Athlon, Core 2 Duo was better than Athlon X2, Core 2 Quad was better than Phenom, and Core I7 is better than Phenom II (keep in mind this is just quality, price is not factored into these comparisons).
Both are good: No. For example saying AMD was good during the K6 era would have made enthusiasts laugh at you.
They go through cycles of being better than each other: Statistically true.
One is better with performance while the other is better with performance per dollar: Also true. If you compare the two during any given year although one will clearly have a better processor than the other that better processor will always be priced much higher than the competition for obvious reasons.
)
...