(07-02-2010, 01:07 AM)Diddy Kong Wrote: [ -> ]Intel will always be better than Amd. Intel, in theory, is for the "rich bastards" while Amd is for the "economically disadvantaged" 
.
I personally favor Amd because i am not at this time employed, nor do i need to be i might add, I think they deliver the best "bang for the buck". Am i right or am i right?
u're 100% right.
i wud buy intel too if i have a job/business etc etc.. for now, i can use for very cheap a amd, and play games on it. maybe its sucky n cant handel newest pc games.. but i get 80-90% speed on games dolphin and gameboy/ps1 emulator, enough to me
Quote:Intel will always be better than Amd. Intel, in theory, is for the "rich bastards" while Amd is for the "economically disadvantaged" Tongue.
I personally favor Amd because i am not at this time employed, nor do i need to be i might add, I think they deliver the best "bang for the buck". Am i right or am i right?
As I have stated multiple times in this thread, this is only true at this exact moment in time. This has not always been true and anyone who has been keeping track of both brands for the last 15 years knows it. They swing back and forth, but lately intel has been swinging a lot harder since they now use a lot of the technology amd developed from 1999-2005 and amd hasn't really come up with anything ground breaking and new since then (amd has lost all of their advantages while intel has gained some). I'de like to believe that amd will come back harder with bulldozer thanks to global foundries but based on my preemptive analysis I think sandy bridge has far more potential as a high performance cpu. Only time will tell.
well AMD ftw nothing more to say
(07-02-2010, 02:45 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Intel will always be better than Amd. Intel, in theory, is for the "rich bastards" while Amd is for the "economically disadvantaged" Tongue.
I personally favor Amd because i am not at this time employed, nor do i need to be i might add, I think they deliver the best "bang for the buck". Am i right or am i right?
As I have stated multiple times in this thread, this is only true at this exact moment in time. This has not always been true and anyone who has been keeping track of both brands for the last 15 years knows it. They swing back and forth, but lately intel has been swinging a lot harder since they now use a lot of the technology amd developed from 1999-2005 and amd hasn't really come up with anything ground breaking and new since then (amd has lost all of their advantages while intel has gained some). I'de like to believe that amd will come back harder with bulldozer thanks to global foundries but based on my preemptive analysis I think sandy bridge has far more potential as a high performance cpu. Only time will tell.
Yeah that is the problem, i wasn't aware of there works back in the day. But as of right now, those were my questionable thoughts.
ok i think this both intel and AMD have pros and cons
AMD Pros
OS System boot faster on AMD(tested this alot)
More overclocking
Cheap
Because it use same socket it is easy to find a mobo/cooler for it and don't need 1000 bracets with it lol
Dragon fusion with a ati card you will see much boostups in games(only could if you have a Black Edition CPU)
Intel Pros
Less heat with overclocking
Can take more in some cases
Pure consetated on gaming in the i7 classes
AMD Cons
Getting fast hot in overclocking
Dont have SSSE3 SSE4.1/4.2
Can only take 120c at max
Intel Cons
Use alot of wattage some times 400w (best i7core)
Slow bootup
Expensive
What AMD don't have sse instructions? hahaha...i've never seen so many bad tech advice then this forum.
AMD systems boot faster...hahaha. okay okay that killed me.
oh by the way these are the instructions YOUR AMD cpu supports:
instructions
3DNow!â„¢ technology, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a
I do understand that sse4a and sse4.x are different but thats beside the point.
(07-02-2010, 03:56 PM)obscured Wrote: [ -> ]What AMD don't have sse instructions? hahaha...i've never seen so many bad tech advice then this forum.
AMD systems boot faster...hahaha. okay okay that killed me.
oh by the way these are the instructions YOUR AMD cpu supports:
instructions
3DNow!â„¢ technology, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a
I do understand that sse4a and sse4.x are different but thats beside the point.
first off all
dont treath me as a noob
second
my windows 7 boot in 10 seconds
third
YES AMD BOOT FASTER AS INTEL in OS LOAD idiot
(07-02-2010, 08:35 PM)RDilus Wrote: [ -> ]second
my windows 7 boot in 10 seconds
third
YES AMD BOOT FASTER AS INTEL in OS LOAD idiot
That's a question of motherboard (startup-checks) and mass memory (hard disk or solid state drive). I've to wait 5 seconds longer when I use "AHCI-mode".
... But who cares? I'm using the power saving mode.
The system is up in 2 seconds.
(07-02-2010, 03:56 PM)obscured Wrote: [ -> ]hahaha...i've never seen so many bad tech advice then this forum.
Haha indeed, not implying that I'm an expert but at least I'm not talking out of my ass (not directed to you ofc).
(07-02-2010, 03:56 PM)obscured Wrote: [ -> ]AMD systems boot faster...hahaha. okay okay that killed me.
if you wouldn't be an idiot you would know why that is a fact when comparing with a non i-intel cpu (cause those have integrated ram controllers now too).
basicly amd has had integrated ram controllers for AGES. this makes a nice difference when loading alot of data for the cpu to handle like...say... your os
windows 7 on a AMD XP 2500 loads alot faster then Windows XP on a Pentium 4 prescot
and that P4 is a much later generation of cpu's then the AMD XP 2500 so ye