Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

another brainwashed store manager...

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 19, 2006 4:42:27 AM

So the other day i went over to a local computer store, and as I walked in, I noticed that there were all Intel procs. and no AMD's! So i asked the guy whats up and he says he doesnt sell AMD because they are terrible and Intel dominates the market share and he once sold a few AMD procs but their customer service is terrible and all his customers that bought AMD were unsatisfied with their system and INtel's boot speeds are so much faster and overclocking is ridiculous and the AMD thing about performing faster/mhz is bullshit and Intel is really the processor king and how the X2 procs are terrible and the PDs are so much better and his prescott 3.6 (which by the way, is not hot at all!) can run any game at max settings with his 6800GS.

i was just dumbfounded at this guy.

sorry about this big jumbled paragraph.
February 19, 2006 4:45:06 AM

Hey, you sell what you got. (he probably has an A64 @ home, but Intel wont let him sell them)
February 19, 2006 5:09:43 AM

Quote:
Hey, you sell what you got. (he probably has an A64 @ home, but Intel wont let him sell them)


Unfortunately, that is too true. We know they have done that type of thing in the past.

Anyone that tells you that one is great and the other is crap is an idiot. You don't get such a large market share (>20%), by being crap.
Related resources
February 19, 2006 5:11:37 AM

Intel=reliable,fast,long lasting => profitable
AMD="unreliable, not very fast, defective,i'd be too cheap to sell this kind of chips"=>unprofitable
Yup most of them think like this. There is some truth in this. AMD had probs in the past,more probs than Intel.
February 19, 2006 5:24:52 AM

AMD has had problems like that in the past, though the pretty distant (in the world of Moore's Law) past. The last few generations of AMDs have been excellent chips. People seem to forget that you can't think that way in this industry without hampering yourself.
February 19, 2006 5:57:28 AM

Since socket A was released, I have built systems using multiple chips @ each speed, up to the A64 3700. I have built thousands of systems. I have never had one Amd chip fail (except by purchaser abuse), or had anyone compain about stability( except for customer abuses such as virus, or hsf clogged by dust).
If you, or some other idiot could not make an Amd chip work properly, it was probably not the chip's fault.
February 19, 2006 6:17:24 AM

Typical. The store manager was lying to you outright.

Marketing FUD.

Ignore ignore ignore and avoid avoid avoid.

He is clearly trying to sell you something and just give a damn how much he has to lie to get you to buy Intel.
February 19, 2006 6:19:51 AM

Quote:
Intel=reliable,fast,long lasting => profitable
AMD="unreliable, not very fast, defective,i'd be too cheap to sell this kind of chips"=>unprofitable
Yup most of them think like this. There is some truth in this. AMD had probs in the past,more probs than Intel.



Absolutely utterly false.

AMD and Intel are about the same quality and reliability wise.

AMD has a superior architecture.

Intel has superior marketing.
February 19, 2006 9:54:11 AM

AMD did have issues... prior to the K7. My Slot A 750 works just fine (Still), same with all my XPs (1600+, 2300+, 2400+, and my current system).

Still, it's hard to shake a reputation, and far too many people are aware of the issues of AMD some 10 or so years ago.
February 19, 2006 10:07:10 AM

Tru64

On the AMD side:

0. AMD 386DX-40 = awesome :D 

1. 486DX4-1xx = awesome :D 

2. K5 = :-( :cry: 

3. K6 = :-( :cry: 

4. K7 = very nice :D 

5. K8 = fantastic :D  :D 

A lot of people are still mad about the K5 and K6 and some early chipsets which were not very good at all.

-1. not gonna go there

0. 386DX = :-)

1. 386SX = :-(

2. 486DX / DX2 / DX4 / etc = :-)

3. 486SX = :-(

4. Pentium = :-| later versions :-)

5. Pentium Pro = :-)

6. Pentium II = :-| later versions :-)

7. Pentium III = :-) to :D 

8. Pentium 4 = :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :-( :-( terrible!


This is the honest objective truth the way I see it. Both companies have messed up over the years.
February 19, 2006 11:33:10 AM

Lemme ask you a question. Please dont BS, answer correctly.

If that guy would only sell AMD processors and would say those things about Intel, would you actually care and even post a topic on these forums?
February 19, 2006 11:48:25 AM

Id rather say P4 = :D  + :x
And why is the K7 very nice? It got beaten like everywhere.
February 19, 2006 12:01:51 PM

I like it and I dont like it, it had its ups and downs.
February 19, 2006 12:10:02 PM

Earlier P4's were better then the disgraceful Prescotts. Willamette & Northwood were my notable favourites, since they were both reliable cores in their time frames.
February 19, 2006 12:47:06 PM

Yoar, Northwood was clearly the best P4. It had only 20 pipeline stages and was built on 130nm, yet it reached a maximum clock speed of 3.46 GHz. Clock speeds could be much higher by now, if Intel didnt go for clock speeds (now thats some irony in the story). Too bad Ive never owned a Northwood :cry: 
February 19, 2006 12:50:32 PM

Quote:
Lemme ask you a question. Please dont BS, answer correctly.

If that guy would only sell AMD processors and would say those things about Intel, would you actually care and even post a topic on these forums?


How about you? Would you post a topic?
Jus wondering.
February 19, 2006 12:55:31 PM

No, I respect peoples opinion (well... at least the people that are worth respecting).
Even if I would open a topic, I wouldnt call the owner "brainwashed"...
February 19, 2006 12:59:54 PM

I own an old 1.6ghz Willamette, and despite people saying they were a failure on release, I find it a very reliable little core and performed all my task for 4 years till I bought my AMD when I chose to upgrade. I wish I had gotten my hands on a 2.8ghz Northwood C before they seemed to fade out, I might have still stayed with Intel then :p .
February 19, 2006 1:12:29 PM

How would you characterize someone like that?

Someone with a profit motive lying about a competitor's product.

Would you like it if someone forced you to buy AMD?

Should there only be one brand for everything?

Must we all be forced to buy $company Vehicles?

Should we all be required to purchase a $company operating system?

Should the consumer not have the right to choose?
February 19, 2006 1:16:30 PM

Quote:
So the other day i went over to a local computer store, and as I walked in, I noticed that there were all Intel procs. and no AMD's! So i asked the guy whats up and he says he doesnt sell AMD because they are terrible and Intel dominates the market share and he once sold a few AMD procs but their customer service is terrible and all his customers that bought AMD were unsatisfied with their system and INtel's boot speeds are so much faster and overclocking is ridiculous and the AMD thing about performing faster/mhz is bullshit and Intel is really the processor king and how the X2 procs are terrible and the PDs are so much better and his prescott 3.6 (which by the way, is not hot at all!) can run any game at max settings with his 6800GS.

i was just dumbfounded at this guy.

sorry about this big jumbled paragraph.
oh my god dude same thing happenned with me do you live in brooklyn? and if so is the store called gs communications? oh my god if you do i gotta tell you the second time i argued with this guy a big vein popping from his forehead!
February 19, 2006 1:19:51 PM

You are trying to expose his bias; I am trying to expose yours. Frankly I don’t know why anybody would be surprised to see a salesperson talk trash the competition, whoever it is.
February 19, 2006 1:21:01 PM

Quote:
wow, we've got a war going on :lol: 

War what war? :D 
February 19, 2006 1:23:45 PM

I guess you guys have an Intel N... on the loose in NYC, I wonder if he is related to the Soup N... ???


In all seriousness consumers should have a choice.
February 19, 2006 1:32:44 PM

Quote:
Intel=reliable,fast,long lasting => profitable
AMD="unreliable, not very fast, defective,i'd be too cheap to sell this kind of chips"=>unprofitable
Yup most of them think like this. There is some truth in this. AMD had probs in the past,more probs than Intel.

Be mindfull that i did mention that "most of them". I didn't insinuated anything,i just told a fact.
February 19, 2006 1:42:58 PM

I still get misty when I think back on my K6-2 450...
February 19, 2006 2:01:59 PM

Quote:
Intel=reliable,fast,long lasting => profitable
AMD="unreliable, not very fast, defective,i'd be too cheap to sell this kind of chips"=>unprofitable
Yup most of them think like this. There is some truth in this. AMD had probs in the past,more probs than Intel.
actually dude when i used to ba an intel fanboy we thought like this <clearing throat>

intel= is the best omigod i love intel they have the p4 at 3.0 ghz omigod i gotta get it omigod i cant wait intel intel intel man the best proc ever!

amd=hmmph peice of crap they run slow and they suck at games even a celeron beats it.

now i think like this <clearing throat>

intel=overpriced overheated and underperforming except for the mobile chips they beat amd in battery consumption and apps performance.

amd=great desktops best dual core procs,best budget,take less power create less heat, and their server chips are good too but in mobile they arent that good.
February 19, 2006 2:08:42 PM

Quote:
Intel=reliable,fast,long lasting => profitable
AMD="unreliable, not very fast, defective,i'd be too cheap to sell this kind of chips"=>unprofitable
Yup most of them think like this. There is some truth in this. AMD had probs in the past,more probs than Intel.
actually dude when i used to ba an intel fanboy we thought like this <clearing throat>

intel= is the best omigod i love intel they have the p4 at 3.0 ghz omigod i gotta get it omigod i cant wait intel intel intel man the best proc ever!

amd=hmmph peice of crap they run slow and they suck at games even a celeron beats it.

now i think like this <clearing throat>

intel=overpriced overheated and underperforming except for the mobile chips they beat amd in battery consumption and apps performance.

amd=great desktops best dual core procs,best budget,take less power create less heat, and their server chips are good too but in mobile they arent that good.


Well put :D  :trophy:
February 19, 2006 2:11:42 PM

What do you mean the K7 go beat almost everywhere? The K7 500-1000Mhz hands down beat the pentium 3, a 500mhz K7 beat a 650Mhz P3, but the K7 started losing ground with the P4
February 19, 2006 2:15:00 PM

Indeed the K7 was a great CPU and held it's ground quite well even against the P4's despite their higher core clock.
February 19, 2006 2:15:00 PM

Quote:
What do you mean the K7 go beat almost everywhere? The K7 500-1000Mhz hands down beat the pentium 3, a 500mhz K7 beat a 650Mhz P3, but the K7 started losing ground with the P4
no on clock for clock the k7 and p3 were about equal.
February 19, 2006 2:16:39 PM

Quote:
Intel=reliable,fast,long lasting => profitable
AMD="unreliable, not very fast, defective,i'd be too cheap to sell this kind of chips"=>unprofitable
Yup most of them think like this. There is some truth in this. AMD had probs in the past,more probs than Intel.
actually dude when i used to ba an intel fanboy we thought like this <clearing throat>

intel= is the best omigod i love intel they have the p4 at 3.0 ghz omigod i gotta get it omigod i cant wait intel intel intel man the best proc ever!

amd=hmmph peice of crap they run slow and they suck at games even a celeron beats it.

now i think like this <clearing throat>

intel=overpriced overheated and underperforming except for the mobile chips they beat amd in battery consumption and apps performance.

amd=great desktops best dual core procs,best budget,take less power create less heat, and their server chips are good too but in mobile they arent that good.


Well put :D  :trophy: thank you linus btw im downloading those programs you sent me :D 
February 19, 2006 2:17:07 PM

clock for clock K7 beat P3, Read up, google, youll see
February 19, 2006 2:18:37 PM

Best dual core CPU is an Intel and the overpriced clearly is AMD... just fyi.
February 19, 2006 2:21:56 PM

Quote:
Intel=reliable,fast,long lasting => profitable
AMD="unreliable, not very fast, defective,i'd be too cheap to sell this kind of chips"=>unprofitable
Yup most of them think like this. There is some truth in this. AMD had probs in the past,more probs than Intel.
actually dude when i used to ba an intel fanboy we thought like this <clearing throat>

intel= is the best omigod i love intel they have the p4 at 3.0 ghz omigod i gotta get it omigod i cant wait intel intel intel man the best proc ever!

amd=hmmph peice of crap they run slow and they suck at games even a celeron beats it.

now i think like this <clearing throat>

intel=overpriced overheated and underperforming except for the mobile chips they beat amd in battery consumption and apps performance.

amd=great desktops best dual core procs,best budget,take less power create less heat, and their server chips are good too but in mobile they arent that good.

Most excellent description of the facts. Keep up the good work. DVD :trophy:
February 19, 2006 2:22:33 PM

dude the pentium d bottle necks alot because it does'nt have an integrated memory controller it takes it 10 times longer than an x2 to talk to the other core! and that can slow dowwn preformance look at the charts geez i never thought argueing with an intel fanboy would be this hard(oh wait i did i used to be one)
February 19, 2006 2:24:23 PM

Have you any evidence to support that statement?
February 19, 2006 2:24:50 PM

I dont care about theory (noone does). Reality shows that the EE 955 is the best dual core out there (until the EE 965 arrives).
February 19, 2006 2:25:32 PM

and thank you number one this is my personal opinion btw
February 19, 2006 2:30:33 PM

Quote:
I dont care about theory (noone does). Reality shows that the EE 955 is the best dual core out there (until the EE 965 arrives).
excuse me how do you know its gonna be the 965 ee maybe it could be conroe ee? and leadhead the k7 and p3 were about even
February 19, 2006 2:35:59 PM

Would you be kind enough to supply evidence from reliable sources to support your statements?
February 19, 2006 2:39:16 PM

Quote:
Intel=reliable,fast,long lasting => profitable
AMD="unreliable, not very fast, defective,i'd be too cheap to sell this kind of chips"=>unprofitable
Yup most of them think like this. There is some truth in this. AMD had probs in the past,more probs than Intel.
You're an idiot. I use both Intels and AMDs all of the time, and both are fine. Performance wise the difference is usually very small. My Pentium 4 Northwood at 3.5GHz can still run any game out; however my Athlons do the same.
People like him shouldn't be on this forum; they're uneducated on the subject, and really don't have anything important to add.
February 19, 2006 2:42:01 PM

hey linus i really think that hes either this intel fanboy i used to roll with or an intel plant!
February 19, 2006 2:46:10 PM

Its been announced *lol*
February 19, 2006 2:49:15 PM

no seriusly back in 03 i used to roll with this intel fanboy called michael damn he acts just like you do!
February 19, 2006 2:52:02 PM

Mr Ycon seems to be implying one would have to purchase a $1200 Intel EE 955 to beat a $300 AMD x2 or Opteron.
February 19, 2006 2:52:19 PM

Cant be, a fanboy is never going to reach my level.
February 19, 2006 3:05:45 PM

Quote:
Mr Ycon seems to be implying one would have to purchase a $1200 Intel EE 955 to beat a $300 AMD x2 or Opteron.
yeah lol but it cant :D 
February 19, 2006 3:12:19 PM

Quote:
Mr Ycon seems to be implying one would have to purchase a $1200 Intel EE 955 to beat a $300 AMD x2 or Opteron.

I was actually saying that you buy a 999$ EE 955 and kick some 1.031$ FX-60 behind.
February 19, 2006 3:28:20 PM

Quote:
Mr Ycon seems to be implying one would have to purchase a $1200 Intel EE 955 to beat a $300 AMD x2 or Opteron.

I was actually saying that you buy a 999$ EE 955 and kick some 1.031$ FX-60 behind.


This review seems to indicate otherwise

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-f...

The EE 955 is defeated by the FX-60 in virtually all benchmarks.

The EE 955 is defeated by the FX-60 even when the Intel CPU is overclocked to 4.26GHz!
February 19, 2006 3:35:30 PM

linus get some of your fanboy freinds on these forumz and teach y con a lesson :twisted: i know the wrath of linux fanboys first hand :!:
!