Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why almost all of us should choose AMD

Last response: in Systems
Share
December 19, 2006 6:21:14 PM

After discussion on the forumz, an interesting insight developed:

It doesn't matter much for the great majority of people whether they use AMD or Intel, in terms of performance.

This is because system performance, except for some professional encoding/editing, is *NOT* affected by your processor choice so long as it is dual core!

This has to do with what are the BOTTLENECKS in a modern computer system.

Becuase hard drive technology has lagged so dramatically all the technology improvements in other components, hard drives and memory are the bottleneck.

Real-world, actual performance that you actually experience depends on your hard drive, and memory amount, and then on your graphics card, so long as you have a dual core cpu.

Because of this, smart builders of their own computers would do well to buy a *LOW END* dual core (AMD OR INTEL), and plan to upgrade it (in the same motherboard) in 12-18 months with a QUAD CORE. This is smart a use of dollars.

The money you save can allow you to get bleeding edge graphics without emptying your bank account.

You can have cutting edge 8800 graphics gaming computer with graphics enable top performance for well under $1000. AND THIS COMPUTER WILL CONTINUE IN TOP PERFORMANCE SIMPLY BY A PLANNED UPGRADE TO QUAD CORE IN TIME.

Just get:

1. Motherboard that will allow upgrade to QUAD core.
2. cheap dual core
3. 2 GB memory
4. Latest tech hard drive, like a Seagate 7200.10 for example.
5. Graphics card porportional to your use.

Now.....since the cheap dual core is the better choice for most of us, which one is smart.

Well, the Pentium D type is a poorly performing power hog compared to AMD X2 types. The Core2Duo is excellent, but not that much better at the same price levels on the low end.

So.....I think the way to choose is to consider whether we want to return to a semi-MONOPOLY in the furture, with Intel again selling chips for higher prices, the way they did until AMD really started gaining market share. OR...is it better to buy the underdog, and encourage a future of 2 companies making great chips, instead of only 1.

I think I'd rather have 2 companies, and with the choice of AMD not impacting performance in the *OVERALL* system here, I think AMD is the best choice for most all of us.

I'm not a fan. I just want continued competition. I don't want us to have only one dominate cpu maker. Do you?

More about : choose amd

December 19, 2006 7:00:20 PM

While I agree with competitiveness amongst the companies, and how it benefits the consumer (us), I think your logic is rather flawed......though I do understand your point.

By your own logic, why bother to upgrade to Quad Core? As you say, other than "some video encoding", it's not needed. So why upgrade? No games take advantage of it, it won't boost framerates, it won't make my search window open any faster because of proportionately poor hard drive performance, as you mentioned. So why drop $1,000 on a quad? Why not use that money and build a whole system?

Ah, why indeed. Therein lies part of the real question and the real answer.

I do many different types of things on my computer.....video encoding, Photoshop, file transfers, CAD, internet browsing, hardcore gaming......you name it. Do I notice a difference with my heavily overclocked Intel C2D than my previous AMD X2 3800?? YOU BET I DO. It's not just video encoding.......it does almost everything faster. Does it give me huge framerate increases in games? NO IT DOESN'T. But that's why I have 2 gigs RAM and a fast vid card.

So you see, a computer's ability (or lack thereof) is not simply a product of its processor alone, no more than a game will benefit JUST from a fast GPU. It is greater than the sum of its parts, so to speak. My overall system is better and faster than my overclocked AMD X2 3800 with the same RAM, same GPU ;)  That is not conjecture, that is fact. In truth, my C2D is exceedingly faster than my AMD, even at stock speeds. But overclocked, my AMD cries beside the C2D. Am I an Intel fanboy? Hell no. But I am a performance-for-price fanboy. And right now, the C2D chips easily outclass the AMD offering, at any end of the spectrum. My 6300 cost $200 Canadian. For $25 more than an X2 3800, it offers MASSIVE performance increases. Again, your logic that it's not worth it is unfortunately incorrect.

So unfortunately, your argument is kind of like my old neighbor that told me during my university days to put a Corvette engine into my Chevette. :roll: By your logic, that would be fine because I just need something cheap and basic to house the horsepower. NOT TRUE. That engine would have snapped the transmission like a twig. BUT, if I had a proper transmission and other parts to support that engine's power, then yes, I would have had the biggest sleeper hotrod in the city.

Sorry bud, but extrapolating generalized conclusions based on a narrow premise is Flawed Logic 101.


Good luck with your build though. As I said elsewhere, as long as your happy, that's what counts.
December 19, 2006 7:53:04 PM

Yep, I won't flame you because the idea behind the intent is what's bad, not the intent itself. The reason AMD got to be so innovative is BECAUSE they were the underdogs, and look what Intel had to do to catch up and pass them, the best processors by a far margin. This is just a cycle and I'm sure AMD will come back with a good punch.

Your logic doesn't work btw, dual core AM2 processors are not that much cheaper than the E6300 AND you would have to upgrade from an AM2 motherboard to a 775 motherboard so not only do you have to consider the price of the processor but of a new motherboard as well... based on your own logic it would actually make more sense to buy a cheap dual core intel then upgrade to quad core ON THE SAME MOTHERBOARD later.
Related resources
December 19, 2006 8:32:15 PM

Obviously, you are ignoring benchmark testing. Better processor do speed up just about everything, and in the case of the 8800GTX can slow a system down and become a bottleneck themselves.
December 19, 2006 8:39:45 PM

Quote:

So.....I think the way to choose is to consider whether we want to return to a semi-MONOPOLY in the furture, with Intel again selling chips for higher prices, the way they did until AMD really started gaining market share. OR...is it better to buy the underdog, and encourage a future of 2 companies making great chips, instead of only 1.

I think I'd rather have 2 companies, and with the choice of AMD not impacting performance in the *OVERALL* system here, I think AMD is the best choice for most all of us.


Yeah. . . do that and your setting a precedent that we don't really want good technology; we would rathe have a dualopoly instead that focuses on maintain the balance.

Reward the loser because he is poor and underappreciated. Typical liberal economics. :evil: 

How about AMD stepping up to the plate and earning our business back. I want the best technology for my money. I don't use my money to control business politics.
December 19, 2006 9:02:13 PM

Quote:

So.....I think the way to choose is to consider whether we want to return to a semi-MONOPOLY in the furture, with Intel again selling chips for higher prices, the way they did until AMD really started gaining market share. OR...is it better to buy the underdog, and encourage a future of 2 companies making great chips, instead of only 1.

I think I'd rather have 2 companies, and with the choice of AMD not impacting performance in the *OVERALL* system here, I think AMD is the best choice for most all of us.


Yeah. . . do that and your setting a precedent that we don't really want good technology; we would rathe have a dualopoly instead that focuses on maintain the balance.

Reward the loser because he is poor and underappreciated. Typical liberal economics. :evil: 

How about AMD stepping up to the plate and earning our business back. I want the best technology for my money. I don't use my money to control business politics.

/AGREE
December 19, 2006 9:05:42 PM

Succinct.....I dig it. Perhaps my first post was a bit too.....verbose.

So my new response should be: Um...yeah....good luck with that.




8)
December 19, 2006 9:15:50 PM

I agree with the OP about most people only needing AMD, but to throw enthusiest (the people here) in with everybody else is wrong and is only going to result in flames. I sell consumer PCs at Best Buy for a living(if you want to call it that) and for most people AMD is the right choice because they can get a X2 4200 with 2gigs of ram for the same price as a E6300 with 1gig. Since the people buying them won't overclock (and most probably can't be overclocked) the extra gig of RAM is much more valuable. But for system builders who plan to overclock c2d is definatly the better choice for a new system.
December 19, 2006 9:19:35 PM

Exactly my point, I agree. Making a complete conclusion based on a narrow focus/usage is illogical.

You're right, I just built a system for a friend that was an AMD X2 4200 with 2 gigs RAM. Why not the 6300 if it's so awesome? For that simple fact: he was able to get 2 gigs instead of 1 gig, plus he'll never do any overclocking whatsoever. His move up from a Pentium D to the 4200 made it seem like he was driving a Porsche, so he was very happy. He doesn't push his system hard like some of us, so it was great for him. Would I get the 4200? No. But then again, I have different needs.

That's the point really. Painting everyone's situation with the same brush doesn't work. It depends on each person's individual situation, needs, budget, etc, etc.
December 19, 2006 9:22:57 PM

Quote:
AMD doesnt innovate,they borrow and improve on designs.

its been discussed to death here at toms.


The fact is that regardless of what they did, whether true innovation (lets face it, not many companies have true innovation, they take something that's already working and make it better) or not, they came out with a line of products in the K7 that was better than anything else for the consumer enthusiest market at the time. This in turn forced Intel to respond, C2D is not true innovation either but it's at the leading edge at this time. What we want is for this to continue and that won't happen if we all decide that something is "just good enough".
December 19, 2006 9:25:17 PM

Haven't bothered to read the original post, just wanted to point out to you that Intel make better CPUs for less money and as such your thread title is rendered a load of bull.

Had a little skim through what your post said. Yeah, it's still a load of bull.
December 19, 2006 10:01:12 PM

Quote:
Haven't bothered to read the original post, just wanted to point out to you that Intel make better CPUs for less money and as such your thread title is rendered a load of bull.

Had a little skim through what your post said. Yeah, it's still a load of bull.

Actually if you read the OP and the sebsequent responses you'd see it's not all bull. AMD actually makes the cheaper CPUs and overall platforms, though they are less powerful for a lot of people the difference in CPU performance is less important then the extra money for things like more RAM. I do however find it ironic that the line
Quote:
Intel make better CPUs for less money and as such your thread title is rendered a load of bull.
comes from somebody with a mac in their signature, talk about paying more for inferior performance :lol: 
December 19, 2006 10:13:23 PM

Innovate although defined as to introduce something new it also means to do something in a new way. Essentially take an old idea and do something new with it. This is the same for most things we have today. There are few things today that are not innovations on what we had in the past.
December 19, 2006 10:44:25 PM

I don't care what your motives are. I don't want to have just one CPU manufacturer either, but I'm not about to post utter and complete BS that goes against all reality and logic. Thanks a lot Sharikou, but nobody's buyin' what you're selling. All we are going to do is laugh at you, so why try?
December 19, 2006 10:48:40 PM

First you tell us:-

Quote:
Well, the Pentium D type is a poorly performing power hog compared to AMD X2 types.


I would agree with you there. The Athlon X2 is faster and less power hungry than a Pentium D.

Then you go on to say:-

Quote:
The Core2Duo is excellent, but not that much better at the same price levels on the low end.


What kind of crap is that? The performance gap between the Core 2 line and and the X2 is bigger than it ever was with X2 vs PD. You can buy a Core 2 Duo now and upgrade to quad core later just fine.
December 19, 2006 11:42:18 PM

If you were really smart you wouldn't even post this.

Cheapest conroe, E6300 is only 30-40 more bucks than X2 3800+ (excluding 3600+)

and E6300 just KILLS even 4600+ in most benchmarks...




The end.
December 20, 2006 12:27:45 AM

Hmmmm the forums have been pretty lame lately.

I am going to start a new post.


Why almost all of us should never post in a forum. My self included.


8O
December 20, 2006 12:33:01 AM

Quote:
After discussion on the forumz, an interesting insight developed:

It doesn't matter much for the great majority of people whether they use AMD or Intel, in terms of performance.

This is because system performance, except for some professional encoding/editing, is *NOT* affected by your processor choice so long as it is dual core!

This has to do with what are the BOTTLENECKS in a modern computer system.

Becuase hard drive technology has lagged so dramatically all the technology improvements in other components, hard drives and memory are the bottleneck.

Real-world, actual performance that you actually experience depends on your hard drive, and memory amount, and then on your graphics card, so long as you have a dual core cpu.

Because of this, smart builders of their own computers would do well to buy a *LOW END* dual core (AMD OR INTEL), and plan to upgrade it (in the same motherboard) in 12-18 months with a QUAD CORE. This is smart a use of dollars.

The money you save can allow you to get bleeding edge graphics without emptying your bank account.

You can have cutting edge 8800 graphics gaming computer with graphics enable top performance for well under $1000. AND THIS COMPUTER WILL CONTINUE IN TOP PERFORMANCE SIMPLY BY A PLANNED UPGRADE TO QUAD CORE IN TIME.

Just get:

1. Motherboard that will allow upgrade to QUAD core.
2. cheap dual core
3. 2 GB memory
4. Latest tech hard drive, like a Seagate 7200.10 for example.
5. Graphics card porportional to your use.

Now.....since the cheap dual core is the better choice for most of us, which one is smart.

Well, the Pentium D type is a poorly performing power hog compared to AMD X2 types. The Core2Duo is excellent, but not that much better at the same price levels on the low end.

So.....I think the way to choose is to consider whether we want to return to a semi-MONOPOLY in the furture, with Intel again selling chips for higher prices, the way they did until AMD really started gaining market share. OR...is it better to buy the underdog, and encourage a future of 2 companies making great chips, instead of only 1.

I think I'd rather have 2 companies, and with the choice of AMD not impacting performance in the *OVERALL* system here, I think AMD is the best choice for most all of us.

I'm not a fan. I just want continued competition. I don't want us to have only one dominate cpu maker. Do you?


This message was brought to you by your friends at AMD. At AMD we no longer believe that benchmarks matter anymore.

Except when the K8L is released then benchmarks will be very important again
Anonymous
December 20, 2006 12:35:14 AM

AMD is going with the Fusion CPUs, something I don't think Intel has thought about that much. I kinda like AMD deciding that this "multi-core race" is going to end just like the "Gigahertz race", so they will have something different by the time when we have too many idle cores, at least for a desktop, I have no idea about servers though.
December 20, 2006 12:50:50 AM

Quote:
Hmmmm the forums have been pretty lame lately.

I am going to start a new post.


Why almost all of us should never post in a forum. My self included.


8O

Send me a link to that post please! :D 
December 20, 2006 2:37:26 AM

Well, this was interesting. I hoped to have a provocative title, but it seems it caused many people not to read much further. For instance the first reply presumed I was suggesting somehow to buy a motherboard and a dual core, and then to upgrade to a quad core for $1000. Good grief. I expect when I upgrade to a AMD quad core, on the same old motherboard of course, in 18 months or so, will be for around $150.

Another person somehow imagined I said the AMDs outperformed the C2Ds at the same price. While I remember saying at the low end of C2Ds, they were similar in performance, a whole different meaning altogether. I can read charts of course, and the Tom's Hardware Guide CPU chart tells me the X2 4600 is about 10% slower than the C2D 6400 on the Multitasking 1 task.

Since I have "common sense" I know this isn't much difference compared to a significant difference, like between an 8800 video card and a 7800.


I see there must be some kind of us vs them thing going on here on the forumz, and I played into it somehow.

But thanks to at least one person that did read through all the OP.
December 20, 2006 3:59:19 AM

Quote:
Well, this was interesting. I hoped to have a provocative title, but it seems it caused many people not to read much further.


Do you think through your title before you decided to use it?

Why almost all of us????? that's 80-95% - should buy AMD.

With your subject full of crap - how do you expect people
to get through your post?

You stated that the hard drive is the bottleneck. Show
me a link that a faster harddrive will have a dramatic
increase in frame rates for gaming. Since, gaming and
performance go hand and hand for most people.


crap again.

Plus, market share should be earned. That's what keeps
technology moving forward. Buying, because you feel sorry
for AMD. Is counter-productive.

Your problem, is that you forgot who your audience is.
December 20, 2006 4:03:39 AM

I suppose to me "bottleneck" means to me what it means to most people: the thing that slows stuff down and makes you wait. It's the piece of hardware you spend time sitting there waiting on. Show me any game where the AMD X2 4200 is maxed out more than 2% of the time, and I'll have a different view. By all means. :o 
December 20, 2006 4:35:08 AM

Quote:
I suppose to me "bottleneck" means to me what it means to most people: the thing that slows stuff down and makes you wait. It's the piece of hardware you spend time sitting there waiting on. Show me any game where the AMD X2 4200 is maxed out more than 2% of the time, and I'll have a different view. By all means. :o 

Well gee... let me think... all of them? If you are not maxing out your CPU, you have a different bottleneck than your HDD. Trust me.
December 20, 2006 4:56:36 AM

How about we all just forget this thread, as it has been discussed in 100's of 1,000's words in posts. We all know our right answer, and fan boys are just clawing in here trying to prove the other brand fan boy's wrong.

So, let's all just let this one collect dust, shall we?
December 20, 2006 5:33:03 AM

Quote:

So, let's all just let this one collect dust, shall we?


another one collects the dust.. dun dun..
December 20, 2006 7:03:50 AM

Quote:
Quote:

Intel make better CPUs for less money and as such your thread title is rendered a load of bull.
comes from somebody with a mac in their signature, talk about paying more for inferior performance :lol: 

Kiss my balls.
December 20, 2006 10:07:11 AM

Quote:

I see there must be some kind of us vs them thing going on here on the forumz, and I played into it somehow.


Yeah you are the "them" If you didn't realize this forumz is populated with people who respect performance and innovation, and could care less about AMD's woes.

I read your post and it is mostly nonsense with some facts floating in it to give it creedence. You need to go back to your research.
December 20, 2006 10:41:35 AM

Quote:

So.....I think the way to choose is to consider whether we want to return to a semi-MONOPOLY in the furture, with Intel again selling chips for higher prices, the way they did until AMD really started gaining market share. OR...is it better to buy the underdog, and encourage a future of 2 companies making great chips, instead of only 1.

I think I'd rather have 2 companies, and with the choice of AMD not impacting performance in the *OVERALL* system here, I think AMD is the best choice for most all of us.


Yeah. . . do that and your setting a precedent that we don't really want good technology; we would rathe have a dualopoly instead that focuses on maintain the balance.

Reward the loser because he is poor and underappreciated. Typical liberal economics. :evil: 

How about AMD stepping up to the plate and earning our business back. I want the best technology for my money. I don't use my money to control business politics.

hellefriggen lujah ! amen.

Wow...do i see sense in the forumz?!?!?!
December 20, 2006 10:43:51 AM

Intel has had their own idea a few months before amd even anounced this "Stream processor" intels processor has been tested and the 32 core version can run Windows xp at a mere 1.9 mhz. I dont even see why this thread was created. If you do buy a core 2 duo, you will blatantly see a difference, you will notice an even bigger difference as you overclock the core 2 duo to a much higher stratosphere then the X2's could even hope to get close to. INTEL HAS A BETTER PROCESSOR PERIOD.No ifs ands or buts, and its about to get 40 % cheaper if you havent been reading the articles.
December 20, 2006 11:51:50 AM

What a BS topic. I waited a year while the Athlon 64 754 and 939 3200+ processors stayed above $200. AMD not only got a lead and sat on it, they charged a premium for it.

Then, I watched while they killed 754 and now 939. They have serially rendered our systems obsolete and forced us to new sockets. Upgrade to AM2? What a laugh!

These reasons are why none of us should choose AMD until they show their loyalty to us. Make me a 4000+ or 4500+ socket 754 CPU and sell it for $100 and I'll buy it. I spent the last 4-5 years showing AMD some loyalty and got none in return, and that is why almost NONE of us should choose AMD
December 20, 2006 12:07:04 PM

Quote:
Hmmmm the forums have been pretty lame lately.

I am going to start a new post.


Why almost all of us should never post in a forum. My self included.


8O

Send me a link to that post please! :D 

Put me on the list for the link too!

This thread was a waste of my time, except +1 post for me.
December 20, 2006 12:29:17 PM

Quote:
What a BS topic. I waited a year while the Athlon 64 754 and 939 3200+ processors stayed above $200. AMD not only got a lead and sat on it, they charged a premium for it.

Then, I watched while they killed 754 and now 939. They have serially rendered our systems obsolete and forced us to new sockets. Upgrade to AM2? What a laugh!

These reasons are why none of us should choose AMD until they show their loyalty to us. Make me a 4000+ or 4500+ socket 754 CPU and sell it for $100 and I'll buy it. I spent the last 4-5 years showing AMD some loyalty and got none in return, and that is why almost NONE of us should choose AMD


It's certainly a lot of BS here on this thread! :o  I too have a 939, which I indeed used for the easy upgrade from a single to dual core just by dropping a chip in in 5 minutes. I certainly would be sweet to see AMD support the 939 socket with more of the new 65nm chips. On the other hand, this APG nforce3 motherboard will be 3 years old soon, and I'll be getting some other gains when I finally switch it next year. In the meantime, just running a x2 4200 with a lot going on, I experience cpu lag maybe 1% of the time (or less), and this is what gets obscured in all the noise and BS about C2Duos, which, btw, I think are great, and it's about time we had 2 companies offering innovation instead of only AMD. More power to Intel, and I'm glad to see them living up to their advertising finally. But I will indeed buy the underdog so long as the performance cost at the same price is negligible, so it's very likely it will be AMD on the next cycle, again.
December 20, 2006 1:51:48 PM

Will work on it when I get a chance.

:wink:

I am loyal to neither intel or amd, I am "true to myself". I currently have an amd system and it is working fine for me and I am currently happy with it and that is what is good for me. We could argue computers and cpu's a hundered different ways and never agree.

Just like cars. I drive a honda which I believe is one of the best built cars in the world. But some people like chevys, fords, hyundai's etc. and that is what makes the world go around. Yea hondas are good but should everyone drive a honda? Open market and competiton are great for us the consumers. BTW don't count ford out just yet........ :wink:

The subject of this post I think is what is confusing. Should be.............


Subject: Why all of us should choose whatever makes us happy. :wink:
December 20, 2006 2:21:19 PM

Quote:


Yeah. . . do that and your setting a precedent that we don't really want good technology; we would rathe have a dualopoly instead that focuses on maintain the balance.

Reward the loser because he is poor and underappreciated. Typical liberal economics. :evil: 

How about AMD stepping up to the plate and earning our business back. I want the best technology for my money. I don't use my money to control business politics.


hellefriggen lujah ! amen.

Wow...do i see sense in the forumz?!?!?!

Hopefully, yes. If AMD, or Intel, (or any other company for that matter) want my business, they can damn well bring out a better product than the alternative, or leave me alone.
Synergy6
December 20, 2006 2:43:56 PM

The initial intent of the topic was, I think, to say: if your typical use of your system doesn't borderline your CPU use, why buy the best CPU there is, to see it return a very high idle time, in exchange for a few minutes scraped off an occasional hour-length encodig?
Right now, when considering low-end dual cores, THG's stats do say that AMD has the most efficient/least expensive offerings.
In such a case, then yes, buying AMD makes sense, especially considering how young the AM2 socket is and how long it will last: get a cheapo X2 3600, see it run at half clock speed 98% of the time, and change it by the end of 2007 when it really starts to show more than 70% CPU use more than 10% of the time - then it's due for an upgrade, and it's a simple matter of drop-in replacement chip.
On Intel's side, due to the upcoming 333 MHz FSB (quad-pumped), you will probably have to change the mobo next time you change CPUs (some do accept still unofficial 333 MHz FSB, most don't).
Still, the topic is a bit weak; I'm happy with my year-old s939 X2 3800+ (I just batch encodings to take place overnight and load both cores at 100%, and my attempts at overclocking showed no -practical- speed increases), but if I were to build a computer now, it would probably be C2D based.
December 22, 2006 3:47:44 AM

Quote:
Quote:

Intel make better CPUs for less money and as such your thread title is rendered a load of bull.
comes from somebody with a mac in their signature, talk about paying more for inferior performance :lol: 

Kiss my balls.
I bet you'd like that. Just goes to prove my theory: over 80% of Mac users are gay. :wink:


:twisted:
December 22, 2006 6:26:42 AM

You don't have the Mighty Boosh in the states do you.
December 22, 2006 7:03:58 AM

Hmm,

I heard rumors, that the CS and C2D architecture was first developed by AMD techs who later left for Intel and improved it there. So I dunno who borrows from who, it might be even more complicated than that. I imagine that these 2 are constantly luring each other's employees and exchanging technological secrets (albeit not always voluntarily)
December 22, 2006 7:53:18 AM

Quote:
I suppose to me "bottleneck" means to me what it means to most people: the thing that slows stuff down and makes you wait. It's the piece of hardware you spend time sitting there waiting on. Show me any game where the AMD X2 4200 is maxed out more than 2% of the time, and I'll have a different view. By all means. :o 


Have you ever learned to overclock your system?
December 22, 2006 8:20:25 AM

AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH O my GOSH I need hot intel Engy's to make sexy intel cpu so I can AWP office on a 60 inch plasma, while owning Nazi's in company of heroes, so back off and go give money to poor people so they can buy more drugs.......... wtf hacks......admin please boot....hes got AMD aimbot /dead.....joking....sorry....to many energy drinks.....

O
December 22, 2006 8:21:07 AM

Quote:

enthusiasts are in it for the speed,there is no other factor,and definitely no sympathy for a company that didnt plan aggressively when it would have made all the difference.

If Intel schools AMD and throws them back to the stone age;it is only because AMD's planning wasnt sufficient.you cant expect us to buy transmeta cpu's just to keep intel at bay.


Yes, but all the businesses and state agencies that bought Dell's, HP's and IBM's over the years kept Intel in business, even when the CPU's were space heater Prescott's. AMD did plan well, they were just beaten in sheer power by the Core 2 Duo's.

We can't really thank good Intel planning for this, but Intel desperation in turning to their Israeli notebook CPU designers instead of continuing on the road to thermal armageddon. Intel could afford to recover from their Prescott failures because they were the market leader for the wrong reasons.

Me, I stuck with Northwood and so regretted an impulse buy at Fry's (Pentium 4 630 with an ECS board) that I took it out of the overheated case, saved it as a Christmas gift for a friend, and put my Northwood back in instead.

My sympathies are with AMD right now. I don't have a real choice of a gaming, 3DS Max OS but I do have a choice in processors. I'll probably go AMD this time around, with an RS690 board when they arrive. Then, I'll just slap in a dual X1950 Pro from Sapphire until R600 matures. Even if a 1.86 gigahertz C2D is better.

Besides, I'm getting transitioned over to IBM and they're working with AMD on 45nm and Fusion, aren't they? Got to support the plans of a partner with my soon to be employer!

Quote:

Then, I watched while they killed 754 and now 939. They have serially rendered our systems obsolete and forced us to new sockets. Upgrade to AM2? What a laugh!


Intel did the same thing in the past. I've stuck with a P4 Northwood 2.8 (533fsb) socket 478 because I didn't see the value in a socket T Prescott, and minimal value for a socket T Smithfield.

I know people who upgraded to a socket T and when Pentium D came out, they needed new socket T boards. So, can we really hope that Intel will finally get the voltages right so people can keep their boards for a CPU upgrade to the next multicore?

What AMD did for years was provide Athlon 64's for both 754 and 939, now X2's for both 939 and AM2. What confuses me is the talk of AM2+ and AM3. I expect they're trying to get the next architecture right so that it can compete against Intel and have better thermals.

Right now, none of us can expect much beyond the fact that, whatever multicore we choose, the board that it sits in may not be viable in two years for the next upgrade. If AMD is really dropping the ball on this, it's the same thing Intel's gotten away with.

My aging PC:

P4 Northwood 2.8 (533fsb)
D865PERL mobo
2 gig Corsair VS in 4 sticks
All in Wonder Radeon 9800 Pro
100 gig Maxtor SATA for Windows XP Home
160 gig WD SATA for games
300 gig Maxtor IDE for anime fansubs and Morrowind/Oblivion modding
LITE-ON DVDRW SHM-165H6S
COMBI RW32/DVD

250 gig WD external for more storage
160 gig Maxtor IDE in external bay for even more storage.

I did so love Intel when they came out with C2D, until they did another Smithfield with their quad core. You just can't trust this company to actually get things right all the time, and AMD is making as big a mistake with 4x4. They should just do what they do best and let people decide based on price, performance and applications.
December 22, 2006 3:45:15 PM

Quote:
AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH O my GOSH I need hot intel Engy's to make sexy intel cpu so I can AWP office on a 60 inch plasma, while owning Nazi's in company of heroes, so back off and go give money to poor people so they can buy more drugs.......... wtf hacks......admin please boot....hes got AMD aimbot /dead.....joking....sorry....to many energy drinks.....

O

Are energy drinks a euphemism for crack?
!