Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Does AMD suck?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 15, 2003 6:47:23 PM

I've been reading some of the posts here that say AMD is crap. Intel P4s have real MHz, doesn't melt and burn up, isn't as noisy as a freight train, and doesn't have compatability problems. Is this true?


Best Regards,
Chris Fleming
<A HREF="http://www.build-your-own-computers.com" target="_new">Build-Your-Own-Computers.com</A>

More about : amd suck

May 15, 2003 7:16:54 PM

It's not crap at all. It's just that AMD has a hard time now keeping up with Intel's quality and performance, although for the latter we are only speaking of 10-20% maybe. AMD is currently especially good for cheap low- and mid-end systems.

Personally I prefer Intel though. I have a Celeron 1200 and I could have had a significally faster Althon XP for the same money but I like silent cooling and good SIMD performance. Waiting for the Celeron .09 micron now...
May 15, 2003 7:24:35 PM

you have to be retarded to have your amd burn up. cpus dont make noise. and what compatibility problems? the chipsets have the problems, not the cpu.

<font color=red> black </font color=red> <font color=green> white </font color=green> <font color=blue> yellow </font color=blue> <font color=orange> purple </font color=orange> <font color=black> red </font color=black> <font color=yellow> green </font color=yellow> <font color=purple> blue </font color=purple>
Related resources
May 15, 2003 7:43:03 PM

AMD does not suck. They have angered many people with their deceptive PR Ratings. I have owned four AMD systems. The first was because I couldn't afford Intel. The second, third, and fourth were because AMD was giving much better performance for the price. AMD definitely didn't suck.

Now, however, AMD is trying to get more money for less performance, and covering it up by slapping a PR rating on the chip that makes it seem as if the chip is as fast as or faster than a similar P4, when, in reality, the P4's are quite a bit faster at the high-end.

If AMD was charging substantially less for their high-end processors, no one would complain. But if AMD wants to charge $500 for their 3200+, which loses to the P4 2800 in many benchmarks, they are providing the educated consumer with no rational reason to buy their product.

I will say that AMD is still awesome in the $50-$100 range.


<font color=green>The Netherlands is where you go when you're too good for heaven.</font color=green> :tongue:
May 15, 2003 8:28:47 PM

Look at it this way. The Athlon 3000+ lost to the P4 3.06/533 in almost all benchmarks. So, Intel increases their FSB speed by 50%, and lowers their mhz to 3000, and the new P4 3000/800 FSB pretty much kicks the crap out of the 3.06/533, meaning it's even better compared to the 3000+. So what does AMD do? They increase their FSB speed by 20%, add a measley 33 mhz to the core speed, and then increase the PR rating by 200 POINTS!! Are we really supposed to believe that a 33 mhz FSB tweak (20%) and a 33 mhz increase in core speed (1.5%!!) equates to a 200 mhz (7%) boost in total system performance?? And what's really sad is this processor still isn't a 3000+ when comparing to Intel--more like a 2800+.

<font color=green>The Netherlands is where you go when you're too good for heaven.</font color=green> :tongue:
May 15, 2003 8:36:12 PM

Hm... yes, it´s sad...

But what´s really sad is that you´re not even exaggerating! :tongue:
May 15, 2003 8:55:08 PM

AMD is the only real competition that Intel has and that is a good thing. If you don't believe it look at the money Bill Gates has sucked from us! I have had and worked on systems with Intel, AMD and VIA processors and I can say that for the value per dollar AMD far exceeds Intel. Like it or not without competion we would be slaves to the corporations!
May 15, 2003 9:07:44 PM

I prefer AMD systems as well. Intel owns the tippy top end, but nobody in the real world buys that stuff anyways.

And this guy:

"Personally I prefer Intel though. I have a Celeron 1200 and I could have had a significally faster Althon XP for the same money but I like silent cooling and good SIMD performance. Waiting for the Celeron .09 micron now..."

I don't even know where to begin with this comment. He needs to be drop kicked in the chin. He thinks his Celeron 1.2 is good for something other than a ninja star, and he is nutswinging on the up and coming celeron to boot. Get a clue dude.
May 15, 2003 9:10:38 PM

"Like it or not without competion we would be slaves to the corporations!"

I'm sorry, dude, but that's kind of a retarded thing to say. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. You're not a slave just because there's only one manufacturer of a certain product.

-DOOM
______________________________

<pre>MOV AX,0040
MOV DS,AX
MOV WORD PTR [0072],1234
CLI
JMP FFFF:0000</pre><p>
May 15, 2003 10:47:05 PM

"I don't even know where to begin with this comment. He needs to be drop kicked in the chin. He thinks his Celeron 1.2 is good for something other than a ninja star, and he is nutswinging on the up and coming celeron to boot. Get a clue dude."

Care to explain your rudeness?
May 15, 2003 11:52:13 PM

I think what he was trying to say is: You came off sounding like you were critisizing AMD from way up on your Intel Pedestal. But then you mentioned the Celeron 1.2 that you currently run and your pedestal suddenly became a Phone Book.

I admit that AMD is not the top performer but when compared to a Celeron 1.2Gig any amd above 900Mhz RULES.

The aim of military training is not just to prepare men for battle, but to make them long for it. <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=32..." target="_new"><b>MY SYSTEM</b></A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by rubberbband on 05/15/03 04:52 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 16, 2003 12:30:36 AM

I don't have an Intel pedestal and I don't have an Intel phonebook... I even defended AMD in my first post, although I -personally- prefer Intel.

The Celeron 1.2 beats ALL the Duron and original Athlon processors simply because it supports SSE, period. Even the Athlon XP 1500+ has poor SIMD performance compared to the Celeron Tualatin.

When I bough this processor, I wanted the best SIMD performance for the lowest price, and I got it. Don't forget that a year ago the Pentium III still beated the Pentium 4 at MMX/SSE. If you don't believe it, test it yourself: <A HREF="http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=5..." target="_new">RealVirtuality</A>, <A HREF="http://sw-shader.sourceforge.net" target="_new">swShader</A>.

Sure, software rendering is a very specific application, and many will consider it as dead, but this is my hobby and the Celeron was and still is the undoubted winner when it comes to price versus SIMD performance. Hence my choice for Intel.
May 16, 2003 12:39:11 AM

Head out on the Highway
Looking for some action
and whatever comes my way

I say both our posts are relavent


--------
The only thing that i truly know...

is that i know nothing at all.
May 16, 2003 12:44:01 AM

Quote:
The Celeron 1.2 beats ALL the Duron and original Athlon processors simply because it supports SSE, period.

Where you've found this BS? Durons with Morgan core support SSE (900 MHz to 1.3 GHz). The time you bought your Celeron 1.2 Ghz, there was Durons with Morgan core.

My 1 Ghz Duron (w/ nForce and CL2.0 DDR) will beat your Celeron by small og big margin or at least perform on-par in all benchamrks. Plus if I want, I can upgrade to an AXP 2600+. AXP's from 1700+ and 2400+ are very cheap now. And for this upgrade, I won't have to buy new mobo and RAM. But for your outstanding 0.9 micron celeron, you have to buy a new mobo and RAM. And don't expect these Celery's to beat AXP 2400+/2600+, though their price will be higher.

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new"> My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new"> My Rig</A></b>
May 16, 2003 4:11:09 AM

Quote:
The Celeron 1.2 beats ALL the Duron and original Athlon processors simply because it supports SSE, period. Even the Athlon XP 1500+ has poor SIMD performance compared to the Celeron Tualatin.

1) Athlon (T-bird) compensated for lack of SSE with a <i>very</i> powerful x87 FPU--strong enough to tear apart a P3 non-Celeron any day. It's a fine way to compensate, especially seeing as SSE's ultimate purpose is to speed up certain floating-point ops.

2) AthlonXP has a very good SSE implementation. Ace's verified that by benchmarking with an app called KribiBench--an app so SSE-optimized, it absolutely <i>would not run</i> without some form of SSE features in the processor. The Palomino just about kept up with a P4 Xeon, even with a 500MHz speed deficit.

Your point about heat, OTOH, was certainly valid back then. The Pentium3 was a much less power-hungry chip than the T-bird or the AthlonXP. Unfortunately, the Pentium4 is now a power hog (more so than any Athlon), and Banias (a revamped Pentium3 for low-power settings) has about the same heat/power characteristics as the low-voltage AthlonXP.

Right now, I'd say the main disadvantage with going for AMD is that they're not really <i>quite</i> at the top anymore, despite the PR ratings. The PR ratings were once valid figures (even very conservative), but lately they're slipping into the "fudged" region.

For low-end or midrange systems, though, you just can't beat the performance/value of an AthlonXP+nForce2.

Compatibility problems for the Athlon may have existed at one time, but they're pretty much nonexistent now. We largely have the nForce2 chipset to thank for that.

Thermal protection problems are a bit more significant but not major. It's reached the point that decent thermal protection is a basic staple of any new AthlonXP motherboard.

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
May 16, 2003 5:03:02 AM

Quote:
I don't even know where to begin with this comment. He needs to be drop kicked in the chin. He thinks his Celeron 1.2 is good for something other than a ninja star, and he is nutswinging on the up and coming celeron to boot. Get a clue dude.


the Tualitin celerons are good. they are the equivilant of the old P3s because of the increase in cache. 256cache on a P3 core. only thing they lack is 133fsb...

when you get celerons with P4 based core, then they suck. the celerons below 1.4GHZ are suprisingly good, dam near as fast as the Duron counter part

-------

<A HREF="http://www.xgr.com" target="_new">XGR-Game Reviews</A>

"You change the channel, and you change our minds..." - System of a Down
May 16, 2003 6:01:51 AM

Can you tell me again how the Celeron 1.2 is faster than an AthlonXP 1500+? Just one more time...
May 16, 2003 11:32:36 AM

He better start backing up his claims as well, before sounding like an Intel follower.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
a c 80 à CPUs
May 16, 2003 11:53:23 AM

Like Tony Curtis said in the movie Operation Pettycoat,"In confusion, there is profit.", let the big two battle out the technology increases, and we will reap the rewards of lower prices, no matter which one you decide to put your money into, both are good and solid products. They've been having this drag race now for quite some time, and odds are you never come in first everytime, if history repeats itself as it usually does, sooner or later the tables will turn again, and AMD will be king of the hill again, its just a matter of time. Theres a lot of very satisfied AMD customers out there and I'm one of them.

<b><font color=purple>Details, Details, Its all in the Details, If you need help, Don't leave out the Details.</font color=purple></b>
May 16, 2003 1:06:21 PM

Yes I forgot about the Morgan cores, sorry. But still I think the Celeron was a better choise for me. It's a very cheap processor, the motherboard is also very cheap but of good quality and SDRAM is also cheaper than DDR (at that time). And since I'm mainly interested in SIMD performance I am convinced it wasn't a bad buy.

Futhermore, I'm cooling it with a passive Zalman heatsink. I'm a student and at daytime I have to study, at night I program. It's really quiet in my room then and I absolutely hate the noise of fans. I even replaced my Radeon 9000 cooler with a Zalman ZM50-HP.

I don't have the money to upgrade right now, so I'm not interested in the upgradability of my motherboard. I'll just buy a totally new system once I have the money. Whether or not this will be an Intel or AMD I won't decide now, but at the moment I'm more looking forward to the Prescott than Hammer...
May 16, 2003 1:38:32 PM

The Celeron executes almost all MMX instructions in one clock cycle, for the Athlon the average latency is higher than two. Similar differences in latency for SSE. That's why under certain circumstances the Celeron is faster.

I never said the Celeron -always- beats the Athlon, it's just that for my very specific field of interest it's a good choice. In most other situations the Althon clearly wins because of it's higher clock speed, more integer execution ports, bigger cache and higher FSB. I never denied that.

I still don't understand why you wanted to "kick me in the chin" for this. It's my processor and -I- am happy with it. Both processors have their strengths and weaknesses and there's no such things as "faster" without a context.

I can repeat that more than one time too if you want...
May 16, 2003 4:30:23 PM

Ok... maybe I was a little harsh with the whole drop kick thing. My AMD fanboy side was showing. I think you do have a good point with the passive heat sink and I can appreciate that.

But next time you open up internet explorer and it takes you 5 minutes for it to load your homepage then you might not mind a little extra hummmmmm.
May 16, 2003 7:02:03 PM

My feeling on the AMD rating system is that they needed something, but they set it too high (or it worked in the 1400+ to 2000+ range, but didn't scale well after that).

I consider myself fairly computer literate, and my relatives all know how into computers I am, but I'd be hard pressed to convince some of them that an AMD would beat an intel if all I had to show was Mhz.

If they didn't exagerate so much we could go back to telling people that a 2x00+ AMD beats an intel 2.x Mhz, even though the AMD runs at 400 Mhz slower or whatever.
October 8, 2013 3:37:53 AM

sure brings back memories :) 
!