Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which CPU? RESULTS!!!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 16, 2001 5:51:51 AM

As I promised, I have the results of the little poll that I took (look further on in the CPU section)earlier.

Before I list the results, I'll give you the rules by which I scored the posts.

If the person said "both" or "intel and amd", I scored one for each as I am not able to favor one manufacturer over the other.

If the person said "3 amd and 1 intel" or the like, I gave it to amd as it is more likely that they have a faster amd system even though they did not tell me which one was faster.

If they said "1 T-bird @800MHZ and 3 intel @200MHZ" I gave the score to AMD as the fastest system is an AMD system.

Results:

AMD=37
INTEL=28

Now I know there was more posts but it got into a flame war and I did not count any of the posts that did not at least come close to the rules that I laid down in my originating post.

Lastly, of the people who's main system was Intel, 10 of them said there next system would be AMD's.

Of the people who said AMD, zero of them said there next system would be Intel.

Hope this settles the mystery of why there are more posts about AMD on this site. I don't know if this site attracts AMD users or if more clone builders like AMD over Intel but at least we know who won.

I posted this message after I did not receive any replies to my original post for 3 days. I will not be updating this post so if someone replies to it now, it's for there sake only.

T-Bird 800Mhz
2X IBM 75GXP 30GB in RAID0 config
Geforce2 32MB
SB Live

More about : cpu results

February 16, 2001 4:00:04 PM

you probably live in florida right? I counted OVER 40 Intel and I stopped 3/4 down.

what kind of counting is that? If some one said "I use 3 intel and 1 amd" the score is 1 amd 3 intel, not 1 amd.

you gotta count those hanging chads you know!

we need an unbiased count! of ALL cpus...RECOUNT, RECOUNT!

REVOTE or REVOLT!!!

and I didn't even count crashmans 35 intels which he uses in his home :-)
February 16, 2001 7:29:47 PM

I agree with AmdMeltdown. The dsutcliffe method of scoring is the kind of bogus crap that has dragged down the US's notion of democracy.

I however sat down and counted the numbers according to how many systems were listed, not which one was the fastest for each person. I did not however count systems that were no longer owned. But, as the original results were rather weighted in Intel's favor, I recounted for all of the people who said things like, "I'm ordering an AMD.", or, "But I have an AMD system on it's way.". To be fair I also removed Crashman's 35 Intels (and to be fair, also removed his 2 AMDs).

So for those of you who want an actual count of just how many systems were posted, here's the true count:

AMD: 83
Intel: 89
Cyrix: 2
Other*: 5

(* Other covers Mac, Amiga, my own C=64 which I didn't originally list because x86 had been specified, and other misc. CPU types.)

So basically, it's almost a tie between the number of Intel and AMD systems on this board. Really though, it was definately in Intel's favor since I had to count soon to exist systems just to help AMD catch up some of the distance that they were losing by. And I had to drop Crashman's insanely high number of Intels. So it's a 1:1 ratio.

I suppose though, if you want to look at the ACTUAL results of EXISTING AND OWNED systems listed in that thread, the real numbers are more like AMD 1:2 Intel. (Twice as many Intel systems owned as AMD systems of the people on this board.)

Either way that you look at it though, the MYTH that there are more AMD systems owned than Intel systems owned on this message board is just that, a myth. In reality I'd say things are about even if not actually to the favor of Intel.

I don't offer any biases. Just the truth. If you don't believe me, the thread is right there. You can count them for yourself.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
Related resources
February 16, 2001 7:48:37 PM

To quote a statistician, "I can make the truth spin like a quarter."

I can't agree with your assessment, although I certainly understand where you are coming from. Someone saying s/he had a 1.2 Tbird, an 80486, and a Pentium II, tells that my primary system is the Tbird, not my accumulation of Intely chips over the past ten years. I was in fact one of the people who has the AMD on order (swear to God ;)  and I do own a 486 and a P2. So maybe, in a sense, you are correct. More people own Intels (why wouldn't they since they have generations of chips behind them). That means we should rephrase the question which is what system that you own do you use most. The reason behind this is simple: you don't need to ask about a chip you've owned for years and rarely use; you need to ask about the chip you are using now.

This also reduces the people such as crashman who punched the ballot for the libertarian, the communist, the tree hugger, the republican and the democrat, since it would force you to pick one. No Buchanan choices in this election.
February 17, 2001 3:46:33 AM

I have never wanted to get into any kind of flame war with you but you are so [-peep-] stupid that I must tell you just how stupid you are.

In the rules of my original post about CPU utilization, I stated that I would count only the main system. MORE THAN ONCE DID I STATE THIS RULE.

Therefore I stand by my assesment, 1 AMD 1Ghz and 3 PII counts as a point for AMD. I said I would count only the main or fastest computer that the person owned. I can't help it if the people did not follow the rules that I laid out in my original post.

Hell I have 2 pentiums and 2 AMD, I did not count my P166 or P233 or K6-2 500, only my 800MHZ Athlon went into the mix. If you can't see how the rules are laid out than perhaps Grizley1 is right about you being only 13 and not having the cognitive power of my 12 year old who easily understood what the rules were in my post.

I'm sorry that the results don't please you and the silver pheonix guy or any Intel freaks. But the fact of the matter remains, there are more high powered AMD systems being used by the people who took place in the poll than high powered Intel systems. Plain as that.

Don't bother replying, I already know you're going to contradict me, keep it to yourself for once.

T-Bird 800Mhz
2X IBM 75GXP 30GB in RAID0 config
Geforce2 32MB
SB Live
February 17, 2001 5:59:45 AM

well, you still come up short! going by your conveniently tailored rules, I counted again and I still get OVER 40 INTEL CPUS!!!

yes, I counted grizely1s intel and I counted 1 for myself(my main system is dual!); crashmans got 1 also.

I have no idea on how you arrived at those figures, perhaps someone else should count this poll(and maybe they might find more Amd's than you did!).

you know if I had counted 100 Amd's and 30 for Intel then fine you got it, but those numbers where just wrong bro!

you can't get away with that...in an open forum? sorry!

I welcome anybody to recount and go by the rules as you stated, rules that turns a dual system into a single cpu.
February 17, 2001 7:13:34 AM

<megaphone>Put down the crack pipe please</megaphone>

Let me clarify for you and you alone, as I am sure that everyone else on this board understands.

If my rules were followed correctly, then only a few people really replied correctly. They are the ones with a one word reply saying "AMD" or "Intel". I tried to set down some rules as I could have predicted that this bickering would happen.

I tried to determine which manufacturer either AMD or Intel (didn't count Cyrix as they really don't factor into the equation) made the processor that sits in what you consider to be the main system that you own. I didn't want to know every processor that has ever been owned in anyone's life, I didn't even want to know the speed of there processor.

I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHO MADE THE PROCESSOR THAT SITS IN THE COMPUTER THAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE YOUR MAIN SYSTEM.

Now, a dual processor Intel system is still just an Intel system.

Do you get it or do you need further clarification. Although I suspect that you are being obtuse on purpose just to attempt to anger people or to make yourself feel better. I can't figure you out.

T-Bird 800Mhz
2X IBM 75GXP 30GB in RAID0 config
Geforce2 32MB
SB Live
February 17, 2001 2:07:25 PM

I must apologize to you dsutcliffe, being one of those who resonded 1 AMD and 3 Intels. I did indicate that the AMD was my main system. My intention was to show the trend, the growing AMD segment of the market. My oldest system, a Pentium 200, will soon be replaced by another AMD system.

As far as the shift in microprocessor marketshare, AMD gained about 8 percent this year. This in a year when Athlon motherboards were scarce, and the majority of the early boards were just plain poor at best. Now that stable, high quality boards are available in number, I think we will see Intel lose a bigger chunk of the market. Not only to AMD, but to VIA as well with their Cyrix III. Of course, power users and gamers will ignore the Cyrix, but it will make an impact in business, as it will run Word and Excel as well as anything else. It will also make a dent in the laptop arena as well, due to its low power consumption. Each one of these chips sold means one less Intel chip sold (competition!).

The fault lies with Intel. They became complacent, sat on a core processor for five years, making minor improvements, and reaching 1ghz by overclocking their processor (the P3) until the breaking point (the 1.13ghz), a practice their competition (AMD K6 and Cryix 686) was criticized for in the past (looks like Intel finally "caught up"). They have been surprised and surpassed in technology by AMD, and have struggled to keep up. This struggle released the P4 ahead of its time, minus many of the features that could have made it a much better chip.

Of course, the posts will follow screaming the the AMD chips don't have thermal protection. The next generation of chips (from AMD and VIA) will. It is even rumored that then next generation of AMD chips will not require active cooling (Intel will copy that, don't worry). Until then, ball bearing HSF very rarely (if ever) fail. Reading posts on this and other forums show that AMD chips fry after the owner removes the fan, attempts to close the L1 bridges, and either cracks the core replacing the fan, or reinstalls the fan improperly. They don't just fry by themselves. We all know that there is some risk in overclocking. If you don't know what you are doing, just leave it alone and it will run forever.

Next they will scream about instability of AMD chips. Any instability is in the motherboard and the chipset (VIA), not the processor. Scream at VIA! The end result is that with the newer motherboards and proper drivers, the VIA chipsets are as stable as Intel chipsets.

The next argument is that AMD chips are just cheap copies of Intel chips (some argument). That may be so. Right now, they are cheaper and faster. More for your money. I'll buy a cheaper and faster processor (or any other product) anyday. The extra money is better in my pocket then Intels. How many of us drive Japanese cars? Didn't the Japanese copy the American car? Didn't they make it better? Did they cut deeply into the American auto industry? What about Xerox? They originated the copier, but all of the "copycats" out there make a better, less expensive product, and Xerox is in dire trouble. Intel has been caught sitting on their laurels, and is now reacting to their competition rather then leading them. It is the beginning of a tail spin.

Without AMD (and VIA), Intels prices would be much higher then they are today. The Intel users should be glad that AMD is around. Why did Intel recently lower their prices? Did competition from AMD have anything to do with it? Without AMD you would be paying twice what you are now for your computers. You should wish AMD well, for good competition between companies results in better and less expensive products. Intel sat on the P2/P3 core until the Athlon came along. Not only did AMD customers benefit from the Athlon, Intel consumers benefited as well.

The real survey will be indicated at the end of this year with the amount of marketshare lost by Intel.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 17, 2001 3:16:13 PM

okay lets be sensible about this. If someone has a 800Mhz AMD and 3 - 200mhz Intels, which one is going to need more support? Chances are the older systems have already been tweaked, and updated to the max. So which one is going to cause the most problems/posts on this website? The AMD? If you count by this method, assuming the AMD and the INTEL have the same amount of problems, you would still get WAY more INTEL posts from people. I mean, if you couny my INTEL PIII 450.. it's over a year and a half old... I havnt had to troubleshoot problems for it in a long time... but i put it down so it gets counted as a system

[IDEA] Counting systems like this is pointless {/IDEA]

there is so much subjectivity and unlogical arguments going on here it isn't even funny..



-AMD's are not for the faint of heart... Intels? those are for newbies :o )-
February 17, 2001 5:18:19 PM

This was a waste since some people just can't figure out how to submit to a poll I guess. I'm at fault too since I didn't comment on what I have. Nonetheless, it is quite obvious that we should only count the main system period! Not the accumulation of PC's over the last 15 years. Should I count my Mac Plus as one of my systems? Hell, I haven't turned it into a fish tank yet so we might as well count it, right?

Why don't we try this again with some plain common sense. Don't count your 27 pc's in a rendering farm, only count your MAIN PC. If you are honestly going to buy a new machine in the nearest future, then fine we'll count that. But lets only count one PC per person unless you REALLY do use multiple computers. I can't see a person using more than 2 computers though. Work and Home should be it max. We can't count every computer that you touch per day. That's not cool. For the sake of argument why don't we just include a computer that has your personal files on it. That should be 2 right?
February 17, 2001 6:22:14 PM

LOL I don't know what you're smoking but it needs to be passed around cause it's obvoiusly pretty strong stuff





I went a counted, and on the first page alone there over twice as many AMDs. You need to open your eyes. Maybe you're looking at the wrong post or something. Overall this is what I came to:

AMD: 41
Intel: 29

maybe you should tally the results when the buzz has worn off. either that or learn how to count.

-----------------
Satan Clara...... 'Nuff said.
February 17, 2001 6:28:54 PM

You'd better recognize...'cause grizley's new title makes him the papa bear.
February 18, 2001 7:19:47 AM

i dont think i voted, vote me for AMD
February 19, 2001 6:21:02 PM

What is all this BS about only counting a single main system?

Maybe in an ideal world we only run on one system. All of our files work on that one system. And we always have access to that one system.

Real world however speaks VERY differently.

For example, my main system is a Celeron 500. It's the fastest that I have because I just haven't felt like spending any real money lately. It runs my internet service because most of the modems around my area fry thanks to really crappy phone lines.

What does this mean? It means when my wife wants to use the internet, I have to be on a SECOND SYSTEM!

Gosh, what's this? I use TWO systems?

Nah, I use a lot more.

Sometimes I feel like playing an old (but good) DOS game. Like EarthSiege 1. (Which ran much more smoothly than ES2.) Like BattleDrome. Hell, I could fill this forum with DOS titles that used assembly interupts no longer supported my MS Win9x, and thus simply won't run on any Win9x platform.

So add a THIRD system to my collection since I need that hit from DOS at least once a week.

Oh, but that's not all. I also like to listen to MP3s. I found it was actually cheaper to buy a refurbished laptop at a computer expo than it was to buy a good MP3 player with a large storage capacity. So I did that. And thus I plug my laptop into my cig lighter in my car and use it to play MP3 files as I drive. So it's a frequently used system too!

That makes FOUR so far. Can I keep going? Sure!

At work I do a lot of programming on a P3-750. I use that system a lot. So that makes FIVE.

Also at work I sometimes need to program in hardware support for COM port communication. The Intel system hooked up to an analytical X-Ray machine makes SIX.

And, sometimes at work I need to make Alpha executables to send to customers with Alpha processors. (Good floating point unit, great for scientific applications.) I don't do a lot on this system, but sometimes I have to tweak source code. So this makes SEVEN!

And then there's my C=64 because sometimes emulation just isn't real enough. So that's EIGHT.

I have eight frequently used systems. That's right folks. At any given point in time you can roll an eight sided die, and that'll be just as accurate a guess as any to which system you'll find me on. I REGULARLY use them all.

And which do I spend the most time working on? Well, I do a lot of work with driver updates on my P3-750 at work because it's running on a VIA mobo, running Win2k, and running a G400 video card. So it's needed a LOT of driver updates.

But I also have spend ages (and countless dollars) on my Pentium 133 at home because it started to die of old age. I had to replace the video card and the motherboard.

But before I had gotten it running again I had stripped out it's hard drive and CD burner and put them into the Celeron 500. (And believe me, it wasn't as easy as it should have been because of a complete lack of IDE device mounting space.)

Frankly, the two systems that I do the least amount of maintanance and repairs on are the P3-800 hooked up to the X-Ray equipment and the C=64.

My point? Just because a system is old doesn't mean that it isn't frequently used and doesn't mean that it's problem free.

So all of this, "count only one system", crap is just plain CRAP.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
February 19, 2001 7:01:34 PM

Intel 9,734,564
AMD 4
Broken/burn AMD 32,424
Broken burtn Intel 0

You guys cannot count!
February 19, 2001 7:41:52 PM

I agree with slvr i have three systems all being used just bought an amd 1100....cause my curiousity is up and reading these threads pique my curiousity about the stability of the systems... but i have 1100 amd and 500 p3 both arent weak for there perspectives sizes now the 233p um one? is... more motherboard than anything really on that one but i use it as well.. my main system happens to be the one i sit at the most id say so since my ex uses teh other one ..dont ask on that whole ex thing ok? and i use the 1100 amd the 233 sits till i can get the money up to fix it ... all are used thou... but for me its the amd at the moment due to bug issues the p3 is bug free so i dont need to be in front of the one hence she is using it

so is all perspective on what is a main? to me right now its the 1100 to her its the 500 but as i sit here i am reading between both since i m working on each as i type this so at this very moment its both :) 

hope that made some kinda sense
February 19, 2001 7:48:54 PM

Exactly.

I think the point is (or should be) that MAIN systems are systems which are regularly used. People can have more than one main system. Households can have numerous main systems. (If you don't believe me, I've got relatives who practically have at least one computer in every room of the house and at least three per bedroom. And they use ALL of them for one reason or another.)

I think the only systems that shouldn't count are ones that haven't been used in at least three months. If you have a system that actually collects dust, it's not a main system. Anything that gets used regularly though, that's a main system.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 19, 2001 8:08:46 PM

slvr phoenix. you are a married man...with a house....and presumably a mortgage. yet you cme here all the time and act like a 12 yr old.

rediscovering the child with-in perhaps???

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: cape does not enable user to fly.
February 19, 2001 9:27:47 PM

You are wrong. I just threw some Intel chips in the fireplace the other day. HAHAAHAHHAAH!

-----------------
Satan Clara...... 'Nuff said.
February 19, 2001 11:01:06 PM

slv...you are the exception, not the rule. I think it's kinda sad that you can't get your life down to less than 7 computers, but oh well.
February 20, 2001 12:29:17 AM

If the god dam poll thing worked we wouldn’t have this problem!
Cya
BYW add 1 AMD for me :) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2001 1:39:10 AM

Your smoaking that wacky tabaky again, I use both AMD and Intel processors and I have never had an AMD fail but I do have 2 failed Intel processors. One is PIII 750 Coppermine so don't try and tell me that they are more reliable!

Mike
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2001 5:57:43 AM

Note to Pheonix's post: Don’t count business computers, for one. We are talking home computers here. I think the idea is to get a picture of the trend that is occurring in the pc industry. So, you use 8 computers -- I am a pc tech, I guess I use 40,000 computers regularly. What kind of reasoning is that? Oh, and your commodore 64? I still use my original Nintendo, should that count?
What if we conducted a poll with three questions: 1) what is the system you plan to purchase next? 2) What brand of system do you use most? (By the way, its not numbers of machines, but time on machine -- you must OWN it as well.) 3) What brand is your NEWEST computer? You don’t have to answer any or all of them, of course, just what applies to you. We could also ask how many of each brand of computer you own, just for kicks.
I think that you will find something spectacular -- most people are more inclined to purchase, or recently have purchased, AMD computers. Does this mean Intel sucks? No, but some of the crap they've pulled does! But let's not go there ;o. No, what it means is that more people prefer one brand to another (and for many reasons, price\performance being the main issue). I sell computers and work on them, and I have seen this trend happening day by day. Just my 2 cents.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2001 11:42:16 AM

What do you mean by failing on you? Did you overcloced them and burned with two times over allowed cover voltage?
Or may AMD be less static sensitive?
What kind of a statment do wish to make? I have never seen faulty Intel, I have just burned them... :tongue:

<i> And they said schizophrenia is annoying?
February 20, 2001 9:50:10 PM

"I have never seen faulty Intel, I have just burned them... "
Now, that´s a statement!
From my experience, Intel is more inclined to Stop working if it gets too hot than burn!

All i´m seeing is people complaining that their "Sweet"
AMD processor melted because they didn´t have good cooling! That´s the reason AMD is selling more processors than INTEL!

Better burn in Hell with some company than freeze in Heaven all alone
!