All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Hardware
Intel or AMD
BobTheHob:
I used to say Intel, now I say neither. 64-bit RISC all the way, CISC is stupid. I like SGI MIPS myself.
toadlife:
Ever since the k6 days I've use AMD. I made the mistake of buying a PIII 500 machine in 1999, and was really pissed when 6 months later I built an AMD Athoon 750 machine and it benchmarked *twice* as fast as the PIII 500 intel machine. I don't encode video for a living, so Intel's 5-10% advantage in this area is irrelevant to me.
Tomshardware did a little head to head and found that AMD's new dual core processors are better at many multimedia tasks (where intel used to beat AMD) than Intels dual core processors. Intel's dual core procs also suck up 200 Watts of power jsut sitting still, and uo to 310 watts when under load. AMD's dual core chips take 125 to 190 watts of power.
Yes, I am an AMD fanboy. :p
Refalm:
I've got an AMD Sempron at the moment. AMD's are fast, and the nForce chipset that come on most AMD-able motherboards is simply the best chipset (got neat Linux drivers too).
Installing an AMD is somewhat more difficult than Intel, because of the fragile core on top, but the advantages of AMD outweigh that issue.
solemnwarning:
--- Quote from: Refalm ---I've got an AMD Sempron at the moment. AMD's are fast, and the nForce chipset that come on most AMD-able motherboards is simply the best chipset (got neat Linux drivers too).
Installing an AMD is somewhat more difficult than Intel, because of the fragile core on top, but the advantages of AMD outweigh that issue.
--- End quote ---
AMDs rule!!!
but semprons are crappy comapred to xp athlon
Refalm:
--- Quote from: solemnwarning ---AMDs rule!!!
but semprons are crappy comapred to xp athlon
--- End quote ---
Although they have a small cache, it's pretty much acceptable, Games play great.
I compensated the Sempron with quality RAM and a good videocard.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version