AMD & Intel

seems pretty clear to me. amd has 64-bit and is faster at games right now. intel needs to pick up the pace.

Am not certain what the buffoon is reading, but the only issues that particular link addresses are the different sects and grades of the various AMD processors, and the features (not to be confused with performance) of each. No comparisons to Intel are made - in fact, Intel is not mentioned once.

Certainly useful information, but would not classify such as a comparison between the two processor manufacturers.

i know, i wasn't refering to the article at all (which is an interesting comparison of all the diff amd's), i'm refering to my innate knowledge instilled in me from birth by the all powerful Logos.

Perhaps we could also see a bit of concrete evidence to support these claims as well? Not that we equate your self-proclaimed, deity-inspired inborn processor intelligence to mindless insipid conjecture, mind you. Of course not.

hehehe, ur so funny TM. only the facts eh? this provides as much information as one could possibly want. The P4 3.4 wasn't out at the time of the review, but after reading through all of that i don't feel like doing anymore research right now. the conclusion at the end is that when comparing equally priced amd and intel, amd excels in gaming, intel is better at encoding. On most other things they are near equal. the 64-bit technology on the amd, however, makes up for the slight differences between the two and imho makes it the better chip.

i dont know anything about desktops, but the pentium 4 is the best laptop gaming processor right now. pentium 4 can clock the 9700 higher, amd clocks about the same as the pentium m.

where exactly are you getting your information from buffoon?

see previous post. where are you getting yours? since this is clearly going to be a vicious and bloody thread, links must be posted anytime a claim is made.

Always nice to see that - if properly motivated - even the duncical can rise above his/her Logos-tical beginnings. Curious that it would take so much time and effort to find information that should be (by all claims thus far) readily apparent to the masses.

Was interesting reading. A few items worth noting would include the mentioning of workstation class machines, which a number of the users of this forum hope to employ their Sager/Clevo as. Activities of this nature would include not only encoding, but also rendering, modeling, CAD/CAM, any of the engineering applications, etc. Also found the memory latency tests to be a bit surprising, and would say that would be a primary factor in considering this processor (and not the fact that it is 64-bit in nature). Also thought a portion of the conclusion very much mimics the sentiment found here, though it was certainly humorous the descriptiors used where AMD outperformed the competition ("pummels"], as opposed to the instances when Intel outperformed the AMD by similiar margins ("still does relatively well"): For most consumers (especially those of more limited budgets but still power hungry wants, such as the college-aged purchaser), price-performance is quite an important factor, and has always been (the 3400+ no exception) a strong card in AMD's favor. Intel has been significantly losing that particular race for quite some time now, and would venture to guess this will not change anytime in the near future (6-12 months).

However, should be quite interesting to observe the coming months in terms of processor development, as the shift from single core to dual core manufacturing begins to unfold, and look forward to the benefits this may provide to the end user. As I've always personally maintained (and nice to see the article touches on this briefly, as well), the end user should choose the product that best suits their particular needs, whatever those needs may be.

glad you liked the article TM, and i agree with you that when picking between amd and intel, it really is more of a matter of individual needs. the processors are just too different from each other and perform different tasks better than the other and vice versa.

... but the music of the spheres is telling me amd is better for games

It's almost always alright to listen to voices in your head. It just doesn't work well as a criminal defense.

Thank God someone else is hearing those spheres. I thought I was the only one. Although, I don't hear music. Rather, the spheres render practical advice. For example, at the moment, they are repeating, "Don't swim for 30 minutes after eating Thai." Wait. They're now chanting, "Don't get involved in the AMD vs. Intel thread." Sound advice . . . bearing in mind said advice is coming from spheres.

Buffoon is a fanboy, don't bother arguing on Intels behalf. When Intel releases a processor that blows the door off of AMD, he'll still be yelling "AMD!!". This isn't meant to be a knock on Buffoon, but he is loyal to AMD. I'm loyal to where the power is. I'm biding my time with my current desktop until I see some definitive proof that the new hardware releases (PCI-E, DDR2, 64bit cpus) are mature enough, then I could very well have an AMD box. I follow the power, not the name.

the sager 5690 (a p4 laptop with 9700 128mb) gets nearly 4k out of the box in 3dmark03

http://notebookforums.com/showthread...6306#post66306

this is due to its default gpu core/clock set @ 500/300

costs around 2k to get a fully speced out one with 2.8 cpu

battery life is something to be desired however...

--------------

the ferrari3200 (amd64 2800 with 9700 128mb) gets 3k out of the box in 3dmark03

http://notebookforums.com/showthread...449#post271449

even though this laptop also has the 9700 128mb graphics card. its gpu core/clock is set @ 450/210

--------------

although 3dmark03 is a synthetic benchmark and only tests your gpu. it is still a benchmark and serves as a point of reference to compare systems and how well their gpus perform.

also if you look at both reviews done by adam, the 5690 scores 31,000 in aquamark03 and the ferrari3200 scores 26,000 respectively.

aquamark03 is more of a real world test because its a benchmark based off a real gaming engine thats used in real games... its engine can be found in spellforce, aquanox, aquanox2, etc and serve as a better benchmark of overall system gaming performance

my take on 64-bit (since the future is uncertain) is that it'll be awhile before the market matures enough for it to flourish. you'd need 64-bit o/s, 64-bit drivers, 64-bit applications, etc to take full advantage of its performance gain over 32-bit.

we can see from intial beta testing from anandtech that the lack of driver support when comparing identical systems in a 32-bit and 64-bit benchmark shows little gain or in some cases worst performance when comparing 64-bit to existing 32-bit

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/sh...html?i=1961&p=4

as the article states, its too early to fully take advantage of it, as there are no 64-bit optmizations yet, lack of driver support, and the windowsxp 64-bit they were using is the preview edition (not finished).

in proper time, 64-bit will be the new standard of the future. but it will definetly not be something thats occuring overnight (soon). you have to keep in mind that not everyone who owns a personal computer or laptop has a 64-bit ready system at the momment. so software developers are not pressured/motivated to start working with 64-bit support yet. once the number 64-bit consumers increases, we will see more and more 64-bit support and the transition will start to take off more rapidly.

by the time all that happens/gets established newer and much better cpus/hardware will be available (along with 64-bit intel cpus).... so to future proof yourself now going for 64-bit isny really gonna work unless u plan to keep your laptop for 3-4 years

trying to hold on to your laptop that you purchased today, 3-4 years from now would be a hard thing to do because the advancements in technology coming up in 3-4 years are so promising. we have pci-express, organic lcds which are CRT quality and use less power than todays lcds, methane fuel cells which nearly double/tripple the existing battery life of current li-ion batteries, and so much more are coming out

I'd disagree with your notion it will be something like 3 to 4 years before 64 bit is a significant OS. I'm betting that by next summer it will be in full bloom. Nothing to back that up other than M$ is pushing it hard, real hard, and AMD is doing exceptionally well across the markets in comparison to Intel. AMD has gained the image of a company that knows where its going while Intel has recently been floundering about. All of AMD's recent releases have been really well received while most of Intel's have been looking bad.

But time will tell. Perhaps we can revisit this thread next summer and see if I am right. I've put it down on my calender.

Wouldn't be suprised if it did shift in one year as I'm sure large businesses will start wanting 64 bit technology for their servers to have things run faster and the gaming market will go with whatever their favorite sites and magazines are saying is better.

microsoft already said they will have a 64-bit xp os by the end of this year, possibly in q4... im sure they'll meet that statement too. what i meant by 3-4 years is when the 64-bit market matures and consumer ownership of 64-bit systems is the norm, thus the full 64-bit support from all the software developers.

what we see right now interms of 64-bit development are just from the major companies who are trying to be the trend setters, ie microsoft, ati, nvidia, etc...

its true amd looks so much better than intel right now

their latest presscott cpu is so and the fact that they are moving away from what was once a major push for intel, "big clock speeds", to good ol engineering and design, ie p3/p-m, makes amd look like they had it right all along.

thanks for finding all of that rincewind.

it seems like 3dmark03 isn't a very good tool when comparing amd and intel. It is more suitable for comparing ati and nvidia b/c it's a gpu intensive test. also, the 2800+ on the ferrari pales in comparison to the 3400+ on the 4750, which would be the equivalent amd processor to the 5690's 3.4 P4.

Now the aquamark scores on the other hand are interesting. 31,000 for a 3.4 P4 with m11 clocked at 500/300, and 26,000 for a much inferior 2800+ and m11 clocked at 450/210. a mere 8% difference. That test seems to favor amd, but we won't know for sure until the 4750 is out.

and once again, i'm not an amd fanboy. If intel were better i'd get an intel. I want to get the most out of my money and amd is the way to go, at least that's what my Babel Fish tells me