quote:
Naimah had this to say about (_|_):
How much are you willing to spend on a set up? What do you want to do with it? So on and so forth. Both companies have their strengths.
Assume I have an unlimited budget.
[ 02-03-2004: Message edited by: Suddar ]
quote:
How.... Alaan.... uughhhhhh:
From what I remember the P4EE is a touch ahead of the 51-FX or FX-51(For a good deal more money). That might change once the release of XP 64 bit comes out though. Also, the Pentium Prescot should be out soon. But they were having massive heat issues on that and was delayed I believe.
I hear the Prescott isn't that much better.
AMDs best offering comes in the form of the Athlon64 3400+. While it runs at a considerably slower speed, during 3D applications it either matches or out performs the P4. Keep in mind that this chip weighs in at just over $400 making it a considerable bang for the buck.
Edit: Comma for clarity. [ 02-03-2004: Message edited by: Naimah ]
quote:
Naimah had this to say about Punky Brewster:
Well if your doing things such as encoding of large files and whatnot, the extra clock cycles of an Intel chip come into bigger play and so for those exercises the P4 3.4Ghz EE is the fastest chip currently on the market. However, that is 900 dollars for the CPU alone.AMDs best offering comes in the form of the Athlon64 3400+. While it runs at a considerably slower speed during 3D applications it either matches or out performs the P4. Keep in mind that this chip weighs in at just over $400 making it a considerable bang for the buck.
Nice... thanks.
Personally, I'd go with Intel due to the fact that most of the things I'm working with these days are optimized for Intel.
Of course if I stopped compiling CPU specific builds that might change, but I doubt it. 
The heat from the AMD chips just isn't worth the cost difference, IMO...
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Naimah said:
Only if you are an Intel fan.
Either AMD or Intel. Intel's gonna need to hammer a few things down with the prescott before it's all well and good. AMD's about to swtich sockets in a month.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Random Insanity Generator said:
I just got notification of Intel price drops on Monday and rumor mill is there will be a second wave of drops in the next week or 2...Personally, I'd go with Intel due to the fact that most of the things I'm working with these days are optimized for Intel.
Of course if I stopped compiling CPU specific builds that might change, but I doubt it.
The heat from the AMD chips just isn't worth the cost difference, IMO...
AMD and Intel chips have about the same thermal performance. Just a couple of Watts off if memory serves.
quote:
Naimah had this to say about Pirotess:
AMD and Intel chips have about the same thermal performance. Just a couple of Watts off if memory serves.
Intels run way cooler. Contribute it to whatever, but AMD systems run hotter.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Kalculus Kid or Mathinator or Waisz:
Intels run way cooler. Contribute it to whatever, but AMD systems run hotter.
While they at a hotter temp, AMDs chips are always less expensive and run just as well as Intels. Depending on how much money you want to spend is where your processor fate lies. I always go with AMD.
For best results, got with a Mac. Power Mac G5 MMmMmMMmmMMMm 
quote:
Check out the big brain on ToastedFritters!
While they at a hotter temp, AMDs chips are always less expensive and run just as well as Intels. Depending on how much money you want to spend is where your processor fate lies. I always go with AMD.For best results, got with a Mac. Power Mac G5 MMmMmMMmmMMMm
You need to learn how to discuss things. We were discussing temperature. I was not using it as a explanation that AMD is worse than Intel. I was saying they run hotter. No one was debating anything else. [ 02-03-2004: Message edited by: Kalculus Kid or Mathinator or Waisz ]
quote:
ToastedFritters attempted to be funny by writing:
While they at a hotter temp, AMDs chips are always less expensive and run just as well as Intels. Depending on how much money you want to spend is where your processor fate lies. I always go with AMD.
Good thing they're cheaper... if your cooling solution fails, you'll be replacing that chip real quick. 
quote:
Random Insanity Generator's account was hax0red to write:
Good thing they're cheaper... if your cooling solution fails, you'll be replacing that chip real quick.
I've yet to hear of a cooling solution for an AMD processor failing (save that article where they manually removed the heatsink).
It must be really common though.
quote:
Kegwen attempted to be funny by writing:
I've yet to hear of a cooling solution for an AMD processor failing (save that article where they manually removed the heatsink).It must be really common though.
Guy I work with has replaced 6.
2 blew up because his water cooling failed (one sprang a leak, the other ran out of water), 3 more because the fans had siezed (heatsink alone doesn't cut it) and one because he had the HS on too tight and it cracked (one of the replacements for his watercooling box)
quote:
Kegwen wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
I've yet to hear of a cooling solution for an AMD processor failing (save that article where they manually removed the heatsink).It must be really common though.
While the problem hasn't happend for me, but my Friend had a new AMD prcessor for 2 months and now it has a burn hole through it.
quote:
Verily, ToastedFritters doth proclaim:
For best results, got with a Mac. Power Mac G5 MMmMmMMmmMMMm
That's weird, I've seen statistics that place high end dual processor macs just below high end single processor PC's
quote:
Random Insanity Generator had this to say about Pirotess:
Guy I work with has replaced 6.2 blew up because his water cooling failed (one sprang a leak, the other ran out of water), 3 more because the fans had siezed (heatsink alone doesn't cut it) and one because he had the HS on too tight and it cracked (one of the replacements for his watercooling box)
Water cooling is a risk in and of itself...
newer motherboards (ie anything manufactered in 2002 or later) shut off automatically before melt down. The core cracking is more user error, though...
quote:
Alek Saege spewed forth this undeniable truth:
Assume I have an unlimited budget.
quote:
Kalculus Kid or Mathinator or Waisz Model 2000 was programmed to say:
The funny thing is all the homemade w/c systems that spring leaks and such. Owners of these systems will claim they are better than Koolance or kits. But when the thing leaks, they act all surprised at it.
He didn't act supprized. I'd say he was shocked. 
Sucks when you spring a leak and it shorts out most everything in the case all at once...
quote:
Kermitov had this to say about dark elf butts:
This oughta do it... better yet... 32 of these
Smart ass .
quote:
Alek Saege had this to say about the Spice Girls:
Smart ass
actually I'm surprised I'm the first one to think of it
and smartass is one of the few things I do well
quote:
Random Insanity Generator had this to say about Robocop:
Good thing they're cheaper... if your cooling solution fails, you'll be replacing that chip real quick.
Newer AMD chips have thermal shut off switches in them. When the issue was brought to their attention they addressed it.
1) most if not all new AMD boards include a thermal shutdown that's user-configurable to turn off the PC when the chip hits whatever level you choose.
The best value of chip for any relevant category looks somewhat like this:
Under $100: AMD XP2500 (or Mobile 2500)
Under $200: Intel 2.8C
Under $300: AMD 64 3200+
Around $400: AMD 64 3400+ (better than a 3.4C)
Unlimited Fundage: Toss up between 3.2EE and FX-51. (or 3.4EE and FX-53)
really, they both have VERY competitive chips at the money-is-no-object level, and intel is currently the winner for the "mainstream" level, whereas AMD is a better value for the "budget" and "performance" sectors.
Either way you go, in any price range, you'll have some benches going to either company though.
No, Really. Bite me.
I look at it this way AMD is that little souped up rice burner, and Intel is a german built V-8
I'm die hard INtel all the way.
quote:
Somthor obviously shouldn't have said:
AMD seems to have odd compatiblity issues where it ocasionaly doesnt work quite right with a program or two. (maybe they fixed that) it also runs way hotter than intel.. high heat = shorter duty cycle.I look at it this way AMD is that little souped up rice burner, and Intel is a german built V-8
I'm die hard INtel all the way.
actually, if there were any compatability issues, it was more than likely a VIA chipset at fault rather than an AMD processor. They are and always have been fully x86 compliant. They can execute all the instructions that they get fed.
And yes, the AMD chips do run hot, but that does not necessarily mean a shorter duty cycle. Yhe MTBF also is dependant on the overall design of the chip, much more dependant on the thermal fluctuations of the chip (a chip always at 50 will last longer than one that fluctuates between 20 and 35 all day long provided everything else is equal) as well as the voltage running through the chip and how well it handles it.
But I don't see how the Duty Cycle or MTBF is even a factor as most chips made by either company will either die in the first year or will last for 8-10. I don't know many people that want to run a 10 year old processor.
Also, if memory serves, the new prescott is still having thermal issues where it's putting out 100+ watts of heat whereas the A64 is still running cool (between the Axp and P4 levels).
And actually, your last analogy is almost perfect if you reverse them. The AMD architecture is baed on a higher IPC and lower overall clock speed, whereas the Intel architecture relies on very deep pipelining to achieve massive clock speed while having low IPC. So intel is like a high revving 4 banger and AMD is like a brute force V-8.
No, Really. Bite me.
Intel chipsets (especially the 875's) are also a lot better than what AMD, VIA, etc can offer.
quote:
We were all impressed when BurgerMeister wrote:
actually, if there were any compatability issues, it was more than likely a VIA chipset at fault rather than an AMD processor. They are and always have been fully x86 compliant. They can execute all the instructions that they get fed.
Except that when code is optimized around the Intel core it runs like SHIT on any other CPU.
Case in point: Intel Pentium vs the Cyrix/IBM 6x86. The Cyrix chip did the same thing that AMD is currently doing (their 6x86 P200+ ran at 150mhz) and on most things it beat the unholy shit out of the Intel chips... Until you got into things that were optimized for Intel specifically. Most noticibly: Quake. Quake ran great on an Intel chip and ran like shit on the Cyrix chip. Reason was: The Quake engine was optimized to the Intel FPU core and the Cyrix chip (while technically superior) lacked the quirks that the engine was abusing for performance.
Given the speed that todays chips run at, most people will never notice the difference (they all have rings in their nose and moo) but it still happens. I think it was the SoL expansion (Might have been SoV, but I doubt it) for EQ that showed that loud and clear... AMD users took a performance hit while Intel users kept decent performance....
Dual 3GH should be out within a month or two tops. 
quote:
Check out the big brain on Naimah!
Sounds like a problem with the software writers and Intel if you ask me. If software has to be optimized for their core in order for it to run acceptably there is an issue with their design.
Go take a couple of courses in code optimization and come back later please.
For unoptimized code AMD performes as well or better then Intel in many disciplines. When code is made specifically for Intel they obviously perform better.
If developers took the time to write code paths for more then just 'their' processor then this wouldn't be an issue.
quote:
Naimah stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
You're defending a chip based on people optimizing for it. Not the merit of the chip itself.For unoptimized code AMD performes as well or better then Intel in many disciplines. When code is made specifically for Intel they obviously perform better.
If developers took the time to write code paths for more then just 'their' processor then this wouldn't be an issue.
And unoptimized code is sloppy programing.
You see, it's comments and attitudes like yours that leads to gaping wound holes and Mac-truck sized security exploits in software. "Oh it's good enough, ship it." That doesn't cut it. If programers put more effort into properly abusing the hardware they have at their disposal we'd be doing FAR more with the systems of today. Example: Compare gaming on a C64 vs gaming on a like-year PC. Night and fucking DAY difference. C64 had better sound and generally better graphics to boot. And the PC was a noticible advancement in computing technology. Why did the C64 kick ass? Because the coders took advantage of everything they could. Every shred of memory was accounted for, everything that could be put to use was put to use...
