Jeez, what a bunch of crap! Why do you guys continue to spread FUD like this?!?! :|Originally posted by: amdfanboy
I like AMD because Intel kills babies.
Originally posted by: Falloutboy525
I've been amd for the past 4 years because intel hasn't had a chip thats worth buying under $100 since the p3 cely's
with cpu's I much prefer to overclock a sub 100 dollar chip and have performance 80-90% as good as the top of the line chip and upgrade often (every 8-14mo) compared to buying a 800 dollar chip so I have the fastest chip but not afford to upgrade it till its well behind the curve
OopsOriginally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: Ionizer86
Well, my 1700+ XP mobile (1.47 stock) runs stable up to 2.1. That's a 43% overclock, and if I kept raising the Vcore I'm sure I could get it to 2.2Originally posted by: CTho9305
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Overclock the 2500+ to 3200+ speeds, and the 2.8 to 3.5, and the 2.8 will be faster most probably (and NOT $300 more either).
Only an idiot would buy a CPU and thinking he's guaranteed to be able to overclock by 25% (2.8->3.5) or 28% (2500->3200). Most CPUs I've gotten my hands on aren't stable at over 10% above stock speeds. Maybe your random window / game crashes are really the result of hardware issues rather than software problems.
Since I see that you've decided to use PR ratings on the 2500+ to 3200+, I'm going to redo my calculations:
1700+ --> 2600+ = 53% increase
Ditto. My 1833mhz 2500+ runs at 2500mhz for a 36% increase. I'm pretty sure my PR is a 3700+ or so, so that would make it 48%. Either that CTHO guy has been very unlucky or he doesn't know what CPUs to buy in order to overclock. Probably a combination of the two. :beer:
Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I like AMD better. There's a reason for that.
1) If I'm an overclocker I can buy a Mobile Barton for $92 and make it run faster than a $180 AMD processor. Or a $170 Intel Pentium 4 2.4C processor to overclock to the speed of a $260 Intel processor.
2) If I'm on an extremely tight budget, for $50-60 I can get an Athlon XP2000, or a 1.8 Ghz Celeron... tough decision isn't it?
3) If I have a lot of money to spare, I can get an Intel P4EE 3.4 GHz for $1,029 (retail)... or I can get an Athlon64 FX-53 for $811 (retail).
4) If I want something more "middle of the road" I can either get an Athlon64 3000+ for $223 (retail)... or I can get an Pentium 4 3.0C GHz for $220 (reatail).
Now if I look at benchmarks and compare my choices...
In choice $1... if I'm buying mid range CPU's with the intent to overclock, I can either spend $90, or $170 to reach about the same performance level... the $180 one being slightly faster in some things... but I'd have to decide if 10% faster is worth almost 100% more money.
I'd rather spend almost 50% of the money for 90% of the performance.
Mobile XP2500.
In choice #2... I'd have to be stupid, retarded, or blind to chose the Celeron over the XP2000 since the XP2000 cost less and performs better in EVERY situation.
I'd rather spend less money for more performance.
XP2000
In choice #3... there would be a few areas where the $1000 processor would beat the $800 processor... but I'd have to ask myself if the difference in performance is worth $200. And what if I decide to overclock these after a year or two when they're no longer the fastest thing available... can I overclock the $800 processor more than the $1000 processor so that the $800 processor would now outperform the $1000 processor in ALL areas? Also... what if I want to upgrade my processor in 2 years, will I be able to buy a new CPU for my motherboard that I got with the $1000 processor? How bout the $800 processor?
I'd rather spend $200 less for similar performance with a viable upgrade path.
FX-53
In choice #4... the decision is a little less apparent. I'd have to look at what I intend to do with it. The most CPU intense thing I do on a daily (or even weekly basis) is gaming. I probably encode 1-2 movies per month. If I was doing more encoding, I'd go for the Intel CPU... but since I don't do much encoding, the AMD CPU would be faster in the things I do.
I'd rather spend a few dollars more for a product with similar overall performance, and better performance in the things I intend to do with it.
If I'm a media encoder, Pentium 4... if I'm a gamer, Athlon64 3000+
Oh yeah... and... I have a belly button! hehe... just thought I'd show you all my thought process that keeps putting AMD processors in my Antec Performance 2 Workstation Tower
Ditto again ! Thanks for the well explained thoughts....Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I like AMD better. There's a reason for that.
1) If I'm an overclocker I can buy a Mobile Barton for $92 and make it run faster than a $180 AMD processor. Or a $170 Intel Pentium 4 2.4C processor to overclock to the speed of a $260 Intel processor.
2) If I'm on an extremely tight budget, for $50-60 I can get an Athlon XP2000, or a 1.8 Ghz Celeron... tough decision isn't it?
3) If I have a lot of money to spare, I can get an Intel P4EE 3.4 GHz for $1,029 (retail)... or I can get an Athlon64 FX-53 for $811 (retail).
4) If I want something more "middle of the road" I can either get an Athlon64 3000+ for $223 (retail)... or I can get an Pentium 4 3.0C GHz for $220 (reatail).
Now if I look at benchmarks and compare my choices...
In choice $1... if I'm buying mid range CPU's with the intent to overclock, I can either spend $90, or $170 to reach about the same performance level... the $180 one being slightly faster in some things... but I'd have to decide if 10% faster is worth almost 100% more money.
I'd rather spend almost 50% of the money for 90% of the performance.
Mobile XP2500.
In choice #2... I'd have to be stupid, retarded, or blind to chose the Celeron over the XP2000 since the XP2000 cost less and performs better in EVERY situation.
I'd rather spend less money for more performance.
XP2000
In choice #3... there would be a few areas where the $1000 processor would beat the $800 processor... but I'd have to ask myself if the difference in performance is worth $200. And what if I decide to overclock these after a year or two when they're no longer the fastest thing available... can I overclock the $800 processor more than the $1000 processor so that the $800 processor would now outperform the $1000 processor in ALL areas? Also... what if I want to upgrade my processor in 2 years, will I be able to buy a new CPU for my motherboard that I got with the $1000 processor? How bout the $800 processor?
I'd rather spend $200 less for similar performance with a viable upgrade path.
FX-53
In choice #4... the decision is a little less apparent. I'd have to look at what I intend to do with it. The most CPU intense thing I do on a daily (or even weekly basis) is gaming. I probably encode 1-2 movies per month. If I was doing more encoding, I'd go for the Intel CPU... but since I don't do much encoding, the AMD CPU would be faster in the things I do.
I'd rather spend a few dollars more for a product with similar overall performance, and better performance in the things I intend to do with it.
If I'm a media encoder, Pentium 4... if I'm a gamer, Athlon64 3000+
Oh yeah... and... I have a belly button! hehe... just thought I'd show you all my thought process that keeps putting AMD processors in my Antec Performance 2 Workstation Tower
Damn I missed this good work Jeff. I think you represent the thoughts of every AMD fan someplace in your post. The intel guys never seem to explain thier preference, I wish they would as you just did.
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Well Shady, if you haven't seen it in over 16,000 posts then I'm convinced it does not exist. So much for being proven wrong, huh dudeman? I somehow doubt you're either a dude or a man. Surely not a man, you're too childish.
Originally posted by: Wingznut
Jeez, what a bunch of crap! Why do you guys continue to spread FUD like this?!?! :|Originally posted by: amdfanboy
I like AMD because Intel kills babies.
Intel kills baby seals, not babies. :roll:
Originally posted by: lMlHuxley
I just buy amd because it is cheaper and seems to perform just as good. I guess you could say that intel is the monster cable of the processor market....damn that line was hot I should market it to AMD...billboards etc etc "INTEL, THE MONSTER CABLE OF THE PROCESSOR MARKET"
I'd say that any chipset worries you have are unnecessary given that the memory controller is now on the CPU with K8 and the fact that chipsets and drivers are much more mature and compatible with various hardware than years past. For instance, The AMD 8000series chipset is excellent for K8. The nF3 150 single chip solution on my AN50R is indestructable thus far, and the performance excellent despite it's technical failings on paper. That's running a 3000+@2.4ghz too while crunching SETI 24/7 in the backround. The nF3 250GB is even better from what I've read and has the functioning pci lock my board lacks, not to mention if you use a nV FX or nv40 based card there are optimizations in the forceware drivers that can provide performance gains that won't appear with any other chipset. The Via K8T800 and SiS 755 series chipsets are actually getting a lot of love from users too so I'd say the chances of encountering a stability problem with hardware that isn't defective are almost zero. Provided of course that you do the necessary reasearch on the hardware you intend to use for the build and avoid any known issues that may exist.Originally posted by: MattO
I don't have a problem with AMD processors, but I must admit that I have never purchased one; I have always been an Intel buyer. Now, my current system is still one of the old P4 1.6A @2.1 machines from 2 years ago. I am starting to look around for a new system, and this arguement comes up in my mind, making my decision harder.
While I would be ready to ditch Intel for AMD on a primarily gaming PC, I love the Intel chipsets and their stability. I have been wronged before in the past by VIA chipsets, and I will not be again. Not so sure about the Nforce3 chipsets this time around either....So what is there?
So it isn't the CPU that I have a problem with, it is the chipset....
Good point!Originally posted by: ariafrost*Sigh* - This war will never end... AMD VS. INTEL...
What in the world is this nonsense, quoted from page one?iz the r0xx0r pwrl33t ololololo n u r dum if u dont luv dem bcuz dey r so kewlz0rz!!!111!1111uno!!1!1oneonetwo'