|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
amd sucks...
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Outlaw
but since a P4 is too expensive for me, I bought a T-bird 1333, I just put the whole thing together and now I'm starting to think it doesnt suck at all (believe it or not, but this thing is much faster than my P3-450  )
Posted by: Null Actor
*sigh*
Since this is probably going to turn in to a flame war, I'm preemptively moving this thread to rants and raves.
Sorry man, but you are just asking for it.
Posted by: Digitalphatman
Really the Ahlon is faster than your P3. Wow i am shocked......
Posted by: Rapmaster
amd tbird 1400 is faster than pentium 4 1700
only the new 1800 and 2000mhz P4s are pulling away from the AMD 1400s now
Posted by: Null Actor
they are only pulling away in media encoding and intel biased benchmarks.
I play unreal tournament... an athlon 1400 is still the fastest at running it.
Posted by: Rapmaster
well even if the new P4s (1.8ghz+) are getting faster than AMD 1.4s, its still pretty good for AMD
of course, nobody is going to buy a P4 and waste their money on RDRAM etc...
there are boards coming out soon/now that support DDR for P4s so that will help Intel but AMD is still a much better value
I just hope AMD can keep up with intel... even though clockspeed isn't the sole factor in how fast a CPU is that's how they are marketed
Posted by: Digitalphatman
Screw both AMD and INTEL. We all know that Cyrix processors are just so much better..........
Posted by: Bishop
I'm going to go out on a limb here and represent the rotten apple of soceity.
MACS 0WNZ AND J00 PENTIAM AND USARS SUAX0R!!
Note, take this in context, it's a joke, but I found it amusing no one was taking the side of the rotten apple.
Posted by: JANNA
my P3 1000 with 256RDram was cheap in cost heh. chip board and ram under 300$ it runs everything i need at max monitor refresh rate of 75fps. until my framrates in games drop back to sub 20's then its time to upgrade till then im happy. i can edit up to 500 jpegs at a time all being opened at once. and yes there will be a massive update to my webpage soon as i can get angelfire to cooperate. *sigh* I HATE DIALUP!!!! WITH A FRICKEN PASSION!!! im stuck in friggin diablo2 until my dialup decides to stop kicking me off. and my cdburner finally died and im too lazy to haul my laptop to the house and load it that way.
Posted by: Chako
I just don't understand this....I do alot of digital photography, and I mean alot. I have CDRs CDRWs, and one HD full of them. I have viewed tons of pictures using Corel Photopaint 7 with no problems. I often view hundreds at a time, and they are all HighRes 3.3 megapixel digital camera photos that are at least 700K+ depending on the amount of info of the subject matter. I have never had my new system choke on any of this. Why is the Pentium better at this then the Thunderbird...just curious for it is not the first time I have heard that Intel chips are better at this then AMD...but my experience tells me different.
Posted by: Outlaw
 Quote:
Originally posted by Nova Z
*sigh*
Since this is probably going to turn in to a flame war, I'm preemptively moving this thread to rants and raves.
Sorry man, but you are just asking for it.
|
I wasnt trying to start a flame war  , and by saying amd doesnt suck I didnt mean that intel sucks, its just too expensive for me, I dont have anything against any of them anymore
Posted by: Chako
Don't worry Sniper, I won't start a flame war. I was just curious if the Intel chips have better memory management, registries, or something that will allow it to excel at viewing lots of pictures. Just because I don't experience a problem doesn't mean there isn't one either...just a wondering.
Posted by: Kdr Kane
I can't think of a reason the CPU would cause your problem, Chako. Most likely, it's a driver. I'm certain some of your drivers are different from the Intel system. You have a different motherboard for sure.
At least some of the low level BIOS calls are different.
Posted by: Chako
Kane...I don't have a problem. I was just wondering why Janna and others have said that Intels are better then AMDs for viewing lots of JPGs. I view lots of JPGs with no problems. I just wanted to know their experiences on the matter and what they think might be the problem (I don't see one, but then I may be lucky..who knows).
Posted by: Kdr Kane
Ahh... well some streaming CPU instructions may be a tiny more efficient.
But, really, I think that is insignificant compared to your hard drive speed and the memory available in your system.
Posted by: mage
I've built six rigs for my own use in the last year
one p-3 1000,slot-a 800AMD,1.2T-BIRD,1.4 T-BIRD
I.4P-4,1.8P-4 and from what I tried out It seems to me
from having these different setups at near the same speed
the AMDs kick the shit out of the intels no ifs ands or buts!
I got rid of all the intels but the !.8 p-4 since everytime I resell
a used rig I lose some money and you know what that 1.4 amd
seems to be just as fast as that 1.8p-4 then when I over clocked
it to !.6 still slower than the 1.8 it whiped the intel in everything
I used them for so seein's believein' I say!
ANd the winner is AMD 
 you Intel
Posted by: Dabom
Nova, what kind of motherboard do you have for your Athlon 1.4?
Posted by: Kdr Kane
On a cost/performance basis, the Athlon system is clearly the overall winner.
The Dual G4/500 Macintosh was fastest when running applications like Photoshop and Cinema 4D XL that are both Velocity Engine (Altivec) and Multiprocessor "aware." When you take into account the clock speed difference, the G4 is cranking out twice as many instructions per clock cycle than the Pentium 4.
On a strictly cost basis, the Macintosh is the clear loser. Though Mac enthusiasts like myself may cite intangible advantages like "more elegant look and feel," that does little to convince Wintel lovers that they should spend $700 to $900 more just for the right to be abused verbally by their friends for buying a Macintosh.
Clock speed is not output
|
|
|
|
|
