Jbody2nr wrote:Asus+Intel+Nvidia=only a computer god would use.
Also have you read up on the cell chips they're going to be using in the PS3? Supposedly its about 8 minichips all working as one. Which would be by far a significant leap in technology if they can keep it stable at a higher clock speed.
Are you an intel fan boy? Every benchmark review I've read in the last 6 mos to year is AMD > Intel. Especially at the price points.
---
Jbody2nr wrote:Excuse me make that nine cores.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/chips/0,39020354,39187097,00.htm
Hopefully it wont be a letdown.
Don't get caught up in the hype. The PS2's chip didn't even come close to matching the performance claimed in the pre-launch hype. In the end, the PS2 was only SLIIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTTLLLYYY better looking than the Dreamcast.
Personally, I've never thought the PS2 had great graphics. They always looked subpar to my PC, just like the XBOX360 doesn't look any better than my current year-old+ PC when comparing games released for both.
---
Yeah, I've noticed that...the Xbox 360 looks good--compared to current consoles.
The PC's looked that good for awhile.
If the Xbox wasn't priced so high, it would look pretty attractive. But I'd rather spend the money on my PC and get a better experience overall.
And I like console gaming, don't get me wrong...
AGuSTiN wrote:Jbody2nr wrote:Asus+Intel+Nvidia=only a computer god would use.
Also have you read up on the cell chips they're going to be using in the PS3? Supposedly its about 8 minichips all working as one. Which would be by far a significant leap in technology if they can keep it stable at a higher clock speed.
Are you an intel fan boy? Every benchmark review I've read in the last 6 mos to year is AMD > Intel. Especially at the price points.
you know both brands will have their diehard fans...so trying to reason with a diehard is like trying to move a cow that has decidedly plunked her posterior on the ground. it's not going to happen.
don't like me?
tell me what you think of me in chat
^^^ Not without Dynamite at anyrate.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I started out with Intel through the P1 and P2 days really until the later socket 7 design AMD was kinda behind when the athlon first came out they were far ahead of intel and then intel brought out the Pentuim 4, I think the momentum is with AMD at the moment intel doesnt have anything to compete with the A64s
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I know that... if they were meant to be anything else, they'd have been seeded into the general marketplace. 
They're going to stay server-side processors from what I've read, Intel is developing a 64bit processor for the general public, but they're aimed squarely at making the AMD 64's look like a Buick GNX at a top-fuel drag.
About the new semi-conductors, it's the smallest transistor made and functions... I forget the exact details about it (it was about 3 years ago when I switched from Comp-Eng to Forensics) but the technology is pretty sweet. It was developed at the Univ. of Alberta as I remember.
The 64 bit intel's cpu's are out. They released them as a 600 series and up. All of there dual core cpu's are 64 bit. Currently they are in the process of developing a desktop adaptation of their notebook cpu. You can buy a board from Asus, that will convert the Dothan core to a desktop pc. Then overclock it to a 2.4, and shatter the 3.8ee, in just about all apps.
I've always been and AMD guy, you can't beat the price for performance with any intel chip. Also floating point is better with AMD which is what's necessary for high end 3d games.
My current rig is and AMD chip with an ATI video card.
I used to be AMD and nVidia, and they I got my hands on an ATI board. Never looking back. Those canadians know their graphics cards
.
-Chris
^^^
That's what I thought. I love ATI, but they've had some problems with getting their Crossfire and next-gen card out, letting the nVidia 7800 series walk all over them.
So, this upgrade cycle, I go with nVidia.
But in all honesty, you can't go wrong with either. They're so close that it's almost a pointless comparison for most people. The biggest reason I went with nVidia is because I found a 7800GT for 379.99 (CDN). The lowest I've seen them here otherwise is $599.00 (CDN).
Can't pass that up.
AMD Fanboy since the sawtooth, my first overclock and been hooked since.
I go with whatever fits the budget. I like Intel, but I can't afford a new one just now...
I went with AMD last time, and probably will again when I upgrade, but that's not for another 6-8 months.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
^^^
Exactly. Bang for the buck.
And while Crossfire may be beating out SLi, in single card performance, the 7800 series spanks the hell out of any equivalent ATI card.
And again, I reiterate, I love ATI. In a year or so, the ball will probably be back in their court. The whole computer industry is a see-saw game between (usually) two major companies.
AMD will sit back for a cycle while Intel releases something better than AMD's current offering, then BAM, next cycle AMD releases the next best thing. Next cycle, it's all reversed.
Really, you can't go wrong with buying anything from either manufacturer, because it's all pretty close.
augustin wrote:Are you an intel fan boy?
You know it
Quote:
Don't get caught up in the hype. The PS2's chip didn't even come close to matching the performance claimed in the pre-launch hype. In the end, the PS2 was only SLIIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTTLLLYYY better looking than the Dreamcast.
I know Im just praying that it wont be this huge letdown.
augustin wrote:Personally, I've never thought the PS2 had great graphics. They always looked subpar to my PC, just like the XBOX360 doesn't look any better than my current year-old+ PC when comparing games released for both.
Yeah but you gotta admit. Its release was a big step in console gaming. Although I dont think I'll console again. Because computers are just sooo much better.
I dont know though. At the present moment with my intel P4 630, Asus mobo w/ DDR2 memory and a Asus 6800 GT I can run all the latest games with the best graphics. And when I cant its SLi I go and an overclocked 630. Maybe I'll get off my ass one of these days and buy x64.
____________________________________________________________________
Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.
I am under a non-disclosure agreement with Intel, so I cannot say much, but I can say Intel will be around for a long time to come. So will AMD.
For the untilmate in shortlived gaming machines, buy AMD. For long term stability and excellent performance, buy Intel. That means Intel CPU and mainboard though, not just the CPU. That's AMD's main problem, they do not control the quality of the chipsets or the mainboards. Until they do something about that, they will not crack many large companies. They do not have a "Coporate Stable platform" and Intel does.
I prefer Intel because of the quality of the product. AMD does have some performance advantages, but I hate fixing stuff and the difference is really only noticible through benchmarks. When it comes to real world performance it's very difficult to see any difference at all between roughly equal machines.
I design platforms (server, desktop, workstation and mobile) for a living.
AMD exists today because Intel did not want a monopoly a couple years ago. Intel likes to have a 80% to 85% market share, not more, but certainly not much less. They have been able to keep that level for the last 10 years or so and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
PAX
if you do your research, like you should when buying just about anything, you get a killer amd-based computer which is everybit as stable (if not more) as an intel and better performance for hella cheaper than an intel. Those who buy intel do so :
1. because they lack the knowledge about computer performance and/or are intel fanboys
2. they don't mind paying more and getting less performance for hassle-free, easy to find reliable parts.
3. because they ARE educated and found out that they need intel because in some benchmarks it IS better than an AMD and neet to use those kinds of programs
for the rest of us who want the best overall performance and are willing to research to find the best components, we buy AMD
15.574 @ 89 mph stock
Uh-oh, it's one of those Apple users...
Why apple is better
Best "bang for the buck"? Apple Mini
Best for high-end performance? G5 Dual processor
Best for annoying everyone with an AMD or Intel? RISC chip.
I use both NT and OSX for my job, no contest. Apple is just a better system all the way around. And with their new
mighty mouse, they've finally cought up with the only advantage wintel users had.
And don't get me started about the virus issues...
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
oh look a fanboy.
any machine runs better on a Unix/Linux based operating system. Funny how if you get ahold of a copy of OSX that has been modded to run on PC hardware it makes the native apple hardware look like an 8086.
Oh and wait, yeah Apple is better....that is until you need to find main stream software for it. Oops......hope you know how to compile.....
And for all you Apple people, why do you think they are called 'school computers' ?
As I stated before, AMD benchmarks better than Intel. AMD runs cooler than a comparable Intel. I have been building computers since 1995. I started with Intel and now for the past 6 years, I have been using AMD. All my newer machines have been very stable and cool.
98 Z24
RIP Specks
Time after time Intel has the long term cost of ownership advantage. That's why insurance companies, banks, and other mission critical applications are run on Intel.
Intel controls the quality of the cpu, chipset and mainboard. AMD makes a CPU and half of a chipset. Companies like Asus make good stuff for both platforms but have outrageous turn around time on repairs etc. From a manufacturer's standpoint, next day advanced exchange components anywhere in the world (intel only) matters.
It's not a matter of being a "fanboy" it's a matter of having nearly 20 years of experience with both platforms (as well as transmetta and carusoe chips, alpha, powerPC etc). The fact of the matter is when I deploy 200 Intel machines I will have trouble with 2 of them in the first year. If I deploy 200 AMD based platforms I will have trouble with about 10 of them (say 8 to 15) and will also have a long turn around time on my RMAs where any intel component will be rushed to my door the next day at no cost to me. That counts.
I have (through my company) at least 15 000 machines running out there and I'd say about 80% are intel based and the rest are a pain either to me (warranty) or the owner (more than 3 years old). Number cruching clusters that used to be Alpha's domain are now AMD. The solid, never fail coporate workstations are 99% Intel and do not give me headaches. The server market is also 95% to 99% Intel based (from our company) and give much less trouble than the AMD solutions.
That is not to say the AMD sucks, they don't. After they stopped producing that absolute turd of an Athlon XP (oh what crap that was, 30% failure rate in house!) they have been making excellent stuff. The problem isn't AMD, it's the mainboards. I have less that 1% failure in Intel mainboads but I cannot find a mainboard to support AMD chips with a less than 2% failure rate. I know the numbers sound small, but 2% is nearly 3 times the failure rate of Intel and that means 3 times the exchanges, 3 times the service calls and three times the dissatisfied customers. Not acceptable. Our company of only 13 peaople (6 techs) manages to provide a very high level of service and sell over $5 million in new hardware per year because our stuff never breaks (if only that was true, but our failures are very, very low in comparison to others) because we use as much Intel hardware as is possible unless the customer needs dictate otherwise.
If the only thing you care about (or primary concern is) all out speed at any cost, AMD is the way to go. If you build machines to safeguard systems, manufacture products, or work in large workgroups as standalone machines, Intel is the best answer because of the quality of the components available, the immediate response to problems and an extensive dealer network. You are never down for more than 24 business hours with Intel hardware, ever (provided you deal with the Intel distribution network and not the "grey" market). Did you know that Intel has over 3000 people on staff who's entire job is to compatability test their hardware with other OEMs in order to ensure full functionality. 3000 + full time staff... That's incredible.
You want the absolute fastest machine that money can buy for under $10 000 (for the next 15 minutes)? Buy AMD.
You want good performance in a machine that will do exactly what it is supposed to for the next 3 to 5 years? Buy Intel.
PAX
James, You state that you have had no good mainboards for the AMD. Have you tried ECS? I have been using ECS mainboards since I went to AMD 6 years ago and have not had any problems. My systems have been dependable and the only reason I change is to upgrade to a faster CPU and more memory. I have been using a 2500+ AMD Sempron now for about a year with an ECS mainboard and it has been reliable and stable this whole time.
The situations you stated are true since big business has been using INTEL since they have been around so long plus they went into the big business market before AMD. I know you are speaking from personal experience and I don't dought that your figures are correct for the business world, but for personal computers, AMD and ECS have been reliable from my stand point and my two daughters systems are AMD & ECS and they are very stable. I should know, I built them for them. I just don't 100% agree with your statement "You want the absolute fastest machine that money can buy for under $10 000 (for the next 15 minutes)? Buy AMD." The system, if done right, will last as long as an INTEL. It's just my $.02.
98 Z24
RIP Specks
The real reliability numbers play out when you deal in volume. ECS boards in my experience have been slightly less reliable than Asus, and harder to deal with logisticly.
My "for 15 minutes" comment was regarding it being "the fastest machine under $10 000" As you know, technology is moving very quickly these days. We have a new platform (BTX), new 64bit functionality, new core structures, and new power requirements, all in the last 6 months or so (Both AMD and Intel). I cannot say what's coming, but I promise it's exciting.
PAX
James, I had a dealing several months ago when I changed motherboards and CPU. My modem would not work with the new motherboard. I was going back and forth emailing the ECS techs to help me with troubleshooting. They were very helpful and we finally had it narrowed down that the modem driver was outdated. I contacted the manufacturer of the modem and they wanted me to send $40 plus my modem to see what new driver they needed. I told them it was stupid for me to pay them $40 for troubleshooting when I only paid $40 for the modem. I ended up buying a new modem and all worked fine.
As I stated, I have never had any problems with ECS motherboards working with my AMD CPUs. Guess I have been lucky.
98 Z24
RIP Specks
^You have been very lucky. ECS is just about as good as PC Chips. I replace an ECS mainboard roughly once a month.
Apple made a chip deal with Intel a few months ago. Say hello to Intel cores in Apple machines and goodbye to the PowerPC chip, it's over. Apple will no longer be running IBM RISC, and will be using Intel RISC/SISC chips (or straight SISC).
PAX
