^ That post should have included this quote ^
John Wilken wrote: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... 
PAX
intel here......... 3.2ghz hyper thread chip running 4.5ghz steady for over a year now. no problems with my liquid cooling system.... keeps it cool between 70 and 85 degrees depending on the load.
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/827643
boost will be soon for me....
70 to 85 deg. is not cool. Try dropping your clock rate until you hit a full load temp of about 65F and notice your machine running even faster. Honest. CPUs tent to slow at temps above 60, regardless of clock rate. Try it and see what happens. I know my machine at home speed up noticably after I clean the heatsinks, without touching the clock at all.
PAX
If your talking farenheit that is pretty dam cool. Mine runs at 38 degrees celsius idle which translates to about 101 degrees F with a behemoth arctic cooling copper heatsink. On FULL load it runs 45-50C or 113-122 F that is overclocked to 3.3
Of course if you mean celsius you definatly need to reduce your clock speed because 160-180F is NOT cool for a processor.
____________________________________________________________________
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.
Hahahaha wrote:70 to 85 deg. is not cool. Try dropping your clock rate until you hit a full load temp of about 65F and notice your machine running even faster. Honest. CPUs tent to slow at temps above 60, regardless of clock rate. Try it and see what happens. I know my machine at home speed up noticably after I clean the heatsinks, without touching the clock at all.
PAX
70 to 85F IS cool. Most stock computers idle anywhere from 35 to 45 celsius, which is roughly 100-120F. Think about it. 65F is even colder than the room temp, which is simply impossible without something else than fans to cool the cpu.
15.574 @ 89 mph stock
Hahahaha wrote:70 to 85 deg. is not cool. Try dropping your clock rate until you hit a full load temp of about 65F and notice your machine running even faster. Honest. CPUs tent to slow at temps above 60, regardless of clock rate. Try it and see what happens. I know my machine at home speed up noticably after I clean the heatsinks, without touching the clock at all.
PAX
You're running Intel at home, too? If your machine is faster after cleaning the heatsinks then your chip is entering thermal shutdown. That wouldn't apply to AMD as the AMD would just eventually fry.
Which BTW is another cost advantage for Intel as quitting fans don't cause you to replace a CPU.
---
Ferenheight vs. Celcius brain fart. My bad.
I can't hear 65 deg and think of it as cool, I'm Canadian
Agustin, good point. Yes, as an Intel Premier Provider, I run Intel everywhere. That doesn't mean I would never run AMD, but for there is not a cost advantage and therefore no advantage to running AMD.
Watch what happens now that the technology sharing agreement is over. AMD had most of their current tech handed to them, not any more. No more huge cash loans either. The downside is Intel has a new director and he has seen fit to scrap the $36 billion, 34 year old "dropped e" logo.. I wonder what else he will kill?
PAX
Hahahaha wrote: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
I'm all for forward progress, as long as Apple doesn't use those IBM "DEATHSTAR" hard drives ever again!!
So HAHAHAHA, will Apple give this new platform a new name?
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
I have no inside knowledge of Apple Computer, so I do not know. I do know they made a chip deal with Intel. An educated guess would be yes, a new name should be coming. What? When? How? I don't know. I do not even know if they will be using an x86 chip or one of Intel's other chips (Itanium core or maybe a hopped up StrongArm??).
PAX
John Wilken wrote:Hahahaha wrote: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
I'm all for forward progress, as long as Apple doesn't use those IBM "DEATHSTAR" hard drives ever again!!
So HAHAHAHA, will Apple give this new platform a new name?
ahhh the clickstar (as well call it here at work). We replaced no less than 50 of these. I'm just glad it was before *I* made the purchasing decisions around here.
---
its a goofy video, but specs are specs.
I'd love to see that again with AMD using the FX-60
Im a Intel fan boy. I also love Apple. So im curently in heaven. With those two together ill be very happy. I dont need programs besides AIM, and Safari,and Office. I dont play games, I have intel graphics right now on my dell. I also have a XBOX 360 and I love it. One thing you have to remember, thesee are first generation games. Wait till mid summer, then compare again.
what does xbox 360 games have to do with AMD vs Intel ?
15.574 @ 89 mph stock
They were saying AMD was better for pc games. Im just telling you what I prefer, not that I dont agree with them.
Nathan Nighbert wrote:One thing you have to remember, thesee are first generation games. Wait till mid summer, then compare again.
?
By then PC's will be on the 30th-or-so generation of games and have even newer hardware than now.
---
Nathan Nighbert wrote:They were saying AMD was better for pc games. Im just telling you what I prefer, not that I dont agree with them.
xbox 360 games aren't pc games AFAIK. and since you don't play games on your pc, what you prefer is console games., which has nothing to do with amd being better than intel for games.
15.574 @ 89 mph stock
^^ That's not what he meant or said.
---
Nick@USOL.com wrote:Thursday, January 26, 2006 - Intel first to demonstrate working 45nm chips
Yes I was waiting on this. Do you have a link?
____________________________________________________________________
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.
Supposedly there 45nm chips will run faster AND cooler than the prescott 90 nm chips because of the introduction of new tranistor technology.
LINK
____________________________________________________________________
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.
45nm chips run cooler and faster than the current 65nm chips that run faster and cooler than the now dated 90nm chips
Intel 830 and up are 65nm right now.
Xeon has moved to 65nm as well.
PAX
