AMD or Intel?

RN

I like the CHEAPER part.

Ka0s

Yeah, plus now theyre FAR better than Intel. The old ones were HORRIBLE, but around the Thunderbird they started to get much better.

Slash

Well, maybe, Fish, you're right, cuz I've never used new AMD's, I've always used the old ones, and dunno exactly about new...
Anyway, Linux runs worse on AMD's, because of Athlon's suckish FPU (Math Co.)

BOD

Athlons are GODAMN fast.....

Q

I can attest to that!

-Q

RN

The next CPU I'm getting is an AMD.

BOD

so can i (even tho it only worked for 3 weeks)

Slash

I wonder what to buy than? AMD Athlon 2800+ or P4-3000 with HyperThreading... and 1M of cache...

RN

AMD Athlon 2800+. Save the extra money for something else.

BOD

intels are like twice the price of AMD anyway, save your money slash

Slash

Oh.. I think HT technology is a very interesting thing, I think I should try that..

IBMWarpster

Yes it is, so is the new low-budget Celeron with No L2 cache thats suposed to compete with the Ceptron :-)

RN

Slash wrote:

Oh.. I think HT technology is a very interesting thing, I think I should try that..

It'll just be a waste of your money.

Slash

And a large increase of your performance...

IBMWarpster

Compared to an AMD?

Oh..if you wanna go Pentium IV HT without a new mainboard, forget it. Your current one probly cant handle it and youll still need a new PSU

Slash

Damn I know that. I'm not so stupid.

IBMWarpster

So why got Intel when you can go AMD?

SurfinShell23

I'll go AMD. Spend the money on RAM or something else.

Ka0s

I think I'm going to throw something into here.... AMD now uses SO MUCH MORE CACHE THAN INTEL.... 1MB L2 cache. Take that, Intel. Plus, my Athlon 1600+ is soooo much better than 1.8GHz Celerons.

RN

Pentium 4s also have 1mb L2 cache.

IBMWarpster

FishNET3000 wrote:

I think I'm going to throw something into here.... AMD now uses SO MUCH MORE CACHE THAN INTEL.... 1MB L2 cache. Take that, Intel. Plus, my Athlon 1600+ is soooo much better than 1.8GHz Celerons.

1.8Ghz Celeron? You can outdo more than that.

I can outdo a Celeron 2.7GHz.

Ive seen tests, Im equal to a Pentium 4 1.8GHz.

Im not sure what yor at, that tests Ive seen only compare 3 CPUs. Celeron 2.7GHz, Duron 1.6GHz (me), Pentium 4 1.8GHz, and Athlon XP 1.8GHz.

Ka0s

Roger wrote:

Pentium 4s also have 1mb L2 cache.

The Pentium 4 Extreme Edition has 2MB L2, but those chips alone cost as much as a new computer would, whereas AMD puts in 1MB and make it 64bit, and have that with a full system for what a P4EE CHIP costs.

RN

I wasn't talking about the EE. I was talking about this:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications ... pNo=998912

Ka0s

But why get that, when you can get an Athlon 64 3000+ / 512K / 1600MHz FSB for less than that? LOL

RN

You got a good point there.. But I was just correcting you and the Intel cache post.