what, huh amd, never heard of it, my lowes only uses intel

smileymattj · Post by **smileymattj** » November 20th, 2004, 2:06 am

why do most businesses use, Intel i guess they are just more stable, i guess they are less
expensive for the performance, i guess they are just better, oh yea AMD is supposed to be the
king of gaming performance but yet i got a gaming benchmark showing Intel is.

you dont get the full 64-bit performance on winXp because its a 32bit OS, and winXP64-bit is
for servers, expensive and not user friendly. why does AMD claim to be the first to hit 64-bit
technology with the mighty "Gaylon 64" when they have had a 64 bit processor called the operon
doesnt make sence to contridict your own self!

the best console, what processor do they useÃ‚Â¿
Microsoft's Xbox currently utilizes an Intel processor
Mircosoft is going a step above with the xbox2 going with ibm processors
Mac the computer used to create most computer apps what do they useÃ‚Â¿
Apple currently uses IBM-based PowerPC 970 processors to power their PowerMac G5s

if AMD is so good why dont these companies use emÃ‚Â¿

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 2:24 am

I'm getting tired of flashing this benchmark in your face; but since I am a devout AMD fan, I must.

As you can see, the Athlon 64 3200 (A low-end AMD64 CPU) beats the Pentium 4 3.46GHz EE (Intel's best CPU) in the most graphically advanced game out there. Plus, the AMD CPU is $860 cheaper.

Also, AMD64 users who wish to unlock the power of 64-Bit use Windows XP x64 Professional.
Also, Microsoft and HP have stopped using Itanium products.
The only popular 64-Bit platforms out there today are AMD64 and EM64T.

As for AMD computer manufacturers:
Alienware
HP
IBM
Sun
And soon Dell

Multiple other companies utilize AMD's CPUs. These are just a few.

Also, about stability:
Considering that Intel's Prescotts run aroung 75C and AMD's K8s run around 50C (90nm AMD CPUs are even lower), I don't think Intel is stable at all.

smileymattj · Post by **smileymattj** » November 20th, 2004, 2:36 am

hmmmmm..... got to hand it to you, you got balls to tell an out right lie.

sun and ibm make their own processors why would they they are way better than amd, so why use them. Hp uses both

and i said it before that image is not a true benchmark. i have used a Atlon 64 bit, and a p4, havent used the new extreme or prescott, but the old p4 blows the 64 away so why shouldnt a be better version do so!

AMD Boy · Post by **AMD Boy** » November 20th, 2004, 5:45 am

You lie.
IBM
Sun

Both of those companies use Opteron CPUs.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 5:47 am

What are your P4's and Athlon 64's numbers?

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 20th, 2004, 5:50 am

AMD, listen up pal... IBM might use it for their little servers, but when it comes to the big servers, they punish in their 128bit processor, the first of it's kind.. Show me where AMD has 128bit

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 20th, 2004, 5:51 am

In response to your Sun discussion, when it also comes to their top end servers, what do you think they use.. uh uh uh, their own

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » November 20th, 2004, 5:52 am

He does have a point on that not being a valid Benchmark, there are no IBM processors there. Plus i wonder how Mac does in benchmarking becuase thier OS from what i have heard(which isn't much) is really simple.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 6:00 am

IBMs and Macs can't play Doom 3.

Also, 128-Bit is not needed. Plus, I like links.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 20th, 2004, 6:01 am

hrmm. who the hell said IBM can't play doom3.. They meet all of the requirements and has a windows operating system...

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 20th, 2004, 6:02 am

and not everything in the world revolved around doom3 you know...

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 6:03 am

Power 5 is not a Doom 3 CPU.
Also, Doom 3 is the best game, thus it is the ultimate benchmark.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 20th, 2004, 6:09 am

u said IBM couldn't play it.. That is a flat out lie

IBMs and Macs can't play Doom 3.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 6:10 am

They can't if they use IBM CPUs.

Nolano · Post by **Nolano** » November 20th, 2004, 4:26 pm

Tebow2000 wrote:AMD, listen up pal... IBM might use it for their little servers, but when it comes to the big servers, they punish in their 128bit processor, the first of it's kind.. Show me where AMD has 128bit

Show kme where Intel has 128-bit, and I'll show you. this is where you realize your a moron for trying to say that AMD's suck and intel is better by saying that they are beaten by another companys CPU. If that was to complicated for you, I can break it down in a PM.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 20th, 2004, 4:28 pm

I don't know where I can find a link, but my neightbor who coordinates all of Northop Grummans Technology Department in the US says IBM has it out.. NG has 3 of them

Nolano · Post by **Nolano** » November 20th, 2004, 5:12 pm

Did I say IBM doesnt have one out? NO! If you would listen, you would realize I said that we havent even adapted to 64bit yet, and that for many years, 128bit WON'T MATTER!!!

smileymattj · Post by **smileymattj** » November 20th, 2004, 6:37 pm

you know why ibm's and mac's cant play doom3, because their OS's are to advanced for a simple task as doom3, also IBM and Sun wouldnt use a gay AMD for their good stuff, they just put tAMD into their cheap shit that people buy thinking they get a good deal cus its cheap, its like the celeron i wouldnt buy a celeron for nothing they suck, durons also suck. atlons suck.

he was saying AMD doesnt have a 128bit processor so why would IBM use it in their good stuff instead of their own 128bit.

Aggressor Prime · November 20th, 2004, 10:55 pm

Name one game that beats Doom 3 in system requirements.

The reason why you can't appreciate Doom 3 is because you never experienced it to the extreme. Get an Athlon 64 FX-55 system with dual GeForce 6800 Ultras in SLI mode and then play Doom 3 at the highest graphical settings. Then you will like AMD.

SLaY3r · Post by **SLaY3r** » November 21st, 2004, 6:58 am

Aggressor Prime wrote:Name one game that beats Doom 3 in system requirements.

The reason why you can't appreciate Doom 3 is because you never experienced it to the extreme. Get an Athlon 64 FX-55 system with dual GeForce 6800 Ultras in SLI mode and then play Doom 3 at the highest graphical settings. Then you will like AMD.

Don't forget HL2

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 21st, 2004, 4:29 pm

Half Life 2 is good; but according to my eyes, Doom 3 is a little more graphically advanced.

Also, AMD performs better against Intel in Doom 3.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » November 22nd, 2004, 12:18 am

In that stat with Doom 3 what graphics card did they use?

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 22nd, 2004, 1:08 am

ATI Radeon X800 XT
PCI Express for P4 and AMD64
AGP for AMDXP