ComputerBB

Posted: **January 26th, 2004, 12:06 am**

If Intel can create a 32bit CPU that is almost as good or better the AMD's 64bit CPU, which is suppose to be better at 32bit the a pure 32bit CPU, then how much better will Intel be when 64bit comes out. Basically if Intel can do just as good with a downgraded tech. then how much better will it be at the same tech.

Posted: **January 26th, 2004, 1:40 am**

Actually, the 64-bit featured has not been tested on the AMD64 CPUs except against Intel's Itanium 2. Also, if you check some Anandtech benchmarks with the Athlon 64 3400, it beats the Pantium 4 3.2GHz EE in 10/17 of the tests. The Athlon 64 FX-51 beats it in 15/17 of the tests. And the Athlon 64 3400 costs only $404 while the P4 3.2GHz EE costs close to 1K. If you are getting your inforamtion from TomsHardware, stop. TomsHardware is an unfair organization. This can be seen in multiple tests they have done. I would stick with Anandtech and PCWorld for benchmarks. They are much more reliable.

Posted: **January 28th, 2004, 11:51 pm**

It's obvious that Intel will lead they way... And right now, there is no need for 64 bit processing when 32bit can do just the same!

Posted: **May 31st, 2004, 4:22 am**

How is Intel "Leading the way?"

Posted: **May 31st, 2004, 3:33 pm**

Intel is leading the way because it is the top choice of processors chosen buy the top companies.. About 90% of americans use Intel processors

Posted: **May 31st, 2004, 6:12 pm**

From a technological stand point, they are not "leading the way" though. This is where AMD is putting the pressure on Intel. Especially in the server market where the opty's are putting a hurt on the Xeon's especially in MP confiurations where the Hyper Transport really shines

.
Intels greater market share does not mean they have a better product.

Posted: **June 27th, 2004, 9:12 pm**

guess nobody wants to vote

Posted: **June 27th, 2004, 9:47 pm**

I voted for INTEL

Posted: **July 30th, 2005, 6:45 pm**

Check out the anti-trust filed against intel by amd, available on amd's website. It should give you some insight into why intel sells 80% of cpu's wordwide while still having an inferior product.

Posted: **August 1st, 2005, 7:10 pm**

Ive always prefered AMD

Posted: **August 12th, 2005, 5:23 pm**

Tebow2000 wrote:Intel is leading the way because it is the top choice of processors chosen buy the top companies.. About 90% of americans use Intel processors

And that means..? Possibly they sold more because they used to be better, people stuck with them? Or because they used to advertise (I don't know if they still do) and AMD didn't used to (I don't know if they do now). As an example, more people have PS2s than Xboxes (including me) but, from a technical standpoint, the Xbox is better/more powerful. Personally, I prefer AMD.

Posted: **September 26th, 2005, 2:58 pm**

Y05H1 wrote:Ive always prefered AMD

loool amd doesnt even have sse2 loool and 3d now! is useless!!! intel will always lead the way

Posted: **September 26th, 2005, 8:59 pm**

MMX wrote:
Y05H1 wrote:Ive always prefered AMD
loool amd doesnt even have sse2 loool and 3d now! is useless!!! intel will always lead the way

You can't possibly flame someone with that grammar/spelling/punctuation... Anyways, if anyone here doesn't believe how powerful amd's 64 bit processor is over any intel currently in existance, try converting video files with the two. Not your little everyday music videos, but something big, like dvd rips. Theres a 1000% speed difference between the two.

Posted: **September 27th, 2005, 2:00 am**

Tebow2000 wrote:It's obvious that Intel will lead they way

damn stright intel pwns!!

Posted: **September 27th, 2005, 7:44 pm**

Just for reference: "Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, 3DNOW! Professional" As for the performance of AMD's Fastest Single Core: Business/General Use Performance: Top in 5/9 tests. (AMD > Intel by a small factor.) Multitasking Content Creation: Top in 2/5 tests. (Intel > AMD slightly.) Video Creation/Photo Editing: Top in 2/3 tests. (AMD > Intel greatly.) Audio/Video Encoding: Top in 2/2 tests. (AMD Rules.) Gaming Performance: Top in 3/3 tests. (AMD Rules.) 3D Rendering: Top in 3/3 tests. (AMD Rules.) Workstation Applications: Top in 7/7 tests. (AMD Rules.) Overall Athlon 64 FX-57 Control: 75%

Posted: **October 1st, 2005, 10:28 pm**

I got to go with intel. i like it better

Posted: **October 7th, 2005, 5:11 am**

I still prefer Intel but I must admit that AMDs X2 chips really are good. Video encoding has always been intels strong point so i'm not too sure i agree with the AMD beating them (on the older chips, i'm not taking into account the X2s...). I don't have any tests to prove this though...

Posted: **October 7th, 2005, 11:57 am**

I have an a Intel Pentium 4 2800 which is about 4 months old, a system i made from scratch and a 2.6-GHz Athlon 64 FX-55 CPU which i got for free! I must say that the AMD is a lot faster when doing pretty much everything, graphics rendering is pretty much twice as fast as i do a lot of 3d animations. For those of you wondering how I got a free AMD system btw you can check here, I don't wish to spam the message board so here is a site i found with information of how I got it http://www.alienwaregiveaway.co.nr/ mmm, dohnuts

ComputerBB

Intel 64bit PC vs. AMD 64bit PC

Intel 64bit PC vs. AMD 64bit PC

i just noticed i already kinda answered this on other topic