Pentium 4 4Ghz EE = Athlon 64 FX-58 (2.9GHz)

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » April 19th, 2004, 10:25 pm

Well, they both get a 19/38 this time. I'm guessing however that Intel gave Tom some money for this, for holy AMD should have won. Well, God, maybe Anandtech might do a fair extreme overclocking benchmark that favors your prefered CPU company.

More here.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » April 19th, 2004, 11:15 pm

lol.. Intel owns.. give it up

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » April 20th, 2004, 10:05 pm

What are you talking about?
The best Pentium = the best Athlon according to a pro-Intel review site.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » April 20th, 2004, 11:00 pm

tomshardware isnt pro-intel...

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » April 21st, 2004, 11:09 am

Ok, excluding the fact whether Tomshardware is pro-Intel or not, we know this:
Athlon 64 FX-53 (AMD's best) clocked to the max = Pentium 4 3.4GHz EE (Intel's best) clocked to the max in performance.
The Athlon 64 FX-53 is $259.75 less than the Pentium 4 3.4GHz EE.
Athlon 64 FX-53 wins in 3D games, data compression, compilation.

Sumpin_Wong · Post by **Sumpin_Wong** » April 21st, 2004, 7:38 pm

I wouldn't put an Intel chip in my ex-wifes computer.. cuz they suck almost as bad as she does

Aggressor Prime hit the nail on the head. Intel might be competitive, performance wise.. but ya get the most bang-for-your-buck w/ and AMD.

$260 less for the best AMD cpu.. That $260 you'de spend on the Intel woulda paid for one of their fancy commercials .. lol

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » April 22nd, 2004, 12:18 am

This forum has turned AMD crazy

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » April 22nd, 2004, 12:51 am

No, it is just that this forum has many people who can compare things easily (like 2>1 and less money for the same thing is better).

Sumpin_Wong · Post by **Sumpin_Wong** » April 22nd, 2004, 4:55 am

I'm not saying that Intel is junk, not by any means. I just think ya get far more cpu for your dollar when you buy AMD.

The thing that draws most people to intel (in my opinion), are the big numbers, ie.. 800Mhz FSB, 3.4g cpu speed. "HyperThread Technology"...

In all the reviews/benchamarks/comparison I have read. They are both very close to one another. Definetely not different enough to justify spending $250+ more, to get the same results.

Another thing I don't understand about devout Intel owners (the ones I know atleast, personally)... They are all gamers. The benchmarks have proven time and time again.. AMD is the best CPU on the market when it comes to Pc gaming... period!

Bottom line.. I don't like paying the Intel Corp. an additional $250 to support their fancy advertisement campaigns ! (BlueMan Group.. I bet they were pretty cheap)

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » April 22nd, 2004, 8:52 pm

You cant even tell the speed diff

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » April 23rd, 2004, 9:49 pm

We are not talking about speed.
Speed is = in all.
We are talking about money.
In other words:
You can spend less and get a faster or equal CPU (faster in SETI

).

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » April 23rd, 2004, 10:30 pm

wow...seti

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » April 28th, 2004, 12:49 am

YOU CAN"T COMPARE 64BIT TO 32BIT ITS JUST THAT SIMPLE

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » April 28th, 2004, 1:12 am

Uh, what you saw was 32-Bit tests. 64-Bit Windows degrades the performance for now. The final version will be more advanced allowing for faster timings in 32-Bit and 64-Bit. And yes, they compared 32-Bit to 64-Bit. And I don't get what you mean you can't compare the two. The only difference is that 64-bit is added on. 32-Bit programs run, however, faster on a 64-Bit extended CPU.

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » July 14th, 2004, 7:16 pm

The_Man wrote:YOU CAN"T COMPARE 64BIT TO 32BIT ITS JUST THAT SIMPLE

You dont know what your talking about do you?

The Athlon 64 can run 32bit and 64 natively. Any test you see now are running a 32bit Operating system, as in this test. Drivers arent good enough for 64 bit yet.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/200404 ... ng-07.html

Just look at the Test Setup specs they give, under OS it says
OS Windows XP Professional, Build 2600, Service Pack 1

How do you get they are using a 64-bit OS out of that?

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » July 15th, 2004, 12:47 am

yeah you should disregarde that bit i said earlier i wasn't really paying attentin to what was going on. But anyways, intel business wise is probably smart for having it so high in price, most of america will buy a more expensive product thinking its better, even though the tests are the same. So intel makes more money anyway, but the only problem is that people don't konw how well amd is donig so they buy intel anyway. Its not like amd is telling the general public that they are just as good but cheaper so they are pratically giving intel money.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » July 15th, 2004, 12:47 am

you might not understand what i just said just read it over a few times

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » July 15th, 2004, 6:23 am

But anyways, intel business wise is probably smart for having it so high in price, most of america will buy a more expensive product thinking its bette

Unfortunately that is true.

*believes in an educated consumer.[/quote]