rec.autos.simulators

by **Jagg** » Sat, 19 May 2001 20:34:18

On Fri, 18 May 2001 10:48:10 GMT, "Alan Bernardo"

>Please, we've heard this before. It's more Intel bashing. Some like AMDs,
>others, like myself, wouldn't touch one, sticking rather with the P4. It's
>funny how T-Bird owners are always trying to justify how good their
>processors are in comparrison to Intel's. If you believe this to be true,
>why must you go to such lengths (ad nauseam) in order to proove it. Maybe
>it's someone else who needs to be convinced.

Because it's time to give Intel some of their own back.

--
eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format
http://www.racesimcentral.net/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip

by **Ryan Mitchle** » Sat, 19 May 2001 23:58:28

Why on earth would anyone "like" or "stick with" a CPU? It's not like a
friend, or even a pet, for goodness' sake! It either does the job or it
doesn't. One CPU may be faster than another at a particular job, but I don't
see why preference should enter into it.

Brand loyalty does nothing for a CPU buyer.

I know plenty of people who only buy Intel CPUs simply because they know the
name. The Celeron is currently demonstrably inferior to the Duron (both in
terms of price and performance), although this doesn't stop people from
buying them. At the same time, there is no reason why the offerings from
Intel won't get the upper hand over AMD's in the future. Sticking with one
brand over the other through thick and thin is stupidity, though. I'll buy
whatever is best at the time.

The only real issue is finding a benchmark that approximates one's
applications closely enough. For most gamers, these benchmarks are pretty
well defined. CPU choice is then a fairly logical, rational process, given
the amount that one is prepared to spend. Of course, some processors are
fairly evenly matched in terms of performance, but there is no justifiable
reason for the "I wouldn't touch an X" attitude. I think most of the people
with this kind of attitude are either uninformed or couldn't be bothered to
read through actual performance assessments. Their loss.

Ryan

by M » Sun, 20 May 2001 05:32:48

>This was the first time I ever selected a non-Intel CPU. I was very
>hesitant at first. I did a lot of research and concluded that the T-bird
>had the most bang per $$$. The P4 was just not as cost efficient. True,
>eventually software may be written to take full advantage of the P4 but
>that is still in the future. I wanted a fast system *now* and by all
>indications the T-bird comes out on top of the P4 at this time. By the
>time instruction sets to take advantage of the P4 are common place, AMD
>will have faster CPU's and I can just upgrade at a reasonable price. I
>just think Intel has stumbled slightly and AMD has closed the gap(if not
>surpassed) considerably, at least among gamers.

>Allan

I have a P3, see you at P6.

:)

Pasha

by M » Sun, 20 May 2001 05:34:17

Do all P4s have a TI controller?

The ones that I have seen do.

Pasha

by M » Sun, 20 May 2001 05:35:33

>>Please, we've heard this before. It's more Intel bashing. Some like
AMDs,
>>others, like myself, wouldn't touch one, sticking rather with the P4.
It's
>>funny how T-Bird owners are always trying to justify how good their
>>processors are in comparrison to Intel's. If you believe this to be true,
>>why must you go to such lengths (ad nauseam) in order to proove it. Maybe
>>it's someone else who needs to be convinced.

>Because it's time to give Intel some of their own back.

You are silly.

The reason AMD ever 'got any' was because they sucked, for years, and years.

Pasha
-funny, Chrystler seems to have a problem selling Mercedes-

by **Jagg** » Sun, 20 May 2001 07:25:20

>You are silly.

>The reason AMD ever 'got any' was because they sucked, for years, and years.

You're an idiot. Intel sucks now. Get it?
--
eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format
http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip

by **E. J. Akel** » Sun, 20 May 2001 07:49:42

I do not get it. As I'm about to buy a new CPU I would like to hear the
pros/cons of AMD/Intel.

TIA,
MadMan

> >You are silly.

> >The reason AMD ever 'got any' was because they sucked, for years, and
years.

> You're an idiot. Intel sucks now. Get it?
> --
> eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format
> http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip

by **Allan Paren** » Sun, 20 May 2001 08:38:16

Well, I just put together a new system and had to make that same
decision. I selected an AMD T-bird simply because it had more
performance for the price. The benchmarks I saw showed the 1.33Ghz
T-bird equal or better in many categories over a P4. But the final
factor was price. At the time of purchase, the AMD was almost half the
price of the P4. I have *always* gone with Intel up to this point.
However, the AMD just has more performance for the $$$. At some point
all of the P4's potential will be realised by software that takes
advantage of its features. However, until that point, I will have a
fast, economical and reliable chip in the form of the T-bird. I learned
a while back not to purchase computer hardware based on future
implementations. Buy something affordable that performs well on software
you utilize. I am sure someone will step in with all of the detailed
technical merits of each chip but that is why I purchased AMD over Intel
this time around.

Allan

> I do not get it. As I'm about to buy a new CPU I would like to hear the
> pros/cons of AMD/Intel.

> TIA,
> MadMan

> > >You are silly.

> > >The reason AMD ever 'got any' was because they sucked, for years, and
> years.

> > You're an idiot. Intel sucks now. Get it?
> > --
> > eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format
> > http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip

by JD » Sun, 20 May 2001 08:39:26

-0400, as he held forth on "Re: Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)"

Am I missing something or is this as stupid as it sounds? The
built in ability to throttle back when overheating is a very GOOD
thing. The question is, does it regularly overheat while operating
the programs <games> we want to run under otherwise nominal
conditions? If the answer is yes, then there's a problem. If the
answer is no, then this is a total non-issue.

Regards, JD

by JD » Sun, 20 May 2001 08:44:45

2001 22:49:42 GMT, as he held forth on "Re: Don't buy that P4 just
yet! :)"

Well, you've come to the wrong place for that! Here, unless you
know your way around well enough to separate the wheat from the
chaff, it's all about big egos playing attack and defend with
rumors, innuendo and half <often misunderstood> truths. Nothing
much to do with the merits at all.

Regards, JD

by **Charlie** » Sun, 20 May 2001 09:09:21

You people dont have a clue. Buy a P4 and try it side by sde with your AMD
systems, I've done it w/ 1.2 and 1.33 AMD's side by side, with same vid
cards (Ultra) and the results were so a like using GPL and N4 in my eyes
it's making you guys sound ridiculous. Justifying your purchase w/ a crummy
article that is totally biased is a waste of your time. That article shows
FPS reduction in Q3 throughout use yet on Mon. nights in a League using N4,
in 3-4 hour races I have yet to see a degradation in the quality of my
race/fps because of the processor throttling back. It's BS. The idea that
intel has not provided adequate cooling specs is also a farse. I got the OEM
package and when I load a highly processor intensive programs (multiple
times simultaneously) It doesnt get hot. My P4 goes from 96*f at idle to
111*f under load. Highest I've seen is 114*f UNDER LOAD! I'm tired of
benchmark tests on software that is over 5 years old. You all are basing
this on a Quaker test LOL And if you thnk there arent hot spot anomolies on
an AMD chip youve got another think coming.

Enjoy your easy bake oven.

Charlie B

> don't buy a P4 AT ALL !!!

> If you want buy an Athlon but why pay more for less ?

> > http://www.inqst.com/articles/athlon4/0516main.htm

> > rms

by **Eugen** » Sun, 20 May 2001 09:45:05

Just looks like a AMD fan site.

> http://www.inqst.com/articles/athlon4/0516main.htm

> rms

by **Yousuf Kha** » Sun, 20 May 2001 10:40:12

Pros:
AMD: -price
-price/performance ratio
-performance

Intel: -can't think of any

Cons:
AMD: -can't think of any

Intel: -price
-price/performance ratio
-performance

:-)

by **William Silve** » Sun, 20 May 2001 11:12:53

> > I do not get it. As I'm about to buy a new CPU I would like to hear the
> > pros/cons of AMD/Intel.

> Pros:
> AMD: -price
> -price/performance ratio
> -performance

> Intel: -can't think of any

> Cons:
> AMD: -can't think of any

Compatibility. See earlier post of mine.

--
Heretic #2 of 3e D&D. - ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!!
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.

by **Gonz** » Sun, 20 May 2001 11:29:58

Explain to me how an Intel CPU based system is more compatible please. And
more compatible with what exactly? Intel made benchmark software perhaps?

I see comments like this posted all the time on the Usenet but I have yet to
see any kind of attempt at providing any proof.