Comments on: AMD present more troubles for Intel

By: R. Wiehe

R. Wiehe — Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:48:08 +0000

What about Apple with their Dual G5 Power Macs?
I’ve got one and they handle 64 bit software. Been out several years now!

By: fengangel

fengangel — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 17:21:15 +0000

China will soon make the fastest processor that prove the inferiority of the west.

By: Richard Whitcomb

Richard Whitcomb — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 12:42:39 +0000

I’m still waiting true 64 bit computing. That’s the whole point behind these new processors, Who in there right mind would upgrade to another 32 bit cpu.when 64 is clearly the way of the future. But I’m still waiting……

By: John

John — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 12:23:26 +0000

A lot of the comments here compared the processors from “gaming” experience. I don’t think this is an accurate benchmark comparison. Games typically showcase the power of video cards. I still think Intel has more crunching power and better stability. But I’m a fan of both processors, and I also like AMD processors for their price. I’d rate Intel “slightly” ahead on stability and performance, but the “cheaper” AMD processors more than tips the balance to claim the better overall “purchase” value. This is just my opinion. =)

By: Jason

Jason — Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:41:14 +0000

AMD is the best. I have not seen any person whom I know who is not satisfied with its performance. I have two pcs both are AMD. Intel is just a brand and nothing more. I hope AMD will remain like this so consumers will have more options. More POWER AMD!!!!!!!!!!

By: Nemo

Nemo — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:56:15 +0000

I’m not going to comment on anything you said Ben Dover, except I can’t resist this:

“The day I think AMD has beat Intel is the day Iâ€™d see the Red Socks advance to the World Seriesâ€¦ it just ainâ€™t ever gonna happen.”

Ironically, the Red Sox are now in the world series. (still, the date stamp indicates you should know that. Are you just being sarcastic?)

By: Ben Dover

Ben Dover — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:15:25 +0000

My oh my. AMD has become a religion. Intel is the Anitchrist?

Let’s see… DELL is the most profitable computer company ever. They are consitantly quarter after quarter making bigger profits. They did so even during the downturn in 2001-2002. Let’s see… how many AMD products do they sell? They must see Intel has their Religion. Why? Intel can manufacture the QUANTITIES of product they need to deliver.

It is EASY to manufacturer the FASTEST processor in low quantities. If Intel were looking at the kind of numbers in which AMD typically delivers they could always have the fastest. If Intel were not interested in the kind of financial MARGIN they have on their products, they could easily deliver a faster processor.

I love making these comments here, it is such blasphemy. Like a religion, many of you have the rational thinking process of a zealot even when the facts are contrary. The day I think AMD has beat Intel is the day I’d see the Red Socks advance to the World Series… it just ain’t ever gonna happen.

By: NVAMD fans

NVAMD fans — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:48:25 +0000

Yes, I agree with these comments very much. I once owned a Duron 700 on a Chaintech 7AJA-100 mainboard from Feb 2001 (which the Duron 700 was upgraded to Duron 1300 in late 2002), until Nov 2003, and it was the best buy ever. The Duron 700 was very cheap, just US$45, yet its performance is comparable to Pentium III 700 of at least US$130 at that time. (I just paid US$145 for the board and Duron.)The system is also rock-stable.

I have a Celeron 2.4 system on Asus P4SGX-MX (400FSB only) since Nov 2003, and it is the worst purchase ever. Celeron performs very poorly that is schooled by Athlon XP 1700+ of just US$50. Yet the Celeron is expensive, with price of US$70. The system always hanged from day to day.

If I have enough money I would certainly upgrade to Socket 939 Athlon 64 3000+ and Abit AV8 mainboard, which ensures upgradability until the end of 2006!

By: dude101

dude101 — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:31:41 +0000

Who can tell me which computer is faster: A) a system with 8 3Ghz XEON processors each with 32MBL3, 8MBL2, 1MBL1 caches, a quad-pumped 400Mhz (aka 1.6GHz) FSB, 8 serial I/O hubs, and 32GB memory; or B) a AMD 64bit with â€¦. who caresâ€¦ whyâ€¦ answer belowâ€¦.

STU!#% comparison!!!!! put in a 8 opterons and those inferior Xeon chips should be lagging!!!!

By: Stefan

Stefan — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:41:35 +0000

Perhaps Intel makes better server procs, but thats not the point. We’re talking about consumable high-end desktop computing here: running graphic intensive 3D games, encoding video, etc. Most consumers dont even need the setup to which you refer (multiple xeon procs, massive amounts of memory and whatnot), much less afford it!

And yes, memory is important, but for most applications but it will only increase performance so far… at this point in time 2 gig of memory in a standard desktop computer will give every bit of performance that 4 gig will, simply because there arent any programs that use more than that.

That said, its nice to see AMD finally getting credit from the general community for being at least as good as Intel