Intel refuses gauntlet AMD throws down

[Steel Chicken]

oh sweet Jesus, here we go again.

Did I say that the X2 didnt perform as well as my 630 did? no, I didnt.

I have and merely stated that the BIG price differences between my X2 4400+ and my 630 setup wasnt worth it to me.

you people need to learn how to read things better before you go accusing people of saying something that wasnt said.

heres what you did say:

AMD X2 horsesh*t and now thats what I'm using. what I wouldnt give to go back in time about two weeks and just kept my 630J chip that ran 24/7 at 4.2GHz w/o having to worry about messing with this AMD HTT, LDT that crap like I've been having to deal with this current X2 setup of mine.

OH NOES! The AMD Overclock is too hard for my little head!

it was my STUPID mistake to spend this ridiculous amount of money on this X2 setup when my previous (and MUCH cheaper) Intel setup was damn-near just as strong as what my current X2 setup is.

And this was flame bait and you know it. The X2 rapes any Intel solution at any price. Even the Extremely Expensive edition.

Dont come in an AMD forum posting troll-fagnastic flame bait, and then cry because people snap your shorts for it.

Im sure your dual core intel solution was and is fine for your needs. But dont get all pissed because you bought a Ferrari and drive it legally in a school zone all the time.

 

[Scali]

IMO, the serious lack of advertising on behalf of AMD hurts them. Granted, their logo was on Lance Armstrong's jersey...

It was on his arse, to be exact, that may not have been such a good move

 

[LeArN2LiVe]

Great decision by Intel, IMO. It isn't very professional-like to have a duel against processors. I don't think its good for publicity for two of the biggest companies to try to bash each other by having these types of things because thats what review sites are for.

Basically, AMD should stop trying to add salt to the wound because Intel will be back on top one day then AMD will stomp it and so begins the vicious cycle.

 

[Nakamori]

Theres a difference between saying "doesnt perform as well as" and "doesn't outperform". Read what I said.

Either way, bottom line, you are GPU bottlenecked if indeed there is only a 200point difference in your scores. If you invest in a 7800GTX and run 3dmark with it in both setups, you will notice a sizable (close to 35%) difference in your scores.

I have and merely stated that the BIG price differences between my X2 4400+ and my 630 setup wasnt worth it to me.

That goes back to what you used your computer for. Don't put it on AMD and the expense of their X2 because you pissed away hundreds of dollars for a rig you aren't even coming close to taking full advantage of. If you run the right kind of apps, the X2 is easily worth it.

If you really want to cut your losses go ahead and sell the X2 rig. If you want an upgrade over your current rig for gaming then get a 7800GTX. If you have more money after that get a 3700 San Diego and you will STILL see a noticable difference over your current rig.

 

[Scali]

Thing is... Why would Intel accept the challenge? Intel has nothing to prove, since they have nothing to lose. AMD does, and they probably know that if they don't prove themselves now, they may not get another chance for a long time.

MS proposed a similar challenge to OSDL (linux and other opensource-related committee).
Then it's the other way around. The only way linux can get something positive out of it, is when they accept the challenge, and actually succeed. Otherwise it will be seen as a weakness, since MS, like Intel, is already the stronger brand anyway.

 

[ozziegn]

heres what you did say:


OH NOES! The AMD Overclock is too hard for my little head!


And this was flame bait and you know it. The X2 rapes any Intel solution at any price. Even the Extremely Expensive edition.

Dont come in an AMD forum posting troll-fagnastic flame bait, and then cry because people snap your shorts for it.

Im sure your dual core intel solution was and is fine for your needs. But dont get all pissed because you bought a Ferrari and drive it legally in a school zone all the time.

lol - you people still dont get it.

where did I say that my 630 chip performed better? also, who said that I had a dual-core Intel chip?

once again, people talking out of their asses......

*also*

I can come to this section of the forum along with any other section if I damn well please to. I'm not posting any lies thus I'm not trolling jack. I'm posting my real-life experiences between my two setups and as usual, some of you AMD freaks get all offensive when someone doesnt praise the almighty A64 gods.

heh, kind of like when the nVidia freaks get all pissy when the ATi people say something negative about their nVidia cards. man, you people need to get a life and you need to quit being so damn offensive when it comes to computer parts discussions.

hell, we're only talking about computer hardware for Christ's sakes. not our first new borns.

oh what the hell, what am I saying? it wouldnt surprise me if most of the clowns who are picking fights w/ me in this thread are nothing more than 15 year old kids playing hooky from school today.

 

[ozziegn]

Either way, bottom line, you are GPU bottlenecked if indeed there is only a 200point difference in your scores. If you invest in a 7800GTX and run 3dmark with it in both setups, you will notice a sizable (close to 35%) difference in your scores.

ummm, here's a newsflash. I do have a 7800 GTX.

so please, let me know where I can get this magical 35% increase that you speak of.

35% increase. now that is funny.

 

[Nakamori]

ummm, here's a newsflash. I do have a 7800 GTX.

so please, let me know where I can get this magical 35% increase that you speak of.

35% increase. now that is funny.

http://service.futuremark.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectsearch

Processor type= Athon X2, Pentium 4 EE, Pentium 4
Graphics Chipset= Geforce 7800GTX

X2 is better across the board 30-40%

 

[Trepidati0n]

I will say one thing...I've always found it easier to deal with initial Intel setups compared to AMD setups. However, since the Tbird days I have always gone AMD since I can afford the time to maximize my system and deal with the driver issues (cough IDE cough). But if I do build a system for somebody else I have always gone Intel. Why? I can build, install, and give them their PC the first day and usually not hear a call back ever.

However...my latest round with AMD has been "better". However, I'm still bothered because I need to flash my bios and update my drivers once a every other month because of "optimizations". It should be that way.

Don't give the old "show me absolute proof" remark. It's BS. People buy based upon what they are getting for their $$$. If I had to upgrade someones drivers/BIOS ever couple of months because their WinXP is no longer stable after updates, I don't think they would be very happy with me.

Again...AMD is a very good product. It is like a british car, very good performance but needs some TLC, especially if you want to change it. Intel for the mases however is like a Toyota Corolla. At least you know what you get will work hardware wise regardless of how bad software vendors try to screw it up.

My current rig in my sig has been "fairly" flawless. But I still had to "flash the BIOS" on the first day so it could support my processor. Then flash it again so it could support my memory (at stock). I also had horrible time with loading into XP because of the drivers pre 6.66. This wasn't caused by my skills, this was caused by the hardware and the firmware that controls it. The IDE drivers also caused intensive tasks to crash. All the "issues" are fixed and all is good. We'll see what happens when I try to OC

Someday we'll see if I go Intel again...but it will always be Intel for my "relatives" until I build an AMD system where I do not need to jump through hoops to be happy.

-tReP

 

[Susquehannock]

Thread tools = "unsubscribed".

While interesting for a time, this thread has evolved from humerous to a pissing match. Have fun!

 

[DejaWiz]

oh what the hell, what am I saying? it wouldnt surprise me if most of the clowns who are picking fights w/ me in this thread are nothing more than 15 year old kids playing hooky from school today.

LOL. Good one!

I understand your frustrations, ozzie. I linked the review article earlier to show everyone that the X2 performs well with what it's meant for. In single core apps, it's really kind of a toss up between the two brands. Games is a different story, but the numbers aren't really far off from each other in real world usage when comparing similar performing parts.

I do some serious multitasking at work, and hence I would not even consider using a single-core AMD processor for that. At home, all my systems bear AMD processors, except my trust old dual P3-1000. But at home, I don't stress my cpu with harsh multitasking. I game. I surf the net. That's about it. For me, the single core AMD was cheaper than a comparable intel setup. I would love to have a dual core, but I have to wait for 2 reasons. One: I don't have that kind of cash to justify the purchase. Two: There's not a lot in terms of apps and games that utilize multithreading to justify reason number one.

It sucks you can't switch back to the processor that best meets your individual needs as of right now, but hang in there bud. More and more multithreaded apps and games will show up over time, and you will be able to experience the potential of your X2. I can only imagine it will be very frustrating for you in the meantime. I would be in the same boat had I gotten an X2.

 

[ozziegn]

LOL. Good one!

< snip >

I understand your frustrations, ozzie. I can only imagine it will be very frustrating for you in the meantime. I would be in the same boat had I gotten an X2.

thanks for the kind words bud. its actually nice having someone give a mature response considering how bad the AMD crowd has decided to continue this feeding frenzy with me.

oh well, I have very tough skin so I can take it.

 

[fatez]

thanks for the kind words bud. its actually nice having someone give a mature response considering how bad the AMD crowd has decided to continue this feeding frenzy with me.

oh well, I have very tough skin so I can take it.

wow you think this is bad? I actually read the whole thread and I say I can sympathize with you and the people who flame you. I sympathize with you for spending something you don't need and getting angry at it, and I can sympathize with all the AMD people who got mad at you when you don't listen to any of the hard evidence. Instead you just made it up your mind and wouldn't listen to waht anyone was saying. On a side note, I posted in an Intel forum trying to help a guy find the processor for pure gaming and suggested an AMD. Instead, they called me a troll, and even implied that I was stupid.

 

[soulsaver_8229]

I think anyone who posted in here saying "my amd/intel rig didnt do this so they suck!" are very silly...........heres why!

because you cant overclock by 200 mgz, or you cant get 1k more 3dmarks, or you feel it isnt smoother..........proc to proc i mean...........it could be so much........

i can tell you right now, if you got me an amd 2800+64, vs my 2000+xp rig, i couldnt tell much diffrence..........and no one really should.........

now, Oz.........you HAD a 640 chip or some crap? well guess what, you were very silly to spend money on an x2 because you wont notice much, if any diffrence.........

thats like saying if i upgrade to a 3000+xp proc and try to notice a diffrence.......so your whine and rant and complant........holds no ground.........if you had a crappy intel chip, and got an x2 and then complained, then we at [H] could help you figure out what the hell your doing wrong
so in ending..........dont complain cause you spent XXX ammount of dollars and dont see diffrence........

soulsaver_8229

 

[soulsaver_8229]

wow you think this is bad? I actually read the whole thread and I say I can sympathize with you and the people who flame you. I sympathize with you for spending something you don't need and getting angry at it, and I can sympathize with all the AMD people who got mad at you when you don't listen to any of the hard evidence. Instead you just made it up your mind and wouldn't listen to waht anyone was saying. On a side note, I posted in an Intel forum trying to help a guy find the processor for pure gaming and suggested an AMD. Instead, they called me a troll, and even implied that I was stupid.

this should go down as the deffination of a Fan Boi

 

[ozziegn]

On a side note, I posted in an Intel forum trying to help a guy find the processor for pure gaming and suggested an AMD. Instead, they called me a troll, and even implied that I was stupid.

see, thats one of the problems when dealing with "kids" now in days when it comes to internet forum - computer hardware discussions.

one party cant say anything negative about the other party's favorite hardware w/o them getting all pissy and such.

I keep on refering to those people as "kids" because I could only hope but to think that mature "adults" wouldnt get so damn offended should someone say something negative about a computer component that they own.

I know I dont get offended when an AMD person tells me that my Intel stuff sucks. oh well, thats whats nice about having the American right to having your own opinion. (at least for the time being anyway...)

 

[Steel Chicken]

Ozz, no ones offended. Youre just wrong. It sounds like you bought something you didn't need, and instead of saying, "I dont need this, ill go back to where I was" YOU started the flames. AMD = Horeshit, this sucks, OMG I spent so much money and its not any better.

I am NOT a fanbo1 15 year old kid. I have a dual Xeon setup sitting next to my X2. Its awesome, and was cheap. It serves a different purpose. I bought my G/F a nice Celeron setup. Weak for my needs, but for email and browsing for her, perfect.

You need to understand, you got flamed, and you got evidence posted against your assertions because YOU started the flames. You stated incorrect things with a great deal of negativity. Dont go running around smacking hornets nests and then bitch when they come out and sting you.

 

[jebo_4jc]

Ozz, no ones offended. Youre just wrong. It sounds like you bought something you didn't need, and instead of saying, "I dont need this, ill go back to where I was" YOU started the flames. AMD = Horeshit, this sucks, OMG I spent so much money and its not any better.

I am NOT a fanbo1 15 year old kid. I have a dual Xeon setup sitting next to my X2. Its awesome, and was cheap. It serves a different purpose. I bought my G/F a nice Celeron setup. Weak for my needs, but for email and browsing for her, perfect.

You need to understand, you got flamed, and you got evidence posted against your assertions because YOU started the flames. You stated incorrect things with a great deal of negativity. Dont go running around smacking hornets nests and then bitch when they come out and sting you.

QFT, and QFT.

 

[Un4given]

i can tell you right now, if you got me an amd 2800+64, vs my 2000+xp rig, i couldnt tell much diffrence..........and no one really should.........
soulsaver_8229

Sorry, but I have to disagree on this for the most part. When I upgraded from my XP clocked at 2.3GHz to my A64 at 2.2GHz, I still noticed a huge performance difference in CS:S when I was running a server with bots. I kept all the same RAM, VC, hard drive, etc., this was a purel mobo/CPU upgrade.

And just as a side note, it wasn't all about the fps either, the whole system just felt smoother; anyone who plays fps games knows what I mean about feel as much as the look.

 

[ozziegn]

Ozz, no ones offended.

<snip>

Dont go running around smacking hornets nests and then bitch when they come out and sting you.

*yawn*...........

everything that I have said about my most recent experience with an A64 is in my personal opinion. so if I wanna say something like "yes, AMD does suck." - then so be it.

you (or anyone else) isnt going to tell me I cant say that. again, we live in America where opinions are still a free form of speech.

now, on the other side of that coin, you (and everyone else for that matter) can say that Intel sucks and blah, blah, blah..... but that surely doesnt going to mean that I'm going to grab a box of tissue so I can wipe the tears from my eyes if/when you or anyone else does say anything negative about Intel.

for the sixth time now, we are talking about freakin' computer hardware people. nothing more. get a life and stay out of the kitchen if you cant stand the heat.

my God.... I dont think I've ever seen a bigger crowd of babies in one single thread like I've witnessed so far in this one. and I thought that some of the ATi babies over at the Rage3D forums were bad.... they arent half as bad as the babies in this thread.

*and on a final note before I leave this thread for good*

I'm sure that some A64 systems can hold their own and some when it comes to the higher end Intel systems. but in my personal experience, my $600+ processor upgrade didnt do squat for me. AGAIN, thats just my personal opinion.

 

[54YW4T]

ummm....AMD FOR LIFE!!!! Muhahahahaha!!

 

[soulsaver_8229]

Sorry, but I have to disagree on this for the most part. When I upgraded from my XP clocked at 2.3GHz to my A64 at 2.2GHz, I still noticed a huge performance difference in CS:S when I was running a server with bots. I kept all the same RAM, VC, hard drive, etc., this was a purel mobo/CPU upgrade.

And just as a side note, it wasn't all about the fps either, the whole system just felt smoother; anyone who plays fps games knows what I mean about feel as much as the look.

Placebo effect my friend its ok and unless you went from 128-256l2 cache, to 512-1m then yeah you will notice a smoothness to it unlike an XP proc


soulsaver_8229

 

[Soymilk]

Oh! So that's how you get performance out of an AMD....

Or let me put this another way, you shouldn't have to overclock a proc out of the box, period..

i dont know if ne1 said this yet, but i dont feel like reading anymore.

he OC'd his pentium processor, too, and he's comparing that w/ an OC'd x2. unless they've started selling p4's at 4.2ghz stock?

 

[Megadeth_Guy01]

well, here's a newsflash. I've always been an Intel person by nature but I recently f-ed up and I bought into all this AMD X2 horsesh*t and now thats what I'm using. what I wouldnt give to go back in time about two weeks and just kept my 630J chip that ran 24/7 at 4.2GHz w/o having to worry about messing with this AMD HTT, LDT that crap like I've been having to deal with this current X2 setup of mine.

oh well, I've pissed away so much money on this X2 setup of mine that I'd lose my ass bigtime if I were to sell it off and switch back to Intel so I guess I'm stuck with it for a while.

Well, who's fault is that...

 

[SpoogeMonkey]

Back On Topic:

It would've been nice to see Intel compete....wether they win or lose. As long as AMD can be men about it and go head to head when Intel does the next round of leapfrog.

If nothing else I hope AMD gets some good advertising out of this. I know of waayyyy too many people who have never even heard of AMD, let alone an X2 cpu. More marketshare = more competition. And competition is always good for the consumers.

 

[purple_haze]

it was a wise decision on intel's part, since they would totally get owned by amd. But it also shows a weakness on their part for not accepting such a challenge by their long time rivals, which basically hints that they know their processors dont stand a chance against amd's dualcore

 

[Megadeth_Guy01]

If nothing else I hope AMD gets some good advertising out of this. I know of waayyyy too many people who have never even heard of AMD, let alone an X2 cpu. More marketshare = more competition. And competition is always good for the consumers.

'Ndeed.

 

[SpoogeMonkey]

it was a wise decision on intel's part, since they would totally get owned by amd. But it also shows a weakness on their part for not accepting such a challenge by their long time rivals, which basically hints that they know their processors dont stand a chance against amd's dualcore

I just wish they would've accepted and said "You won this round, but watch yer ass, cuz we're coming back to bitch slap ya.." And the cycle continues.....

It's the same as saying "No comment" which usually means "I'm guilty as hell"

 

[7718]

God forbid Intel compare perforamance with their insignificant "competitor" AMD! Somehow the general public might hear of how much better amd's platform really is nowadays and they might make an informed buying decision , we woulnd't like that to happen.

 

[Nakamori]

my God.... I dont think I've ever seen a bigger crowd of babies in one single thread like I've witnessed so far in this one. and I thought that some of the ATi babies over at the Rage3D forums were bad.... they arent half as bad as the babies in this thread..

you seem to enjoy making generalizations of people based on what brand of hardware they use . Again, youre the one who wasted your money. The rest of us are just having fun with this

 

[M3at]

This is great. These kinds of threads always crack me up.

If I had a cpu that oced to 4.2, Intel or AMD, I sure as hell wouldn't dump it and spend more money on something that may or may not compare to my oced 4.2 cpu. Especially since the 630 is around 181$ compared to the 4400+'s heafty price tag of 546$.

Honestly, who sells a cpu that oc's that well for another cpu rated at 4400+ speeds? Oh, and your 4400+ is probably on par with it's rating. Your oced P4 @ 4.2 and your AMD at 4400+ speeds for a gain of 200 3dMark points sounds about right with the 4400+ rating compared to the 4.2oced P4. I mean, that's simple math. 4400 - 4200 = 200mhz which translates into a 200mhz gain and possiblely a 200pt gain in 3dMark. Maybe I'm missing something?

I don't care that you dislike your AMD compared to your P4. It's personal preference. I just care that you got rid of a cpu that was up to par with current perfomance in the first place. That decision alone is what boggles my mind. You spent 383$ for 200 extra mhz.

There has also been mention in this thread of the quirkeyness of setting up an AMD system compared to an Intel sysetm. I have to be honest, I have not seen any difference either way. Every AMD system I've set up for customers has been just as easy as every Intel system that I've set up. I've only had call backs when a hard drive dies, but never have I had a call back on either platform because of the brand of cpu in the system

I'm sorry, you are correct. my X2 4400+ is better than my previous 630 chip clocked at 4.2GHz.... after all, my X2 4400+ does score a whopping 200 points higher in 3DMark '05 vs what my 630 chip.

heh, an extra $400 expense to gain a blistering 200 3DMark points. what a deal.....

okay, and now I'm predicting that your next comment will be something like, "well you know Oz, synthetic benchies dont mean jack and blah, blah, blah........."

well, here's a newsflash for ya. this X2 setup of mine doesnt run any better and I havent noticed any noticeable gains in performance w/ games like HL2 or even BF2 to have justified the HUGE increase in hardware prices between this setup and my previous Intel setup.

oh, and what ever happened to AMD's main claim to fame about how their setups are so much cheaper than the Intels?

*cough* BULLSHIT *cough*

 

[mrgstiffler]

Back On Topic:

It would've been nice to see Intel compete....wether they win or lose. As long as AMD can be men about it and go head to head when Intel does the next round of leapfrog.

If nothing else I hope AMD gets some good advertising out of this. I know of waayyyy too many people who have never even heard of AMD, let alone an X2 cpu. More marketshare = more competition. And competition is always good for the consumers.

That would have given AMD more publicity. You NEVER want to give away publicity if you can help it. It was a good move on AMD's part. They knew Intel was never going to accept. It was also a good move on Intel's part. They'll give AMD the momentary limelight, but a few weeks from now nobody's going to remember.