What CPU Do You Use?

Discussion in 'Hardware Discussion & Support' started by JavaFox, Jun 8, 2003.

?

What CPU Do You Use?

  1. AMD

    150 vote(s)
    65.5%
  2. Intel

    79 vote(s)
    34.5%
  3. Transmeta

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. VIA

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. WyreTheWolf

    WyreTheWolf Wolfish Bastard

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You didnt hear any negative feedback about overclocking AMD on this forum. AMD processors (especially the newer cores) are OVERCLOCKING BEASTS.
     
  2. Kgentatszu]

    Kgentatszu] New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Messages:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    wolf, from the above discussion, are you saying that celeron is actually faster than a pentium 4 processor??
     
  3. WyreTheWolf

    WyreTheWolf Wolfish Bastard

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maxwell, I think you need to reread those statements.......

    Now with the P4, Intel doubled the pipeline that the PIII had, from 10 stages to 20. What that means is that each stage gets done sooner (therefore more cycles) but less work gets done at each stage (instructions per cycle). This allows Intel to ramp up the clock speed making the processor appear, to the average consumer, to be significantly faster, in comparison to other processors, than it really is. This is why a Celeron @ 1.2GHz could match or even beat a P4 @ 1.4GHz, or why an Athlon XP 1800 @ 1.53GHz can beat down a P4 @ 2 GHz. Both the Celeron (based on the PIII) and the Athlon have a higher IPC than the P4, meaning that the P4 has to have a large clock advantage just to be able to operate as fast as either processor.
     
  4. KNIBBO

    KNIBBO New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is why a Celeron @ 1.2GHz could match or even beat a P4 @ 1.4GHz, or why an Athlon XP 1800 @ 1.53GHz can beat down a P4 @ 2 GHz. Both the Celeron (based on the PIII) and the Athlon have a higher IPC than the P4, meaning that the P4 has to have a large clock advantage just to be able to operate as fast as either processor.


    I know you're not asking me, but I couldn't help myself. Look at the clock speeds and you'll understand.
     
  5. WyreTheWolf

    WyreTheWolf Wolfish Bastard

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes look at the clock speeds again... 1530MHz vs. 2000MHz the Pentium4 has a 470MHz advantage in clock speed... but doesnt compare in real world tests.

    And the Celeron that is mentioned is the one based on the PIII, not the "new" celeron based on the P4.
     
  6. Kgentatszu]

    Kgentatszu] New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Messages:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  7. WyreTheWolf

    WyreTheWolf Wolfish Bastard

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  8. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Thanks for thr article Wolf, I have been reading that exact same thing for years- IPC DO matter- And Intel has had many problems with releasing products too fast that are flawed. But then you get people in here that will come out and say things like "AMD SUX" and "AMD have no quality"-- Thanks for explaining it to them, although some of them I imagin won't understand no matter how much effort you exert trying to explain it to them. You didn't even start with the business of how Intel crippled the Celeron by stripping it of cache. Some people will never learn, I guess I don't care if they do or not anyway- let them think what they want, and say what they want- they are only showing their true intelligence.
     
  9. WyreTheWolf

    WyreTheWolf Wolfish Bastard

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, the way that I look at it... AMD, and Intel both do the job. I have shown that in no way does AMD "suck" (feel like I am taking care of a room full of Kindergardeners)

    The AMD CPU is a quality component that gets the job done... The only real difference is: IT GETS IT DONE FOR FAR LESS GREEN. Some people are willing to fall for the Megahertz Myth... I am not. Neither is my checking account.
     
  10. scobywhru

    scobywhru DriverHeaven Senile Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2002
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What about CISC Chips we are talking about RISC Chips here and bringing up IPC and all that but CPUs fall into 2 categories as I know them and its not Intel or AMD, but CISC or RISC chips. Also why is no one bringing up transmeta its not like they are Horrible for what they are look at The green mile super computer, built on transmeta chips if I am not mistaken. All this AMD vs Intel is a bunch of cow dung, tell your experience say your opinion and respect what others have to say.
     
  11. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    I don't have to respect someone saying "AMD have no quality" or other nonsense when they don't know what they are talking about and neither does anyone else.:duh: Why aren't you using a transmeta chip in you desktop? That's the same reason why we are talking about AMD and Intel, because that is what 99.9999% of people have.
     
  12. krazy1

    krazy1 Live from the Dungeon

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,395
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Could not be said better.. AMD always!!! :D :D :D
     
  13. JCLW

    JCLW Long Live The P6!

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My dual PIIIs still have enough kick for everything I do.

    - JW
     
  14. No_Style

    No_Style Styleless Wonder

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2002
    Messages:
    6,027
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was tempted by AMD..

    But I got Intel once more :D

    Why? A 2.4B --> 3.33GHz? Besides the fact that it topples almost anything the market can throw at it (Stock) and aircooled. As for the price/performance ratio. I do agree...If it were at stock and minor O/Cing was involved. If anybody came up to me and asked my opinion on which processor to get and they were not O/Cing..I'd throw an AMD chip their way. Low end to mid range wise, their price/performance ratio is kick ass. But right now: 2.4C with HT and 800 FSB. I don't know about my previous statement anymore....

    The gap between AMD and Intel's High End is widening as well. Just read the reviews ppl :D
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2003
  15. Kgentatszu]

    Kgentatszu] New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Messages:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    well, at least that clear things up a bit, thankz for the note
     
  16. satech2001

    satech2001 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    AMD AMD AMD!!!!!!!:D

    Sorry...i had to get it outa my system...

    Damnit Wyre...you gave me a headache reading that thing...:p ...not that you havent told me a zillion times allready...but i really really enjoy reading that thing:evil:
     
  17. FuNsTeR

    FuNsTeR Caledonian and Proud

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    1,449
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    58
    i had a a p3 600 mhz coppermine , lets just say after that cpu i will never buy intel ever again first one maxed out after 2 weeks and no i did not O/C it 2nd one lasted 2 months before it started to act funny the 3rd lasted 4 months before it burnt out and neither were oc'd , at first i thought it was my Mobo ... but i got it checked with a freind who ran his own pc shop and he said my Abit BE6 rv 2 BX440 mobo was working fine and the problem must have been a dodgy batch of coppermines and intel snobs have a cheek to slag reliability problems concerning Amd products

    ever since its been Amd all the way 1200 Athlon no probs with the processor worked a treat now my mate has it in his pc , currently have a XP1800 runs like a dream next Cpu will also be a Amd processor
     
  18. No_Style

    No_Style Styleless Wonder

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2002
    Messages:
    6,027
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In Response To Wyre's Wonderful Article

    CPU Speeds. First thing I tell people when they ask me about AMD is this: "Forget MHz, it's performance benches that matter. Just like pure Horsepower doesn't mean anything" I've personally never used AMD, probably never will. I trust Intel products and every single Intel product I've used continues to amaze me. I've always given people choices when they come to me looking for PC Building advice. But with the current Intel C series. I can't stress enough how feature packed that baby is :D
     
  19. mike2h

    mike2h New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    6,359
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    0
    WyreTheWolf

    a lot of the things you say are very true. two things you got wrong though are dual channel - intel's 850 has been out for at least 2 years, & you can get hyperthreading for $175(with 800 bus)
    outside of heat issues, wich is not the problem it used to be, the biggest problems with amd has been their lack of top quality chip support. amd, in the past, has had little or no control over the quality of the chipsets made for their cpu's. the k5, k62 & 3, athlon & first tbirds had very poor chip support. in fact it was so poor that amd was forced to make their own chipsets . which were good but had the downfall of being less available & a little pricier. some of the chipset issues carried through until very recentley. intel has had their share of problems but they are good at pr'ing them into non existence and/or fixing the problem very speedily. they have more money, better bigger production & tighter control over non intel chipsets. & again more money. this does translate into better real world overall quality. now do not get me wrong, i am very thanful that amd is around & makes cpu's as good as they do. for 3 reasons- 1) without amd we would be paying much higher prices for less performing cpus. 2) amd IS geat bang for the buck. 3) choice! choice is great, also lets us have these debates!
     
  20. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Re: WyreTheWolf

    Well actually the K6-2 was pretty stable- at least the one my girlfriend had in her old computer in 1997- it still is sitting in the closet- It actually has an Asus P5A mb that was also stable as hell- Even back then the thing never acted funny or froze once-- I ran that pc for a while before I built this one- no problems at all- And anyway, if that is your argument for why you think Intel is better then you need to forget about it- that is in the very distant past- let's talk about more recent chips, like the T-bred B's?

    And hey, didn't you READ what Wyre was writing? Didn't you hear about the premature release of all the Intel products- (talk about quality?) didn't you hear about the huge recalls and problems w/ many, many intel products over the past years? And even not so long ago. It's like people who think intel is "better" just seem to overlook all those things. Not to mention Intel's marketing which is questionable at best.:duh:

    If I had more money than brains I MIGHT go but the best Intel has to offer just because it MIGHT give me a LITTLE more performance than AMD's top chip- but those are big maybe's- especially when you start talking about overclocking potentials with normal air cooling.
     

Share This Page

visited