| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Zarr
Grandmaster Cheater
![]() Reputation: 0
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 915
Location: localhost
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:19 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| tofuli wrote: | | Zarr wrote: | Intel's best processor can, reportedly, be overclocked to nearly 5GHz on air cooling. Link
AMD's best processor can, reportedly, barely be overclocked to 3GHz on air cooling. Link
Please note, both processors are quad core. |
But for example:
AMD 3800+ runs on 2,4Ghz
but has about the same performance as an Intel that runs on 3,8Ghz
Lower Ghz usually means less power is needed. |
Stop it with saying AMD uses less power!!
AMD 64 X2 6000+ Windsor: 125W, clock speed of 3.0GHz.
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 Conroe: 65W, clock speed of 3.0GHz.
Understand this: processor manufacturers (AMD & Intel) aren't going to like you more because you like them more.
Those of us who like Intel like Intel because they understand Intel makes the hands down, faster, more efficient processors, end of story.
Those of us who like AMD only like AMD because they're AMD. AMD isn't faster, no matter how many false posts you make with a pathetic attempt at condescension. Period. Both AMD and Intel are huge, faceless corporations. If you like them more, so what. They don't know you. There's a snowball's chance in hell that anyone with more importance than a janitor has ever heard your name.
Get this straight, once and for all: most of us who are into computers generally only care about what is better. AMD makes a core that's faster and cheaper than Intel. Great. Let's just pack up our video card, RAM, HDDs (etc), put our old motherboards and CPUs into "storage" (the endless abyss we call our closet, full of old, highly obsolete computer hardware that will likely never see the light of day again, unless in the unlikely event of our house's spontaneous combustion), install the new chip in our new motherboard, along with all of the stuff out of our last rig, and off we go, we have our new, upgraded rig. Bottom line is, there is absolutely NO reason to favour one cpu manufacturer over another. Biased opinions are stupid. Get what works.
Sorry for that wall of text.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Psy
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
![]() Reputation: 1
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 1366
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
+1 Cheetah!
Tofuli Owned!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tofu
Grandmaster Cheater
 Reputation: 0
Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 620
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tofuli wrote: |
Lower Ghz usually means less power is needed. |
Did you read this?
USUALLY
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Psy
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
![]() Reputation: 1
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 1366
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah we did, and the answer is:
Not necessarily.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheetah
I post too much
![]() Reputation: 0
Joined: 11 Nov 2007
Posts: 2758
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tofuli wrote: | | tofuli wrote: |
Lower Ghz usually means less power is needed. |
Did you read this?
USUALLY |
Yes we read and agreed with that, but your comparison of AMD vs Intel clock frequencies was way off.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tofu
Grandmaster Cheater
Reputation: 0
Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 620
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cheetah wrote: | | tofuli wrote: | | tofuli wrote: |
Lower Ghz usually means less power is needed. |
Did you read this?
USUALLY |
Yes we read and agreed with that, but your comparison of AMD vs Intel clock frequencies was way off. |
And there again.. I said "about the same"
And I was talking about 1 core CPU's.
It's way different with dual and quad cores..
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madman
I post too much
 Reputation: 1
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 3978
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you are talking about single core processors, then nobody cares.
They are old.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheetah
I post too much
![]() Reputation: 0
Joined: 11 Nov 2007
Posts: 2758
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tofuli wrote: | | Cheetah wrote: | | tofuli wrote: | | tofuli wrote: |
Lower Ghz usually means less power is needed. |
Did you read this?
USUALLY |
Yes we read and agreed with that, but your comparison of AMD vs Intel clock frequencies was way off. |
And there again.. I said "about the same"
And I was talking about 1 core CPU's.
It's way different with dual and quad cores.. |
You never made any mention to single cores, nor are they relevant to the conversation in any way. If you take a single core of the current Intel generation, and one from AMD, the Intel is still far more efficient per clock cycle. The comparison you used is only true for P4's, which are long obsoleted and have no place in this discussion.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tofu
Grandmaster Cheater
Reputation: 0
Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 620
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes.. But now I have corrected this.
Misunderstandings.. oh dear..
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
