Bye Bye AMD

RJC · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:39

dmpoole said:
My brains hurting

Not the only one

stickroad · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:46

RJC said:
Not the only one

Its all over now everyone.

But yeah their was no need for the arguments especially in a very child hood manor. Sorry guys.

SexyGreyFox · 24 Jun 2007 at 22:54

stickroad said:
Sorry guys.

No need to apologise - I love a good debate.
However, I still don't know what the outcome was.

Journey · 25 Jun 2007 at 00:51

It was a no score draw

eracer2006 · 25 Jun 2007 at 01:12

I wont be going back to ati, 5 years of trying to overclock a 2100xp on good hardware and i got about 100mhz more than standard 1.7ghz clockspeed, bah.

C2D i clocked to 1.7x standard speeds in under 3 mins

Cyber-Mav · 25 Jun 2007 at 02:22

did amd at one point offer intel out for a benchmark test or something? quite sure that they challenged intel to some sort of competition back when the a64 reigned supreme.?

Durzel · 25 Jun 2007 at 09:57

The Toyota vs Ferrari analogy would hold water if it weren't for the fact that with CPUs all that matters is performance. The make of CPU doesn't open any doors for you, win friends or influence people, or attract the opposite sex.

All things considered it's a pretty poor analogy.

jaykay · 25 Jun 2007 at 10:00

Well use the F40 vs F60 analogy. Both the same type just ones newer and faster than the other. F40=amd 64 F50=c2d

Durzel · 25 Jun 2007 at 10:06

jaykay said:
Well use the F40 vs F60 analogy. Both the same type just ones newer and faster than the other. F40=amd 64 F50=c2d

But the original analogy was about Toyota (Intel) selling loads more cars than Ferrari (AMD), but Ferrari obviously being a "better" more aspirational car to own. Now you're turning the analogy into a comparison between two equally low-sales models from the same manufacturer? :confused:

Car analogies don't work period in comparison to CPUs, because there is more to cars than just performance, whereas with CPUs the only thing that matters is performance - it's not like you wear them on your sleeve when you go out clubbing.

mr optimistic · 25 Jun 2007 at 19:12

ermm

are you now arguing about the appropriatemess of a particular analogy, or has my irony meter jammed ?

Sparky · 25 Jun 2007 at 19:23

My nvidia is better than your ATI :eek:

Ahh crap a different argument for a change, ignore me.

carlazai · 25 Jun 2007 at 19:40

cosmogenesis said:
Economically Intel are unassailable. AMD could never hope for more than 30% of the entire market.

if i was a company i wouldnt mind 30% of a 4 billion unit industry (guess thats the number of PCs in the world ~2010)

SexyGreyFox · 25 Jun 2007 at 19:50

carlazai said:
if i was a company i wouldnt mind 30% of a 4 billion unit industry (guess thats the number of PCs in the world ~2010)

And to think IBM thought they would only sell 2000

braveheart · 27 Jun 2007 at 09:33

armatage said:
After using AMD for god knows how many years I've switched back to Intel. My main reasons are that shortly after upgrading to an Athlon 64x2 4400 which ment buying £1000 of kit AMD introduce the AM2 socket and are soon releasing the AM3 socket which makes upgrading a pain. AMD are having money problems also affected my desision. Intel are also back on top again.
I have never had a problem with Nvidia cards but for some reason I went to ATI for my last card (800XT) and have had lots of driver issues and as AMD and ATI are now husband and wife this also infulended my desision.

My new items

Core2Duo 2.4GHZ (4MB cache)
Asus P5b mobo
2GB Kingston DDR2 RAM

But my AMD items will be put to use to replace my server (Athlon 2400 XP)
Athlon 64 x2 4400
Asus A8N32-SLi Deluxe mobo
2GB DDR RAM

It will also have 931MB RAID5 drive

should make a nice server

if you own Socket AM2 then you can use AM2+ or AM3 new processor as backward -- all AM2/AM2+/AM3 are same 940 pins but AM2+ is DDR2 with HTT3 and AM3 is DDR3 with HTT3 as AM2 is DDR2 with HTT2 - here the link >> http://www.vr-zone.com/index.php?i=5078

I never ever go back to Intel - stay with AMD for long time.

SexyGreyFox · 27 Jun 2007 at 10:10

Out of interest and NOT taking overclocking into account - which is the AMD equivalent to C2D E6600?

jaykay · 27 Jun 2007 at 10:17

AMD 6000+

Tainted · 27 Jun 2007 at 10:39

So a 3ghz AMD clock is the same performance as a 2.4ghz C2D clock?
And if we raised that to 3ghz then clock for clock the C2D is quite a bit faster?

jaykay · 27 Jun 2007 at 10:47

Yes the c2d is quite a bit faster.

helmutcheese · 27 Jun 2007 at 11:10

A change from when a 32bit XP3200 was same as a P4 3.2GiG

, you got to remember AMD had the lead for 3 years or more as they were really the better CPU from before the GiG race was won by them, the P3 was a better CPU than the P4 but it took finally a 2GiG one to beat the 1.4GiG Thunderbird.

AMD are on 3+year old tech now with socket 754/939/940/AM2 all being the basic same chip with diff controlers etc, Intel are on a new 1 year old tech so are better but in real life reviews you can see there is not much a gap.

Need wait and see on new CPU from both camps.

Tee Hee Johnson · 27 Jun 2007 at 12:51

I must agree with armatage... i cant wait to get an intel system now!

I used to be a Intel fan, many years back... around the age of PI's and PII's where they completly destroyed the rest i loved them! But then AMD slipped in with amazing products that could out do intel in both price and performance!

Thats when i became an AMD fan

And have been since... till a few months ago... i feel the C2D line are outstanding, and i cant wait to get a new rig based on one!

Maybe in the future it will be back to amd... but in the meantime i defo say intel have the winner!

Craig!!