what system (computer) do you have

[elite_hunter_sh3]

the turtle always wins the race and the rabbit loses. just you wait amd is a force not to be reckoned with

[JSLTIGER]

Scratch this...I re-read what I was posting about, and I'm wrong...

[flintlock]

Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3

just you wait amd is a force not to be reckoned with

Not to be reckoned with, huh?

This implies the opposite of what I'm sure you meant.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

amd and intel are probably the best thing that has happened to computers. AMD has always been popular for gamers because of amd's FX and 64 and X2 core designed to handle more gaming types of calculations, while intel has been popular for everything else esp video coding and editing etc.. but enyways lol ive had intel and i prefer amd

[JSLTIGER]

Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3

amd and intel are probably the best thing that has happened to computers. AMD has always been popular for gamers because of amd's FX and 64 and X2 core designed to handle more gaming types of calculations, while intel has been popular for everything else esp video coding and editing etc.. but enyways lol ive had intel and i prefer amd

I think that the thing that most of us are trying to point out is that statements like the above don't make sense. While AMD was the king of gaming, Intel currently takes home the gold in almost every category, including gaming. Furthermore, FX is a relatively new invention, only coming into use with the introduction of the K8 (aka Athlon 64) chip, therefore not "always" being the reason for AMD's popularity with gamers. The initial root of that segment of the market probably has to do with the late 1980s and early 1990s AMD copies of Intel x86 chips offering identical performance and lower costs. Whatever experience you may have had with Intel is effectively null and void, as you've never owned a C2D or C2Q. Remember that these chips are vastly different from the P4s most people have grown accustomed to since 2003. While the fact that you prefer AMD is not in dispute, the claims of AMD's superiority, while they may have been true in the past, are, at the moment, completely unjustified and false.

[Konovalov]

@ JSLTIGER: Exactly.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3

1. AMD 64 FX QuadFX, FX-72(*2), 2.8ghz

2. Corsair, 2GB Dual channel High speed

3. Nvidia, Geforce 8800 GTX(*2 SLI), 1536mb DDR3 RAM total

optional: links for all the hardware i own courtesy of pccanada
in order

1. http://www.pccanada.com/viewitem.asp?id=5851
2. http://www.pccanada.com/viewitem.asp?id=5133
3. http://www.pccanada.com/viewitem.asp?id=5814



update*

i have a enermax Galaxy 1000 watt PSU, 4 HDD each is a western digital Raptor 10,000 rpm 150gb HD

2 WD raptors 150gb 10krpm in RAID 0 , other 2 in RAID 1

If you were going with a new system, why didn't you go Intel? Quad core is nice, but only if you have an app programmed for it. Most stuff doesn't even use dual core yet!

It sounds like a good system though. I'm getting close to an upgrade - x1900 XTX w/ 4400 X2, etc. is getting a little slow. I'm thinking about going Intel this time around since I need compression processing speed. My 4400 takes too long to do an AVI, and properly compressing with CCE for mpg still takes over an hour or two depending on film length. AVISynth is single thread only regardless if CCE is multithreaded - which means I get about 75% CPU utilization on the dual core. HD speed also needs to rise since that is another area that I am bogging on - demuxing an mpg, even using RAID 0 perpendicular drives that are 30 mb/sec (110 mb/sec sustained) faster than my older RAID 0, still takes forever.

As you can see, the cogs are turning for my next upgrade.

-S

[Zantham]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

If you were going with a new system, why didn't you go Intel? Quad core is nice, but only if you have an app programmed for it. Most stuff doesn't even use dual core yet!

It sounds like a good system though. I'm getting close to an upgrade - x1900 XTX w/ 4400 X2, etc. is getting a little slow. I'm thinking about going Intel this time around since I need compression processing speed. My 4400 takes too long to do an AVI, and properly compressing with CCE for mpg still takes over an hour or two depending on film length. AVISynth is single thread only regardless if CCE is multithreaded - which means I get about 75% CPU utilization on the dual core. HD speed also needs to rise since that is another area that I am bogging on - demuxing an mpg, even using RAID 0 perpendicular drives that are 30 mb/sec (110 mb/sec sustained) faster than my older RAID 0, still takes forever.

As you can see, the cogs are turning for my next upgrade.

-S

Well if I'm not mistaken, the jump from 1066 FSB to 1333 is coming soon (this summer?), and with it is coming DDR3, and a new faster PCI-E spec.....
Does it ever end?

[elite_hunter_sh3]

ive been satisfied with AMD and will probably stick with AMD, i just like amd better ive had intel c2d but for me an ovverclocked amd x2 by 400-600mhz (which isnt alot) can beat a c2d, but maybe by like 2% lol. but still c2d currently is winnging but i hate the c2q its 2 dual cores on one 2 die's on 1 chip. the AMD quad core is first actual QUAD CORE like 4 cores on one black blox(for noncomp freaks here )


let me explain, AMD released first dual core CPU, where there was 2 cores on a single die (black box on top) the chip is the green silicon chip where the pins are.

the die is where the guts of the cpu are. now intel's first dual core was 2 single cores on 2 seperate DIEs on a SINGLE silicon chip which lookes like this
www.tweakers.net/ext/i.dsp/1113326140.jpg

now the problem is on the intel dual core (and quad core) there are 2 DIEs on a single silicon chip. this means theres more heat and more wattage use as there are 2 DIEs, then theres the issue of bottlenecks because the 2 DIE's have to communicate first before doing a normal cpu job.

Now AMD was the first to make a REAL dual core by putting 2 cores on 1 SINGLE DIE on a single chip. this meant less wattage, less heat and more overclocking potential, AMD's quad core will be 4 cores on a SINGLE DIE on a single chip. this means faster and better then the core 2 quad because the core 2 quad is 2 dual core DIEs on a single chip which means heat and ineffiency

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3

ive been satisfied with AMD and will probably stick with AMD, i just like amd better ive had intel c2d but for me an ovverclocked amd x2 by 400-600mhz (which isnt alot) can beat a c2d, but maybe by like 2% lol. but still c2d currently is winnging but i hate the c2q its 2 dual cores on one 2 die's on 1 chip. the AMD quad core is first actual QUAD CORE like 4 cores on one black blox(for noncomp freaks here )


let me explain, AMD released first dual core CPU, where there was 2 cores on a single die (black box on top) the chip is the green silicon chip where the pins are.

the die is where the guts of the cpu are. now intel's first dual core was 2 single cores on 2 seperate DIEs on a SINGLE silicon chip which lookes like this
www.tweakers.net/ext/i.dsp/1113326140.jpg

now the problem is on the intel dual core (and quad core) there are 2 DIEs on a single silicon chip. this means theres more heat and more wattage use as there are 2 DIEs, then theres the issue of bottlenecks because the 2 DIE's have to communicate first before doing a normal cpu job.

Now AMD was the first to make a REAL dual core by putting 2 cores on 1 SINGLE DIE on a single chip. this meant less wattage, less heat and more overclocking potential, AMD's quad core will be 4 cores on a SINGLE DIE on a single chip. this means faster and better then the core 2 quad because the core 2 quad is 2 dual core DIEs on a single chip which means heat and ineffiency

It doesn't matter how they do it - single die or multi die, but AMD is still running a lot hotter at this point. And its Quad Core still falls well behind Intels dual core offerings as well. The end performance is all that matters at the end of the day. If you feel like generating more system heat, you could always overclock the Intel offerings as well! For my work though, I'd definitely have to go the Intel road this time around (I haven't bought Intel since PIII either) since AMD has some catching up to do at this point.

[Zantham]

Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3

ive been satisfied with AMD and will probably stick with AMD, i just like amd better ive had intel c2d but for me an ovverclocked amd x2 by 400-600mhz (which isnt alot) can beat a c2d, but maybe by like 2% lol. but still c2d currently is winnging but i hate the c2q its 2 dual cores on one 2 die's on 1 chip. the AMD quad core is first actual QUAD CORE like 4 cores on one black blox(for noncomp freaks here )


let me explain, AMD released first dual core CPU, where there was 2 cores on a single die (black box on top) the chip is the green silicon chip where the pins are.

the die is where the guts of the cpu are. now intel's first dual core was 2 single cores on 2 seperate DIEs on a SINGLE silicon chip which lookes like this
www.tweakers.net/ext/i.dsp/1113326140.jpg

now the problem is on the intel dual core (and quad core) there are 2 DIEs on a single silicon chip. this means theres more heat and more wattage use as there are 2 DIEs, then theres the issue of bottlenecks because the 2 DIE's have to communicate first before doing a normal cpu job.

Now AMD was the first to make a REAL dual core by putting 2 cores on 1 SINGLE DIE on a single chip. this meant less wattage, less heat and more overclocking potential, AMD's quad core will be 4 cores on a SINGLE DIE on a single chip. this means faster and better then the core 2 quad because the core 2 quad is 2 dual core DIEs on a single chip which means heat and ineffiency

Both current AMD and Intel quad cores are essentially two dual cores linked together to make a 'transitional' quad core. Both upcoming revisions for Intel (Yorkfield) and AMD will be native quad core cpu's. Both are scheduled for release in Q3 2007. Both are hinting at a possible earlier release. Both again bring more focus to power management (AMD switching to 65nm process, as well as having unlinked core processing speeds (DICE); Intel running on a 45nm process and on an architecture that already is superior powerwise to AMD's). Which will be faster, especially for gaming? Nobody knows, there are arguments back and forth all over the web, and until the chips are actually released and benchmarked on their respective platforms...who can say for certain which will be faster.

[Godalmighty83]

current-

3.2ghz p4
2gb ram
120gb hdd
x1800

a 8800gts should be here tomorrow

i know the old p4 is a bottleneck so hopefully soon i will get of a e6600 for it. the new intel c2d's are awesome but in order to get the best out of it i would new a new mobo and faster 6400 ram.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

Originally Posted by Zantham

Both current AMD and Intel quad cores are essentially two dual cores linked together to make a 'transitional' quad core. Both upcoming revisions for Intel (Yorkfield) and AMD will be native quad core cpu's. Both are scheduled for release in Q3 2007. Both are hinting at a possible earlier release. Both again bring more focus to power management (AMD switching to 65nm process, as well as having unlinked core processing speeds (DICE); Intel running on a 45nm process and on an architecture that already is superior powerwise to AMD's). Which will be faster, especially for gaming? Nobody knows, there are arguments back and forth all over the web, and until the chips are actually released and benchmarked on their respective platforms...who can say for certain which will be faster.

nooo amd's quad core is 4 cores on a single DIE and not 2 DIE like intels quad core

[Zantham]

Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3

nooo amd's quad core is 4 cores on a single DIE and not 2 DIE like intels quad core

From an article found in Hardware Central:
"The Quad FX platform consists of two matching dual-core Athlon 64 FX processors, but these are not your father's FX -- instead of using AMD's current desktop Socket AM2 as the Athlon 64 FX-62 does, they're based on the 1,207-pin Socket F used for Opteron server processors. Equipped with 1MB of Level 2 cache per core, they come in three different flavors: the Athlon 64 FX-70 (2.6GHz), FX-72 (2.8GHz), and FX-74 (3.0GHz)."
and further down:
"One promising aspect of the Quad FX launch is its anticipation of AMD's "real" or native K8L quad-core CPU in mid-2007"

[elite_hunter_sh3]

errm i was talking about single socket quad core like c2 quad and the soon to be released god amd barcelona first actual quad core. not quad fx with socket f