Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    I cannot grok its fullnes leemajors's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Post Count
    24,176

  2. #2
    Veteran Kai's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Post Count
    4,016

  3. #3
    TheDrewShow is salty lefty's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Post Count
    101,216
    cool

    my laptop has an AMD

  4. #4
    jthelps.wordpress.com
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    1,887
    since when was it ever a compe ion?

  5. #5
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    since when was it ever a compe ion?
    I was thinking the same thing, but not all would agree. Intel was always the better quality chip. AMD did make some advances also. Still, I always considered them a cheap copy.

  6. #6
    CDs Nuts. resistanze's Avatar
    My Team
    Toronto Raptors
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    23,869
    Those AMD Barton chips were some of the best value/performance CPUs from the past decade. I remember cranking up the FSB of my Athlon XP 2500+ and getting a 3200+ without even trying.

  7. #7
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Those AMD Barton chips were some of the best value/performance CPUs from the past decade. I remember cranking up the FSB of my Athlon XP 2500+ and getting a 3200+ without even trying.
    Sure, but I'll bet they just were not as reliable as an Intel counterpart.

  8. #8
    I cannot grok its fullnes leemajors's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Post Count
    24,176
    Sure, but I'll bet they just were not as reliable as an Intel counterpart.
    He wasn't ing about the chip

  9. #9
    Kooler than Jesus Nathan Explosion's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    2,994
    I bought my desktop about 6 years ago, and it came with a Athlon 64 X2 4600+ processor inside (according to wikipedia, this is when the processor was first released).

    Saved me a few hundred dollars over the Intel product at the time and has done a really good job. In fact, when I think of the what I can improve the performance, the first thing is the graphics card, followed by increasing the ram to about 8 gig (it came with 2 gig when everything else was still around 512 mb)and the last is the processor. When I bought my desktop, Pentium 4s were still around and doing quite well, but I went dual core, and this AMD chip is doing pretty well for me even 6 years later.

    I'm not a huge computer nerd so I can't say for certain what makes an Intel chip better. All I know is this AMD hasn't failed me and is still pretty damn quick, and that's all I can ask for.

  10. #10
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    What's really noticeable from the Penitum 4 days to the post-Core Duo days is power consumption. P4's and earlier had basically no idea about throttling... These multi-core processors do a much better job at shutting down and kicking in back up when needed, and it helps a lot on both energy and cooling. I think Intel started that off on the CPU side with their SpeedStep tech.

    Never been much of a fan of AMD personally, so I don't have much experience with them...

  11. #11
    Kooler than Jesus Nathan Explosion's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    2,994
    What's really noticeable from the Penitum 4 days to the post-Core Duo days is power consumption. P4's and earlier had basically no idea about throttling... These multi-core processors do a much better job at shutting down and kicking in back up when needed, and it helps a lot on both energy and cooling. I think Intel started that off on the CPU side with their SpeedStep tech.

    Never been much of a fan of AMD personally, so I don't have much experience with them...
    The one thing I was told way back when (and just reading about them now, it came up again) was that AMD's were a little more efficient than Intel (at the time maybe), so they could be powered down a bit in terms of speed to decrease power consumption, but still run just as fast as their Intel counterparts sporting higher clock speeds.

    (Kind of reminds me of OS X vs Windows. My little iBook was running tasks faster on an 800 mhz [I know ] processor as my GF's [at the time] Windows laptop sporting a 1.3 ghz Pentium processor. Was told it's because OS X wasn't as cluttered and therefore was more efficient in running tasks than Windows.)

    Again, my 6 year old processor just came up a 5.5 out of 7.9 on the Windows Experience Index (make of it what you will, I don't really care what they rate it, I just know what I'm seeing), so it's not doing too bad.

    Admittedly, I don't have a lengthy experience with the Core Duo chips, but I have played a bit with others new laptops with them in it, and the difference isn't as vast as you would think given the age difference (which in technology years is generations).

  12. #12
    These aren't the droids you're looking for jman3000's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Post Count
    13,128
    Intel chips are superior in many ways except price point. I personally have a Phenom II X4 980 and it cost me $150. It's OC'd to 4.2 Ghz on air and I've never personally had a problem with it. I'm not one to do extreme multi tasking so I dont really need the hyper threading found in the Sandy bridge line up, and for what I use it for it fits me perfect. AMD messed up by trying to undercut Intel at every point and it backfired in that when Intel came out with new iterations of Sandybridge and prices for older models went down... bam... you have great processors around the same price as an AMD.

    As an aside, AMD black edition chips are sometimes preferred by gamers over intel because of the unlocked multipliers that are only found on the 1000 dollar Intel chips. Makes it extremely easy to overclock.

  13. #13
    CDs Nuts. resistanze's Avatar
    My Team
    Toronto Raptors
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    23,869
    Sure, but I'll bet they just were not as reliable as an Intel counterpart.
    He wasn't ing about the chip
    Yeah, the Barton chips were excellent and stable, anyone who used them can attest to that. Mind you, this was at the peak of AMD's market share back in 2005. By the time I had to buy a new computer, AMD was already falling off.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •