Which CPU brand do you choose? Version 2

Which CPU brand

  • Intel

    Votes: 444 59.3%

  • AMD

    Votes: 297 39.7%

  • PowerPC

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • Other (Specify)

    Votes: 7 0.9%
  • Total voters
    749
Filip said:
I suggest you to read some stickies.
Click to expand...
Not only stickies, but google about it, read up on wikipedia, GHz isn't everything and to be very honest that is the mistake most noobs make about processors. You have been trapped by intel GHz which they no longer play tbh, but honestly don't act like your right when you haven't researched it and when you honestly are completely wrong.
For example I have a p4 630 its 3.0GHz and an amd 3700+ its 2.2GHz my amd is a good chunk faster then the intel, my friend even oc'ed the exact same chip the 630 to 4.2GHz and my amd at 2.75GHz still easily whooped it, in fact it still beats it at around 2.4 or 2.5GHz if not lower.
 
lol. The clock wars ended when Intel whipped AMD's ass to the 1GHz mark. All of a sudden AMD completely changed their tune and said that it's not the clockspeed that matters. And so it has been ever since.
 
SirKenin said:
lol. The clock wars ended when Intel whipped AMD's ass to the 1GHz mark. All of a sudden AMD completely changed their tune and said that it's not the clockspeed that matters. And so it has been ever since.
Click to expand...
Lol and intel was left playing the clock speed game on their p4's with netburst, and then they finally realized they were all alone and people were finally starting to realize that clock speed means nothing anymore, and then they changed their tune again.
 
Well, the theory behind the P4 is a sound one. The idea was to keep ramping it up. I guess the fact that the Athlon XP was stomping it, and the A64 came out and killed it there was no sense going any further with it. At least that's my thoughts on it.
 
And the fact that intel totally bombed netburst and it never turned into anything good, I mean they planned on hitting 10GHz with netburst but never got anywhere close, it was a good idea, they just never developed the process enough or got it to work like it should have.
 
SirKenin said:
Well, the theory behind the P4 is a sound one. The idea was to keep ramping it up. I guess the fact that the Athlon XP was stomping it, and the A64 came out and killed it there was no sense going any further with it. At least that's my thoughts on it.
Click to expand...
That was certainly part of it. Speeds in excess of 5Ghz were sometimes required for the P4 architecture to beat out AMDs top processors in the gaming arena. Heat and power were the biggest issues, though. The requirements quickly became untenable as Netburst was scaled up, a major reason why Tejas was scrapped in favour of Dual Core processors.
 
Filip said:
when it comes to performing a certain task, for example, video compressing/decompressing or something else, Core 2 Duo X6800 takes the trophy
Click to expand...
The Core 2 Duo is pretty much faster than the Pentium 4 in all tasks.
Filip said:
runs cooler due to less voltage becouse of the new 65nm process
Click to expand...
A "new" 65nm process? Processors using the 65nm process have been out for over a year.

The main reason that the Core 2 is cooler than the Pentium 4 is the fact that the Pentium D 9xx series has around 376 million transistors, meanwhile the Core 2's have only 291 million transistors. Every transistor dissapates heat, and it's common sense to assume that the less heat producing things you have, the less heat there will be.
 
I agree that Core 2 Duo is better but I am trying to get a Pentium Extreme [email protected] because I read all of your posts and now clock speed dosen't matter. And I don't want my first PC project to be a mobo Change.
 
Clutch said:
A "new" 65nm process? Processors using the 65nm process have been out for over a year.
Click to expand...

I woudn't say more than a year, becouse 1st 65nm CPU was released somewhere in the end of 2005/beginning of 2006, hence it's newest/latest process for CPU's till 45nm process comes on market.
 
Clutch said:
The main reason that the Core 2 is cooler than the Pentium 4 is the fact that the Pentium D 9xx series has around 376 million transistors, meanwhile the Core 2's have only 291 million transistors. Every transistor dissapates heat, and it's common sense to assume that the less heat producing things you have, the less heat there will be.
Click to expand...
Also (partly due to the reason you specified), is that they use less voltage, which also in turn, generates less heat and is better on the batter if you use a laptop.


justinmmm690 said:
I agree that Core 2 Duo is better but I am trying to get a Pentium Extreme [email protected] because I read all of your posts and now clock speed dosen't matter. And I don't want my first PC project to be a mobo Change.
Click to expand...
A motherboard change isnt hard at all, even if you bought a new motherboard and CPU, it would be cheaper then the PEE.

Here are some benchmarks comparing the two:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=432&model2=435&chart=165
 
Sorry, I must say that I am supprised that AMD is so close to Intel. I guess it is all of those people that haven't ever used a good Intel processor....
 
I voted intel cause i only used a old amd k6 cpu in a laptop ages ago and it was slow (but yes it was a old cpu, prob good in its time) and i am really happy with my pentium D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top