| Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
|
 |
| Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
|
||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
2006-03-10, 01:36 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #5 | |||
|
Contributor General
|
Maybe we could go for a job testing equipment before the live run on those things. /note: i have to quit posting stupid things. |
|||
|
|
|
2006-03-11, 06:50 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #7 | ||
|
Colonel
|
Well as far as I know, there is no real "ultimate CPU"...
Both AMD and Intel have their advantages, whilst Intel might not suit the needs of gamers as much as AMD it can still perform pretty good. It's all a bunch of technical mumbo jumbo really but honestly people usually have a preference... I'm not THAT much of a zealot but I love AMD, I'm not saying Intel can't do the job thought... In other words, you'll never hear me say: "OMGZ intelz suxxorz! AMD RULEZ!"
__________________
|
||
|
|
|
|
2006-03-12, 12:36 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #10 | ||
|
Colonel
|
Well... as of now if you go with ANY dual-core processor I'd slap you if you went with an Intel. Simply because right now the big difference is that intel's second processor only runs if you achieve a certain load on the first one. That first load being sort of mundane, most people will never achieve it... in fact the only way most people will achieve making the second proc by using a program who takes advantage of the dual core tech.
AMD runs on a different concept, both proc's work hand in hand to take the load you give them and hopefully run better thanks to that. You will still need to achieve a great deal of CPU load to actually take full advantage of the AMD but it's alot less then Intel to star with, on top of the better gaming performance. Not to forget the price, you can usually find the AMD's for a little less then the Intel's. The AMD will also take advantage of programs make to take dual-core tech. Edit: It likely has something to do with the memory controller. AMD's memory controller is an integrated part of the Athlon 64 X2's chip architecture. Intel's memory controller, exists as a separate piece of silicon on the motherboard. The additional distance between the CPU and the memory controller adds to the processing lag time... In short, AMD dual-core > Intel Dual-core
__________________
Last edited by Giovanni; 2006-03-12 at 12:39 PM. |
||
|
|
|
|
2006-03-12, 02:03 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #11 | ||
|
Gio that's just not true, Intels dual cores split the load whenever possible just like the AMD's. Part of the issue is alot of programs aren't multithreaded, so one core handles the load.
The problem with the intel parts is two fold, those CPU's each have to share the 200mhz front side bus, where as AMD's hypertransport had plenty of bandwidth to share. It's still based on the p4 still and that doesn't help much including putting off a ton of heat. Now I hear the mid-range Conroe part(no longer based on the p4, uses 64bit ectentions just like AMD) apperantly kicks the FX-60's ass. I'm not sure I belive it, but hey.
__________________
 All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others. Last edited by Rbstr; 2006-03-12 at 02:04 PM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2006-03-13, 01:17 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #13 | ||
|
General
|
Am I ever glad I invested in an Intel system
 http://www.dlmag.com/894/intel-s-con...er-athlon.html Sounds nice  added: Some benchmarks, and these honestly blow me away... http://techreport.com/etc/2006q1/conroe/index.x?pg=2 Last edited by Mag-Mower; 2006-03-13 at 01:21 AM. |
||
|
|
|
|
2006-03-13, 04:28 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #15 | ||
|
Contributor Major General
|
no... the next revolutionary chip is going to be the Cell... just read a few articles about it... it's absolutely incredible.
Edit- here you go: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...1403/index.htm Last edited by Electrofreak; 2006-03-13 at 04:34 PM. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|
i bet he was swearing up a storm when that was over, hell i bet someone got fired.
Hybrid Mode
