CPU/Mobo The AMD Myth

arnuld

arnuld

Disciple
I am starting this thread only to shred the heat-myth behind which most stupid (or fool) Intel users stand. I am not syaing Intel users are stupid, well most computers users are stupid anyway :eek:hyeah: :

I am running my AMD Athlon 64 1.8 GHz from last 2.5 years without any problem. I don't know why most guys have issues with AMD. I even couried this box from Punjab to here in Hyderabad, 2000 KM and the courier did so poor handling that when I opened my cabinet , it was broken from both sides along with dents in different plces. The front side of cabinet was totally broken and won't even stand properly. Even after all this I just bought a new cabinet and it is still working except of the PSU that borke down after a lot of use. I even ran it for 4 non-stop days and nights, 24x7 and it never broken down.

These days with newer PSU, because of job, I keep my system running whole night and then Fri-(evening)-Sat-Sun-Mon-(morning) I hardly stop it for 20 minutes at maximum and I don't see any heat problems with this. On average intel CPUs run at temperature of 45 centigrade while AMD has 55. 10 degrees don't matter much to me. Intel exerts exorbitant prices on its CPUs which perfom same as as AMD. I am not saying AMD produces no heat, well they produce more heat as compared to Intel and then I don't see any reason for bitnching and moaning when that heat can be throws away with 1-2 extra fans on yours. In my case I only one fan thats on CPU and as I said I only get 10 degree of extra temperature as compared to Intel. I think its a better deal.
My friend recently bought 3.0 GHz Core 2 Duo of Intel. I am not sure but it is called E8400 and guess what, during booting it takes same amount of time as my 3 years old 1.8 GHz AMD Athlon 64. 2nd, the the VGA performance is poor because Intel does not behave well with Linux community in case of drivers. So he is using partially poor graphic card drivers. The performance does not depend only on hardware. It depends a lot of what kind of software you run , I use Arch Linux all the time.

My another colleague has 1 year old DG33FB mobo running on Core 2 Duo and most of times for general tasks (like watcing videos and playing songs, doing programming and searching on net, but not playing 3D games) it performs same as my mobo running on 400 MHz of 1 GB DDR1 RAM, while he has DDR2 1066 MHz of 3 GB RAM with intel G33 chipsset compared to my poor VIA graphics. Even with all this he still can not outperform me.

So, I suggest you to save your money and buy an AMD Athlon X2 2.8 GHz (forget tri and quads) along with 780G/SB700 (or SB750) chipset based mobo. See this thread for information.
 
Dude, what are you posted has been posted a hundred times 4 years ago. That was when AMD had released the Athlon 64 and these proccies were running cooler than the Intels.

Before that, Athlons have always run hotter and they have had heat related issues in the past. Not anymore. Nowadays, there is no issue as such. 4 years back Intel had the Prescott range which were so hot, Intel changed the name to PrescHott.

Soon, even the Preschott range was finished and the Core 2 Duo was introduced. The only proccy which had minor heat problems was the Q6600(pre-G0 stepping). Even that was minor. In the sense, it got hot easily and couldnt be overclocked too much.

Someone with a C2D and 3GB DDr1066 RAM not being able to outperform your Athlon 64 is ridiculous. A lot of your claims regarding the performance ofyour rig compared to some newer rigs are castles in the air.

How much time a computer takes to boot into windows is not a proper indicator of performance. It depends on a 1000 other variables. That is the stupidest way of looking at a computer's performance.
 
arnuld said:
I am starting this thread only to shred the heat-myth behind which most stupid (or fool) Intel users stand. I am not syaing Intel users are stupid, well most computers users are stupid anyway :eek:hyeah: :

I am running my AMD Athlon 64 1.8 GHz from last 2.5 years without any problem. I don't know why most guys have issues with AMD. I even couried this box from Punjab to here in Hyderabad, 2000 KM and the courier did so poor handling that when I opened my cabinet , it was broken from both sides along with dents in different plces. The front side of cabinet was totally broken and won't even stand properly. Even after all this I just bought a new cabinet and it is still working except of the PSU that borke down after a lot of use. I even ran it for 4 non-stop days and nights, 24x7 and it never broken down.

These days with newer PSU, because of job, I keep my system running whole night and then Fri-(evening)-Sat-Sun-Mon-(morning) I hardly stop it for 20 minutes at maximum and I don't see any heat problems with this. On average intel CPUs run at temperature of 45 centigrade while AMD has 55. 10 degrees don't matter much to me. Intel exerts exorbitant prices on its CPUs which perfom same as as AMD. I am not saying AMD produces no heat, well they produce more heat as compared to Intel and then I don't see any reason for bitnching and moaning when that heat can be throws away with 1-2 extra fans on yours. In my case I only one fan thats on CPU and as I said I only get 10 degree of extra temperature as compared to Intel. I think its a better deal.

My friend recently bought 3.0 GHz Core 2 Duo of Intel. I am not sure but it is called E8400 and guess what, during booting it takes same amount of time as my 3 years old 1.8 GHz AMD Athlon 64. 2nd, the the VGA performance is poor because Intel does not behave well with Linux community in case of drivers. So he is using partially poor graphic card drivers. The performance does not depend only on hardware. It depends a lot of what kind of software you run , I use Arch Linux all the time.

My another colleague has 1 year old DG33FB mobo running on Core 2 Duo and most of times for general tasks (like watcing videos and playing songs, doing programming and searching on net, but not playing 3D games) it performs same as my mobo running on 400 MHz of 1 GB DDR1 RAM, while he has DDR2 1066 MHz of 3 GB RAM with intel G33 chipsset compared to my poor VIA graphics. Even with all this he still can not outperform me.

So, I suggest you to save your money and buy an AMD Athlon X2 2.8 GHz (forget tri and quads) along with 780G/SB700 (or SB750) chipset based mobo. See this thread for information.
Click to expand...

What else fx5200 gpu is better then ati4870??

If you buy an intel proc, then for once the famous saying "Intel inside, idiot outside" would be true. Seriously i never thought someone would compare c2d with athlons and too treat them as equal, hats off to you:clap:

let the procs war begin :party:
 
arnuld said:
I am starting this thread only to shred the heat-myth behind which most stupid (or fool) Intel users stand. I am not syaing Intel users are stupid, well most computers users are stupid anyway :eek:hyeah: : Wth

I am running my AMD Athlon 64 1.8 GHz from last 2.5 years without any problem. I don't know why most guys have issues with AMD no one has. I even couried this box from Punjab to here in Hyderabad, 2000 KM and the courier did so poor handling that when I opened my cabinet , it was broken from both sides along with dents in different plces. The front side of cabinet was totally broken and won't even stand properly. Even after all this I just bought a new cabinet and it is still working except of the PSU that borke down after a lot of use. I even ran it for 4 non-stop days and nights, 24x7 and it never broken down. good for you

These days with newer PSU, because of job, I keep my system running whole night and then Fri-(evening)-Sat-Sun-Mon-(morning) I hardly stop it for 20 minutes at maximum and I don't see any heat problems with this. On average intel CPUs run at temperature of 45 centigrade while AMD has 55. 10 degrees don't matter much to me. Intel exerts exorbitant prices on its CPUs which perfom same as as AMD. I am not saying AMD produces no heat, well they produce more heat as compared to Intel and then I don't see any reason for bitnching and moaning when that heat can be throws away with 1-2 extra fans on yours. In my case I only one fan thats on CPU and as I said I only get 10 degree of extra temperature as compared to Intel. I think its a better deal. be prepared:ashamed:

My friend recently bought 3.0 GHz Core 2 Duo of Intel. I am not sure but it is called E8400 and guess what, during booting it takes same amount of time as my 3 years old 1.8 GHz AMD Athlon 64. less time to boot decides performance??.

2nd, the the VGA performance is poor because Intel does not behave well with Linux community in case of drivers. So he is using partially poor graphic card drivers .The performance does not depend only on hardware. It depends a lot of what kind of software you run , I use Arch Linux all the time. Howz vga performance and amd-intel related??0

My another colleague has 1 year old DG33FB mobo running on Core 2 Duo and most of times for general tasks (like watcing videos and playing songs, doing programming and searching on net, but not playing 3D games) it performs same as my mobo running on 400 MHz of 1 GB DDR1 RAM, while he has DDR2 1066 MHz of 3 GB RAM with intel G33 chipsset compared to my poor VIA graphics. Even with all this he still can not outperform me. False claim, your are simply decieved

So, I suggest you to save your money and buy an AMD Athlon X2 2.8 GHz (forget tri and quads) along with 780G/SB700 (or SB750) chipset based mobo. See this thread for information.Good vfm config sometime ago.....but can be outperformed by a lotta configs now at same price. nothing lasts forever.:)
Click to expand...

It seems you are very much satisfied with your rig. Thats very good feeling actually.
 
Nikhil said:
Dude, what are you posted has been posted a hundred times 4 years ago. That was when AMD had released the Athlon 64 and these proccies were running cooler than the Intels.
Click to expand...

Well, we always have threads like this that always claim that AMD CPUs heat so much that they die within a few days (rather than giving extra information on other hardware).
Nikhil said:
Someone with a C2D and 3GB DDr1066 RAM not being able to outperform your Athlon 64 is ridiculous. A lot of your claims regarding the performance ofyour rig compared to some newer rigs are castles in the air.
Click to expand...

Eh.. really, or you don't want to accept it. I said you must choose your software carefully because performance depends not only on hardware. A C2D runinng Windows XP from last 6 months with full internet use will always be slow as compared to my Old Athlon. To outperform, do weekly reinstallation baby ...:rofl:
Nikhil said:
How much time a computer takes to boot into windows is not a proper indicator of performance. It depends on a 1000 other variables. That is the stupidest way of looking at a computer's performance.
Click to expand...

I did say that in cse of 3D games my Athlon is far behind. What stupid means you tell me again ? Buying a 40,000 rupees of hardware and and then do format and format and format with the crap you peole call Windows or using the sofwtare that is stable. I think the defintion of Stupid is subjective. As I said, most computer users are stupid anyway, somethign happens and you press the reset button :p
 
ronnie_gogs said:
Where is your cave..... you should come out more pal.... :rofl:
Click to expand...
Hey buddy, ebery Windows user has its own world about software and hardware and this is where you live. If you put my software on C2D then of course it will outperform my systme by 10 times performance but do you ? ... does anyone ? ... the performance of C2D with most people is same is my machine. Perhaps you are not aware of anything at all.
 
Back
Top