Gameguru Mania

FX5900 · Junior Member Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 216

nobody flames about intel vs amd. i already tried to start that. Smile

Tom · Elite Member Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 4289

lol, AMD sucks.. how's that? oh wait, I sound like an ATIFANBOY lol. Still AMD sucks@! there i said it. Laughing

Oxidising · Guest

AMD kicks Intel's ass at pretty much everything there is. I know the P4's get a few fps higher one things like Q3 and etc, but does it really matter for the massive difference in price?

AMD Rules!!
Very Happy

xxxx · Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 9:56 pm Post subject:

or the continual compatibility problems with AMD. Definitely the best. Rolling Eyes

only people i know that have problems with lots of games are those with ATI or AMD cpu's. windows was primarily designed for Intel, not AMD. as such, maybe fixed now, but i remember that MS didn't even have the right names for the AMD cpu's at one time. then i don't need a mother of a fan on my CPU like AMD requires unless you get the cheap stock fan from AMD which will literally break in 6-7months time and start making noises. i had AMD once, 1.3 GHz, last AMD i'll ever own.. Intel may cost more initially but AMD once you factor in a good fan and fans for your box.. you are past Intel price.

FX5900 · Junior Member Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 216

If you buy AMD, it just proves you're a cheap-ass.
That's all! Laughing

JanSolo · Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 6:15 pm Post subject:

I bought an AMD because I prefer a cpu that can execute byte code in an efficient and timely manner.

Gonefission · Contributor Joined: 08 Jun 2004 Posts: 2 Location: KS, USA

I always buy AMD. Same performance in games but cheaper. I can spend the extra money on memory or on a better graphics card. Idea

For all of you Intel guys spend the same amount on an AMD and get a 64bit processor.

liGhtblue fox · Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 7:41 pm Post subject:

Pointless topic tw...

AMD has better perfomance, cheaper prize, but is very hot (need proper cooling) and harder to overclock...

Tom · Elite Member Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 4289

love how people post to topic but don't read them. Cost difference between AMD and Intel is insignificant. AMD you must buy a better fan unless you trust that scrap heap they give you in retail that will burn out in 6 months unless you air dust it every week. The fan alone makes up for the price difference. I still have my stock Intel fan, quiet and my CPU temperature always constant. Hey and every game works, Windows runs great and no BSOD's ever... wish I could say that for AMD. But seeing how I have an AMD 1400 downstairs that always BSOD must just be a bad OS install.. lmfao. AMD is cheap and nothing but problems. Long live Intel..

Blindside · Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:00 pm Post subject:

"Long live Intel" -- Absolutely... I agree with TOM for sure. Intel and AMD user, and I'll always stay an Intel buyer. I'll have to dig up the ol' video comparison Tom's Hardware did when they took the heatsink off an Intel vs. AMD. (Both playing UT) Intel went down to like 10 Frames when they took off the heatsink/fan--big whoopdee. But when they took the heatsink/fan off the AMD.. WHoooo Eeeee.... Release the Hounds! Where's there's smoke....

TenaciousC · Contributor Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 4

I farted.

FX5900 · Junior Member Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 216

AMD has always had heat issues. These contribute to their instability and crash problems.

And so when the Prescott came out, everything was upset they were so hot... when really, AMD has been running that hot all along! Still wouldn't be a prescott anyhow.

The final word is AMD sux, and you know it! end of story. let's close this thread. end of discussion.

maga · Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 5:37 pm Post subject:

never had any problems with AMD CPUs till now, and i started with the AMD 5x86 ~ 133 Mhz, then i got K6, K6-2, Athlon, Athlon XP, Barton, FX-51. I'm not saying that Intel does bad CPUs !

madda · Elite Member Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 309 Location: UK

where is intels 64 bit processor???

Still in development, they really need to release one very soon otherwise development will be focused on AMD 64 support rather than Intel 64!

This is something that will really hamper intels domination of the processor market thats for sure!

makaveli · Contributor Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 5

I was an Intel user back in the early days of computer up to 2000. Yea it's true, during the 286, 386, 486 age, AMD suck balls but lately these dudes are getting better. I first bought an AMD chip in 2000 ( Duron 800MHz ) and it lasted for a long time without any BSOD, crashes or any other major problems except for the heat ( which I rectified it by buying a good hsf for it ). Even after buying the hsf, the price difference was still below Intel's P-series or C-series. As of now, I'm using an Athlon XP with no problem too except for the tempreture.

Here's my list of good and bad:

AMD

pro:
1) cheap
2) faster!! (hell yea)
3) overclock friendly
4) stable
5) faster execution and faster software compiling on linux boxes

con:

1) heat

Intel

pro:

1) stable
2) fast execution on Winblows
3) less heat

cons:
1) $$$$ unfriendly