Gameguru Mania

[FX5900]

Hahahahahahaahahahahahhahahaa who cares about AMD's 64-bit CPU.
Where is Windows XP 64-bit edition?

If you want 64bit, go use the 64-bit version of Linux, but don't come back crying when you can't play games and video, and you're constantly in a command-line environment.

hahahahahaa thanks for the laugh.

makaveli -- your long post just echo'd my earlier post: "if you buy AMD, it just proves you're a cheap-ass."

[makaveli]

FX, that's weak man. Just because something is cheap, it doesn't make you a cheap-ass. It's call value for money dude. Just because something is expensive, it doesn't mean that stuff is good...

[madda]

[FX5900]

Madda:
Now you're making stuff up. Didn't you read the review HX posted about 2 weeks ago with WinXP-64bit Ed benchmarks comparing ATI & nvidia 64-bit and 32-bit drivers??? The 32-bit drivers were slightly better! So you talk out your ass when you say 64-bit gaming is better! Ha! the drivers are still immature!

As for 32-bit code running alot more smoothly on a 64-bit machine, that is ********. Even in the best-case scenario, 32-bit code will run 5% to 10% better on a 64-bit CPU. That's BEST-CASE. So whatever perceptions you had about better performance were just perceptions. Show me BENCHMARKS that prove what you're saying?

Windows XP 64-edition has been "soon to be released" for a long time. Just WinXP SP2 which is soon to be released. We're talking about the here and now; not the "coming soon" promises.

makaveli:
dont take what i said personally. You are right - there is a difference between cheap and value for money. But value for money is when you get something at a low cost that works well. AMD does not meet that criteria - you save money only to gain heating issues. That is not value.


Tom and XXXX.... i swear everyone who registered on this website didn't read the "13yrs or above" clause.

[madda]

All i can say is from personal experience, I have tried using an AMD 64-FX and an Intel chip with the same hardware configuration (except mobo of course) and games play better on the AMD rig than the Intel!

I get between 20 and 30 FPS more on the AMD!

I have used the 64bit version of Win XP, and it is pretty much released. Microsoft havent released it mainly because they are waiting for the Intel chip to be released, this is because they have an informal agreement with Intel.

[FX5900]

madda what were the clock speeds of the AMD 64bit and the Intel? If you're comparing a 64-bit 3.4GHz vs an Intel 3.0GHz i have a little suggestion for you which explains the FPS difference.

good for you playing on beta hardware.

[Shai_Hulud]

Processor speed shouldn't be measured in gigahertz, the pentium 4's 20, (31 on the prescott) step pipeline makes for quite a bit of loss on speed if it's branch prediction fails, also amd's fx processors do more calculations per second than any pentium 4, they also have a heck of a lot more bandwidth on their data buses, and they support sse2 extensions

[madda]

[Prowler]

AMD is the LAW[b]

[Crystallas]

Seeing that AMD has accumulated a dream team of archietects and engineers within the last 6 years....

Being only 10% of the size that intel is.
...and pretty much outselling their capacity.

outbenching 80% of benchmarks over intel, including benchmark software that was compiled to take advantage of "Genuine Intel" chips.

Producing less heat, and consuming less power.

On die memory controller which has licked all of the bottleneck problems that Intel was having. Aswell as intel saying that it was a dumb idea, and that they would never do it *Update* they are now saying that they need to do this too.

Intel EM64T is identical to AMD64(which was the original x86 64bit instruction set) minus 3 64bit instruction sets which AMD would not allow them to use w/o a liscence.

AMD running SSE,SSE2, SSE3 instruction sets in all their new chips.

Oh, and the K8(Athlon64) , which is in its 3rd sub-generation, is a completely new design. Unlike intels only CPU that has any advantage over AMD(and thats ONLY if overclocked significantly) in its architecture based on the Pentium3 still, because the Pentium4 was simply a bad idea, and bad architecture(comming from the mouth of their head architect for 10 years who quit because Intel was so business minded, that they decided to ignore what the user really wanted.)

Intel is one giant liar, with young engineers who dont have the experience of AMD's. AMD has hired many ex-intel engineers. AMD has pretty much the best chunk of the Digital staff which produced all of the powerful server CPUs until compaq took over Digital, also how and why AMD had the know-how on making a 64Bit CPU in the first place, aswell as a very powerful dual core CPU.

Innovation is all AMD right now, they set the pace. And aslong as Intel cheats the market, I have no respect for them. People are really brainwashed into thinking that they do nothing wrong, but they pretty much lobby as much tech as they can, while removing technological freedom and inovation from many small companies, not just AMD. Although AMD has won 2 internation Anti-trust law-suits over intel.

Wake up and smell the coffee... Intel isnt the performance champ, and they havent been in a few years.

You can allways buy a wonderful computer with your favorite current line Intel CPU. The performance diffrences arent anything to slouch or brag about, but its not as cost-effective as an AMD based computer.

Of course you need the right hardware to run an AMD rig, aswell as an Intel, but more-so and AMD rig. Reason being is that AMD has created sub-competition among its chipset supporters. So now they can compete for which is better, and which favors which part of the market. When a user fails to recognise that they have choice in every aspect, they either dont research, or buy a poor chipset from previous generation and run into complications.

I run one of the largest recording studios in the greater chicagoland area, and build setups for clients aswell. When it comes to PCs, 9/10 the users needs and exceeded with a dual opteron setup, or even now the X2s.

Stability, support, all there. Infact if you want problems, look at all of the dual core instabilities intel is having, aswell as an intel southbridge p48* series that have NOT been recalled, although they run stabile, burn a decent sized hole into the motherboard.

AMD is just one giant bridge among companies. Its friendly to technology, esspecially when the backbone of the company is full of ISO, IEEE, PCI-SIG members, aswell as other industry standards which DO NOT PROFIT THEM. PCI-SIG wouldnt exist if it weren't for AMD, and AMD is the reason why PCI-Express Graphics are available today, aswell as IBM being the 2 biggest contributors. What did Intel do? Intel jumped on at last minute of finalizing 3GIO(PCI-Express) and released a chipset that supported it 3 weeks before AMD, so people for some odd reason think Intel created this! Ridiculous.


If intel plays fair, and cares more about the beauty of expanding technology than they care about taking your money and raising their share one penny... then I wouldnt dislike Intel. Its crooked companies like this that have pushed many enthusiats to look elsewhere for their needs, and AMD has done a damn fine job of it.

Also for you hardcore gamers, AMD is going to integrate a PCI-E2 controller into the CPU. This will have some benefit on performance, but it also will push a standard for multi-graphic card standards. Where you possibly may be able to buy one board that will run both nVidia SLI and ATi Crossfire, whichever you CHOOSE to use.
Freedom is everything. Choice is important.

[xanadu]

[lilacohen48]

Haha ?
Yeah, that debate used to be on fire — guess everyone’s tired now. Nice try though ?