I can't help it. I probably shouldn't do this, being a new moderator and all. So here we have Amd's clocked at a lower speed, beating P4's with rambus. So now many individuals are taking shots at Amd's based on mainly two things. Vote for the one you truely beileve in.<br> Comment if you think the choices are too limited.<br> <br> No flames please, I want opinions, facts, but no slaging me or amd just cuz your machine has an intel inside sticker.<br><br><i>This message was edited by Bugsy on 07 May 2001 06:15 PM</i>
The only problem with AMD is that they lack the Marketing of Intel. There are a lot of ppl out there that see the blue guys in the P4 add and go out and buy one having no idea about AMD. Intel doesn't make better chips they just market them better and as a result sell more.
describe unstable? AMD processors can be overclocked very easily and very far. where intel processors don't overclock very far. now tell me who's unstable? And if benchmarks don't count then why do intel guys say "rambus bandwidth and quake 3 performance are the best" yeah but those are the only 2!!hahhaah intel are good processors but to hear that they're better performers than new amd ones because their MEMORY has more bandwidth is retarded.<br><br><i>This message was edited by WeaZel on 07 May 2001 07:35 PM</i>
I dunno, that is what I was told. I asked what was unstable and never got an answer, maybe an intel dude will enlighten us.
The problem being some ppl believe that their CPU is better so much that they will through any arguement your way to try and prove their point. People gotta stop getting attached to companies and try to look at what is really better.<br><br><i>This message was edited by dal_nar on 07 May 2001 07:41 PM</i>
dal_nar is true!<br> <br> Although I own an INTEL cpu I 'd bought an AMD if it wasn't so unstable. Since I'm working at a computer store I know first hand the problems AMD has.So here is my story... I wanted to buy an AMD ATHLON @900Mhz so I was saving money to do that (there was this costumer that bought that super-fast amd based PC and I was really jealus) but then another customer bought an amd and he was calling everyday at work for support. Finally I found out that in order to have a stable system one must buy the top-notch mobo (which was really expensive) so he bought an ASUS mobo and he was happy. The other customer with the stable system had no problems at all so I still wanted to buy an AMD until some other customers with amds were furious about probs. Since I upgrade my system a lot I didn't wanted to change my hardware (e.g. video card) and my PC to start having problems, I decided to get an INTEL! Nowdays I have the following knowledge based on my personal experience.<br> AMD Athlons are bad.<br> AMD T-birds are better.<br> AMD Durons are even better.<br> The newest AMD chipsets and CPUs have less problems.<br> RDRAM isn't really much better than SDRAM since it's Linear accessind (SDRAM is RANDOM accessing)<br> P4 cpus aren't worth buing yet!<br> P3 cpus are slower than AMDs but more stable.<br> <br> BTW I'm the one who voted "Fast but unstable" although I want this to change to ... get an AMD.
Thanks Aris. I have asked you many times for the reason you prefer Intel. I will admit, as I thought more about what I would buy the more I thought the better/more expensive parts would suit me. Considering the time I spend on this thing, not to mention the playing I feel I made the right choices.
i'm not a AMD hater, they make awesome CPU's,<br> but i always stick with brands... all my 3d-cards were ALL creative's , all my Cd-roms were Plextor, ALL my soundcards were Terratec<br> so i will stick with intel to
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Aris:<br> <b>dal_nar is true!<br> Although I own an INTEL cpu I 'd bought an AMD if it wasn't so unstable. Since I'm working at a computer store I know first hand the problems AMD has.So here is my story... I wanted to buy an AMD ATHLON @900Mhz so I was saving money to do that (there was this costumer that bought that super-fast amd based PC and I was really jealus) but then another customer bought an amd and he was calling everyday at work for support. Finally I found out that in order to have a stable system one must buy the top-notch mobo (which was really expensive) so he bought an ASUS mobo and he was happy. The other customer with the stable system had no problems at all so I still wanted to buy an AMD until some other customers with amds were furious about probs. Since I upgrade my system a lot I didn't wanted to change my hardware (e.g. video card) and my PC to start having problems, I decided to get an INTEL! Nowdays I have the following knowledge based on my personal experience.<br> AMD Athlons are bad.<br> AMD T-birds are better.<br> AMD Durons are even better.<br> The newest AMD chipsets and CPUs have less problems.<br> RDRAM isn't really much better than SDRAM since it's Linear accessind (SDRAM is RANDOM accessing)<br> P4 cpus aren't worth buing yet!<br> P3 cpus are slower than AMDs but more stable.<br> BTW I'm the one who voted "Fast but unstable" although I want this to change to ... get an AMD.</b><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br> <br> <br> Man, there will always be idiots out there trying to operate a computer with the notion that anything you install should just run right. It has everything to do with peripherals and how much you really know about your operating system. Not to mention, most people unknowingly load tons of shareware and bloatware with no idea what it's doing to their system. I've seen people with 20 apps running in their system tray wondering why it's so slow. LOL The ignorant will always be frustrated about these things. My system is rock stable in Win2K and has the same old problems everyone has with Win98. Win98 is just a crappy O/S really. I had no idea, until I started dual booting, just how unstable 98 really is. <IMG SRC="smileys/puke.gif"> <br> <br> I love that puking dude!!! <IMG SRC="smileys/biggrin.gif"> <br> <br><br><i>This message was edited by SloppyGoat on 15 May 2001 07:08 PM</i>
What's your point SloppyGoat?<br> ofcourse win2k is the best os available from MS, win98 sucks, winMe are great and AMD cpus are worst than intel in terms of compatibility and stability.<br> That's my opinion.<br> <br> Everyone expects that the hardware/software one installs is going to work correctly, if not why should we upgrade <IMG SRC="smileys/mad.gif"> <br> <br> How many tray programs do you have <IMG SRC="smileys/confused.gif">
those amd not being compatable stories are wives tales. honestly. when the athlon 1st came out of course it was incompatable. it just come out. it was actually the amd irongate 750 chipset's fault....remember when intel tried that MTH thing (memory translator hub) that was a complete flop. intel has been playin' with the "big boys" for a long time..longer than AMD has so of course their stuff is gonna be more compatable it's more widely known. I would have to say "nowadays" they are both equal in the instability/compatability deptartment. Athlon "c"'s are extremely overclockable i'd consider that a fact that they are stable.
About compatibility...<br> <br> I think AMD is less stable than INTEL not much but still less stable.<br> Althought AMD is a lot faster than INTEL one must compromise between speed and stability. Not that Intel is the best, it still is better.<br> <br> I work in a computer store and I know.
