Ok if you had the choice?

2006-08-14 17:03:23

#76

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|7037|SE London

diglow~Flow wrote:
lol Cyborg you are a fanboy to.. "I love intel it is way better blah blah blah" FANBOY_NINJA FTW!!!!

EDIT: Fuck you got a lot of Intel Fanboys lmaO!

not only that i just dont see the performance from Intel like i do AMD.

I love AMD. I have since they started being good. The K6 was passable, then the K7 came and blew the P3s away, as soon as I could I traded in my P3 600 and got a shiny new 'Athlon'.

Intel tried to fight back the only way they knew how - by cheating. Adding a stupid number of pipeline stages to the P4 did NOT increase it's performance (it actually reduced it), it simply allowed them to run at higher clock speeds, to dupe the consumer into thinking it was quick.

Intel have FINALY learnt from their mistakes. With the conroe architecture coming out just as AM2 is released AMD are in a lot of trouble. I wouldn't recommend an AM2 based system to anyone, high end - conroe, low end - 939 Athlon 64. Simple as that.

With regards to EVIL_STYXs comments, if you say your AMD system loads BF2 quicker than your core 2 duo, I believe you. That does not prove much unless you are running near identical test rigs with symetrical software installed. The fact that the core 2 duo performs so much better than the AMD alternatives in EVERY benchmark out there shows that you it is in fact faster. It also has an architecture that looks faster - I haven't done much in the way of chip design (basic 8-bit designs simillar to the z80 or 8085 are the best I've ever managed to produce or simualte) but I do have a reasonable understanding of how CPU architecture works and everything points to the core 2 duo being much better. Benchmarking is difficult to get right and can be quite complicated if you don't know exactly what you're doing.

EVIL_STYX I'd be very interested to see the exact specs of each system you're running, including data like free hard drive space etc. or even better a print out of 3Dmark results on each system. Without that, I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with everyone who knows anything about CPUs and say Intel are way out in front at the moment.

2006-08-14 17:07:53

#77

-=raska=-: Canada's French Frog; +123|7081|Quebec city, Canada

EVIL_STYX wrote:
The intel IS NOT leaps and bounds above the 64 ( period )! You act like the intel is doing WARP speed where as the 64 is doing IMPULSE... From both my processors one is not light years ahead of the other. They seriously run just about the same, for the money you still get MORE bang for your $ going with AMD. As far as that goes wait for the next AMD and it will not take years to come out like the core 2 has... Intel will be left in the dust AGAIN!

End of discussion, as you like to say!

EVIL_STYX OUT!!!

funny because the Core 2 is cheaper and better than the Athlon ... or "about the same" (yeah right) if you prefer.

Last edited by -=raska=- (2006-08-14 17:09:39)

2006-08-14 17:13:39

#78

EVIL_STYX: TANK WHORE; +62|7138|FIVE RIVERS OF HELL

Please read my last post Bertster7. I am at work at the moment and when I can get you those specs, I sure will...

The thing of it is that I bought both of them about two weeks apart and about 2 months ago. They don't even have all my programs on them yet. But both have the same "stuff" on them at this point. I am not disputing that on paper the Intel looks real good. I have been making my posts based on the performance I see at this point with both processors.

EVIL_STYX OUT!!!

Last edited by EVIL_STYX (2006-08-14 21:40:34)

2006-08-14 17:31:35

#79

diglow~Flow: Member; +32|7082|British Columbia, Canada

-=raska=- wrote:
EVIL_STYX wrote:
The intel IS NOT leaps and bounds above the 64 ( period )! You act like the intel is doing WARP speed where as the 64 is doing IMPULSE... From both my processors one is not light years ahead of the other. They seriously run just about the same, for the money you still get MORE bang for your $ going with AMD. As far as that goes wait for the next AMD and it will not take years to come out like the core 2 has... Intel will be left in the dust AGAIN!

End of discussion, as you like to say!

EVIL_STYX OUT!!!
funny because the Core 2 is cheaper and better than the Athlon ... or "about the same" (yeah right) if you prefer.

hmm... idk about better but i can see Cheaper lmao

2006-08-14 17:32:57

#80

EVIL_STYX: TANK WHORE; +62|7138|FIVE RIVERS OF HELL

raska, where in the pit of hades do you get your facts from sir?

The Intel is atleast $100 USD more then AMD and thats on newegg!

So, where do you get your facts from? Even if you can find it for cheaper thats good, go get one, and have a great day!

Another thing do you even at this point own either of said processors? If you do which one? Like I have said before, if you do own one you have had probably minimal exposure to one but not the other...

EVIL_STYX OUT!!!

Last edited by EVIL_STYX (2006-08-14 17:50:10)

2006-08-14 17:34:20

#81

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7172

core 2 duo E6300 can overclock like hell, take that into consideration as well

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2006-08-14 17:42:37

#82

EVIL_STYX: TANK WHORE; +62|7138|FIVE RIVERS OF HELL

That may very well be true Ninja, I have not overclocked either to see what I can get out of them. Like I say I have only been able to play with them for a couple of months and you can tell by my BF2 time that playing with them is very few and far between... I wish I was two people sometimes my life is never dull lately !

EVIL_STYX OUT!!!

Last edited by EVIL_STYX (2006-08-14 17:59:18)

2006-08-14 17:47:54

#83

EVIL_STYX: TANK WHORE; +62|7138|FIVE RIVERS OF HELL

diglow~Flow wrote:
lol Cyborg you are a fanboy to.. "I love Intel it is way better blah blah blah" FANBOY_NINJA FTW!!!!

EDIT: Fuck you got a lot of Intel Fanboys lmaO!

not only that i just dont see the performance from Intel like i do AMD.

You make my point for me Diglow...

Both are good processors! but I at this point remain a AMD man! Not saying that AMD is crushing the competition I just have always seen a greater potential out of Athlon processors, especailly for what they are rated for!

EVIL_STYX OUT!!!

Last edited by EVIL_STYX (2006-08-14 17:53:15)

2006-08-14 17:54:00

#84

e-i-u-benjamin: WoeKoeMakaLaLaLoekieWaWa; +40|7215|The Netherlands

Aaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmmmdddddddddddddd

2006-08-14 17:58:15

#85

-=raska=-: Canada's French Frog; +123|7081|Quebec city, Canada

ok 2 examples :

E6600 better than the FX 62 in 75% of the benchs : 370$
FX 62 : 829$

E6300 fastest than the best Athlon non-fx (4800+) in most of the benchs : 219$
Athlon 4800 + : 307$

if you want to include the 5000+, just compare it to the E6300

Last edited by -=raska=- (2006-08-14 17:59:24)

2006-08-14 18:01:46

#86

EVIL_STYX: TANK WHORE; +62|7138|FIVE RIVERS OF HELL

Go get one... Good price comparison, thx for the info!

You still keep dodging my question! Do you own either processor... Of coarse you don't or you would have said by now!

I also have stated I know what it looks like on paper!

EVIL_STYX OUT!!!

Last edited by EVIL_STYX (2006-08-14 18:04:55)

2006-08-14 18:05:02

#87

ShotYourSix: Boldly going nowhere...; +196|7175|Las Vegas

I'm with Bertster, though I'd settle for even just the processor specs. Styx you've been going on and on in this thread about his having both an AMD 64 and Core 2 proc but never once did you bother to mention which models they are. How do you expect us to just take you at your word about your experience with these chips when you have not even made clear what technology you are comparing?

Man, at least tell us what chips you have. Without this basic information, your claims are difficult to take seriously.

2006-08-14 18:07:59

#88

kylef: Gone; +1,352|6949|N. Ireland

raska, where did you get that price lol? the 5000 is cheaper than that.

2006-08-14 18:09:24

#89

EVIL_STYX: TANK WHORE; +62|7138|FIVE RIVERS OF HELL

You have my models go back and read my post on the two "store bought rigs" that I have...

Dell E6600 - Gateway FX-62, I will get more indepth info when I have access to my comps. I am currently at work. I will be getting this info as Bertster7 has already requested it...

EVIL_STYX OUT!!! ( because it pisses people off )

EDIT: ShotYourSix, I owe you a +1 sir, when I can, just for keeping this a debate and not flames Thank you very much!

Last edited by EVIL_STYX (2006-08-14 19:04:37)

2006-08-14 18:36:31

#90

-=raska=-: Canada's French Frog; +123|7081|Quebec city, Canada

leetkyle wrote:
raska, where did you get that price lol? the 5000 is cheaper than that.

at newegg.com as "proposed" by Eryx

and no I dont own a Conroe, but I can say which is faster

I didnt serve in the WWII but globaly, I know what happened

Last edited by -=raska=- (2006-08-14 18:38:23)

2006-08-14 18:38:24

#91

GR34: Member; +215|7001|ALBERTA> CANADA

omg am amd isent the best omg iam going emo now

2006-08-14 18:43:37

#92

paranoid101: Ambitious but Rubbish; +540|7196

My God four pages of posts and I'm still none the wiser about on which one to go with.

Damn I should have made it a poll.

I'm getting an headache on what to do for the best when I upgrade, I just know that whatever I do, I will still get it wrong.

Anyway thanks to all those who have posted and let keep it civil and just have a friendly debate about it.

2006-08-14 18:44:27

#93

EVIL_STYX: TANK WHORE; +62|7138|FIVE RIVERS OF HELL

-=raska=- wrote:
leetkyle wrote:
raska, where did you get that price lol? the 5000 is cheaper than that.
at newegg.com as "proposed" by Eryx

and no I dont own a Conroe, but I can say which is faster

I didnt serve in the WWII but globaly, I know what happened

Considering that I own both, that would mean that I have a little more to input into this thread then you do...

Thats what I guess is not computing with you very well. I have NEVER said that the AMD is just flat out a faster processor... So would you be a kind sir and move onto what we are actually talking about, thanks in advance for doing so... What we would be debating is as follows: I DO NOT see a huge defference between the two. I hope that brings you up to speed raska.

EVIL_STYX OUT!!!

Last edited by EVIL_STYX (2006-08-14 18:49:39)

2006-08-14 18:44:45

#94

tvmissleman: The Cereal Killer; +201|7114| United States of America

Amd Ftw

2006-08-14 18:48:36

#95

EVIL_STYX: TANK WHORE; +62|7138|FIVE RIVERS OF HELL

paranoid101 wrote:
My God four pages of posts and I'm still none the wiser about on which one to go with.

Damn I should have made it a poll.

I'm getting an headache on what to do for the best when I upgrade, I just know that whatever I do, I will still get it wrong.

Anyway thanks to all those who have posted and let keep it civil and just have a friendly debate about it.

Do take this to heart paranoid101, THEY ARE BOTH VERY GOOD PROCESSORS, IMO based on my personal experience with both, I can't get on one and say damn THAT JUST F**KING OWNS THE S**T OUT OF THE OTHER ONE. The differences don't just jump out and bit you... That would be my point, that is all. To tell the truth from what I have been playing on I get a woody when ever I get on either. ( just trying to keep it light )

EVIL_STYX OUT!!!

Last edited by EVIL_STYX (2006-08-14 19:03:03)

2006-08-14 20:03:44

#96

diglow~Flow: Member; +32|7082|British Columbia, Canada

The AMD FX-62 is better then all of the Intel Duo except 1. and thats the 6800

2006-08-14 20:05:50

#97

ShotYourSix: Boldly going nowhere...; +196|7175|Las Vegas

EVIL_STYX wrote:
Like I have said before, if you do own one you have had probably minimal exposure to one but not the other...

EVIL_STYX OUT!!!

Just a minor nitpick here but how much "exposure" have you had with the Core 2? I'm guessing it has been pretty "minimal".

Edit: Sorry but you earned that one.....im just bustin your balls here.

Last edited by ShotYourSix (2006-08-14 20:09:55)

2006-08-14 20:10:38

#98

Stealth42o: She looked 18 to me officer; +175|7127

AMD hands down.

2006-08-14 20:30:08

#99

-=raska=-: Canada's French Frog; +123|7081|Quebec city, Canada

diglow~Flow wrote:
The AMD FX-62 is better then all of the Intel Duo except 1. and thats the 6800

the E6600 beats it in most of the benchs, not all but most of them.

2006-08-14 20:33:17

#100

EVIL_STYX: TANK WHORE; +62|7138|FIVE RIVERS OF HELL

ShotYourSix wrote:
EVIL_STYX wrote:
Like I have said before, if you do own one you have had probably minimal exposure to one but not the other...

EVIL_STYX OUT!!!
Just a minor nitpick here but how much "exposure" have you had with the Core 2? I'm guessing it has been pretty "minimal".

Edit: Sorry but you earned that one.....im just bustin your balls here.

ROFLMFAO! damn Six thats funny! and to answer your question I have ALOT more exposure than he does!

Kind of got side tracked a bet but as far as the OP paraniod101, E6300 against 4200+, which is better? AMD 4200+ 2.20 GHz hands down over E6300 1.86 Ghz...

EVIL_STYX OUT!!!

Last edited by EVIL_STYX (2006-08-14 21:34:36)

BF2S Forums Ok if you had the choice?

diglow~Flow wrote:

EVIL_STYX wrote:

-=raska=- wrote:

EVIL_STYX wrote:

diglow~Flow wrote:

leetkyle wrote:

-=raska=- wrote:

leetkyle wrote:

paranoid101 wrote:

EVIL_STYX wrote:

diglow~Flow wrote:

ShotYourSix wrote:

EVIL_STYX wrote:

Board footer