I'm still getting the new god! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I thought it was something explosive related tbh <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-TychoCelchuuu+Oct 21 2004, 06:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TychoCelchuuu @ Oct 21 2004, 06:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Isamil+Oct 21 2004, 08:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Isamil @ Oct 21 2004, 08:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Intel=Owned. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, because "outperforms AMD most of the time" totally means they got pwned. Except not.
Higher numbers are BETTER in this test. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As far as I can see, asside from quake 3, AMD out preformed intel in most cases, and thier FPS (not bang for buck) were superior in ALL cases.
[edit] look at intel's high end chips compared to AMD's, intel got smashed in nearly all priceranges.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 21 2004, 08:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 21 2004, 08:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-TychoCelchuuu+Oct 21 2004, 06:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TychoCelchuuu @ Oct 21 2004, 06:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Isamil+Oct 21 2004, 08:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Isamil @ Oct 21 2004, 08:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Intel=Owned. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, because "outperforms AMD most of the time" totally means they got pwned. Except not.
Higher numbers are BETTER in this test. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As far as I can see, asside from quake 3, AMD out preformed intel in most cases, and thier FPS (not bang for buck) were superior in ALL cases.
[edit] look at intel's high end chips compared to AMD's, intel got smashed in nearly all priceranges. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Read the chart, man. The extreme edition gets pwnt but that's no suprise, but look closer at the results for all the other processors.
<!--QuoteBegin-TychoCelchuuu+Oct 21 2004, 06:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TychoCelchuuu @ Oct 21 2004, 06:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 21 2004, 08:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 21 2004, 08:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-TychoCelchuuu+Oct 21 2004, 06:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TychoCelchuuu @ Oct 21 2004, 06:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Isamil+Oct 21 2004, 08:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Isamil @ Oct 21 2004, 08:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Intel=Owned. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, because "outperforms AMD most of the time" totally means they got pwned. Except not.
Higher numbers are BETTER in this test. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As far as I can see, asside from quake 3, AMD out preformed intel in most cases, and thier FPS (not bang for buck) were superior in ALL cases.
[edit] look at intel's high end chips compared to AMD's, intel got smashed in nearly all priceranges. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Read the chart, man. The extreme edition gets pwnt but that's no suprise, but look closer at the results for all the other processors. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They price range comparisons aren't equivalent, Of course a 500$ chip is going to be less bang for your buck than a 600$ chip
I got my Intel Motherboard / Processor Combo purely because this was my first self build PC and I wanted to make sure what I ordered would work with each other.
Plus its not just gaming I use this PC for. Hopefully 3D Studio Max 7 will also be on this PC and theres also going to be some coding going on as well.
And I was generally advised that Intel was slightly better in this broad set of needs.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 21 2004, 08:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 21 2004, 08:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-TychoCelchuuu+Oct 21 2004, 06:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TychoCelchuuu @ Oct 21 2004, 06:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 21 2004, 08:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 21 2004, 08:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-TychoCelchuuu+Oct 21 2004, 06:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TychoCelchuuu @ Oct 21 2004, 06:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Isamil+Oct 21 2004, 08:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Isamil @ Oct 21 2004, 08:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Intel=Owned. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, because "outperforms AMD most of the time" totally means they got pwned. Except not.
Higher numbers are BETTER in this test. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As far as I can see, asside from quake 3, AMD out preformed intel in most cases, and thier FPS (not bang for buck) were superior in ALL cases.
[edit] look at intel's high end chips compared to AMD's, intel got smashed in nearly all priceranges. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Read the chart, man. The extreme edition gets pwnt but that's no suprise, but look closer at the results for all the other processors. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They price range comparisons aren't equivalent, Of course a 500$ chip is going to be less bang for your buck than a 600$ chip <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, the price calculations ARE equivilant. You take FPS divided by dollar cost. They're not using seperate conversion factors for each one or anything.
<!--QuoteBegin-Venmoch+Oct 21 2004, 06:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Venmoch @ Oct 21 2004, 06:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I got my Intel Motherboard / Processor Combo purely because this was my first self build PC and I wanted to make sure what I ordered would work with each other.
Plus its not just gaming I use this PC for. Hopefully 3D Studio Max 7 will also be on this PC and theres also going to be some coding going on as well.
And I was generally advised that Intel was slightly better in this broad set of needs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> More or less... AMD are better chips for real time functions for the most part, intel is supposed to be better for compiling. Meh, I'd still go AMD.
Higher numbers are BETTER in this test. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As far as I can see, asside from quake 3, AMD out preformed intel in most cases, and thier FPS (not bang for buck) were superior in ALL cases.
[edit] look at intel's high end chips compared to AMD's, intel got smashed in nearly all priceranges. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Read the chart, man. The extreme edition gets pwnt but that's no suprise, but look closer at the results for all the other processors. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They price range comparisons aren't equivalent, Of course a 500$ chip is going to be less bang for your buck than a 600$ chip <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, the price calculations ARE equivilant. You take FPS divided by dollar cost. They're not using seperate conversion factors for each one or anything. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Look at the chart. As the price ranges go up, FPS/dollar goes down, notice the trend? You can only compare chips in the same price range for accurate results, any higher cost chip, according to the obvious trend, will give you less preformance per a dollar you spend on it.
Every place that the AMD chips and the intel chips are in the same price range, AMD smacks the crap out of intel.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 21 2004, 11:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 21 2004, 11:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> More or less... AMD are better chips for real time functions for the most part, intel is supposed to be better for compiling. Meh, I'd still go AMD. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Problem is with AMD there are so many motherboards to go with the chips that is quite confusing for the first-time builder.
Now if I have a Intel Motherboad and Intel Processor I know that the combination (Unless I do something really stupid, like try to put a P3 in a brand new motherboard.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Venmoch+Oct 21 2004, 06:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Venmoch @ Oct 21 2004, 06:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 21 2004, 11:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 21 2004, 11:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> More or less... AMD are better chips for real time functions for the most part, intel is supposed to be better for compiling. Meh, I'd still go AMD. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Problem is with AMD there are so many motherboards to go with the chips that is quite confusing for the first-time builder.
Now if I have a Intel Motherboad and Intel Processor I know that the combination (Unless I do something really stupid, like try to put a P3 in a brand new motherboard.) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Socket A, socket 7XX something or other, and 939, its not that complicated... Other than that devilish socket 940 which intentionally trys to screw over newbies by making them think more is better, JUST TO BE EVIL!!!
<!--QuoteBegin-ThE HeRo+Oct 21 2004, 06:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ThE HeRo @ Oct 21 2004, 06:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Too bad no Games / OS take advantage of the 64 bit processors yet.
Btw, what's the difference between the 32 bit and 64 bit processors? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There is this one game they show screenshots of the game at 32-Bit and at 64-bit there is quite a difference.
<!--QuoteBegin-The-Frostmourne+Oct 21 2004, 07:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The-Frostmourne @ Oct 21 2004, 07:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-ThE HeRo+Oct 21 2004, 06:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ThE HeRo @ Oct 21 2004, 06:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Too bad no Games / OS take advantage of the 64 bit processors yet.
Btw, what's the difference between the 32 bit and 64 bit processors? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is this one game they show screenshots of the game at 32-Bit and at 64-bit there is quite a difference. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you mean for 32 bit processing or 64 bit processing?
For 32 bit processing, the only difference is the price, which is slightly higher for 64 bit chips.
For 64 bit processing, 64 bit processors can do it and 32 bit processors can't.
Comments
I thought it was something explosive related tbh <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Yeah, because "outperforms AMD most of the time" totally means they got pwned. Except not.
Higher numbers are BETTER in this test.
Yeah, because "outperforms AMD most of the time" totally means they got pwned. Except not.
Higher numbers are BETTER in this test. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As far as I can see, asside from quake 3, AMD out preformed intel in most cases, and thier FPS (not bang for buck) were superior in ALL cases.
[edit] look at intel's high end chips compared to AMD's, intel got smashed in nearly all priceranges.
Yeah, because "outperforms AMD most of the time" totally means they got pwned. Except not.
Higher numbers are BETTER in this test. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As far as I can see, asside from quake 3, AMD out preformed intel in most cases, and thier FPS (not bang for buck) were superior in ALL cases.
[edit] look at intel's high end chips compared to AMD's, intel got smashed in nearly all priceranges. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the chart, man. The extreme edition gets pwnt but that's no suprise, but look closer at the results for all the other processors.
Yeah, because "outperforms AMD most of the time" totally means they got pwned. Except not.
Higher numbers are BETTER in this test. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As far as I can see, asside from quake 3, AMD out preformed intel in most cases, and thier FPS (not bang for buck) were superior in ALL cases.
[edit] look at intel's high end chips compared to AMD's, intel got smashed in nearly all priceranges. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the chart, man. The extreme edition gets pwnt but that's no suprise, but look closer at the results for all the other processors. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They price range comparisons aren't equivalent, Of course a 500$ chip is going to be less bang for your buck than a 600$ chip
Plus its not just gaming I use this PC for. Hopefully 3D Studio Max 7 will also be on this PC and theres also going to be some coding going on as well.
And I was generally advised that Intel was slightly better in this broad set of needs.
Yeah, because "outperforms AMD most of the time" totally means they got pwned. Except not.
Higher numbers are BETTER in this test. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As far as I can see, asside from quake 3, AMD out preformed intel in most cases, and thier FPS (not bang for buck) were superior in ALL cases.
[edit] look at intel's high end chips compared to AMD's, intel got smashed in nearly all priceranges. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the chart, man. The extreme edition gets pwnt but that's no suprise, but look closer at the results for all the other processors. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They price range comparisons aren't equivalent, Of course a 500$ chip is going to be less bang for your buck than a 600$ chip <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, the price calculations ARE equivilant. You take FPS divided by dollar cost. They're not using seperate conversion factors for each one or anything.
Plus its not just gaming I use this PC for. Hopefully 3D Studio Max 7 will also be on this PC and theres also going to be some coding going on as well.
And I was generally advised that Intel was slightly better in this broad set of needs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
More or less... AMD are better chips for real time functions for the most part, intel is supposed to be better for compiling. Meh, I'd still go AMD.
Btw, what's the difference between the 32 bit and 64 bit processors?
Yeah, because "outperforms AMD most of the time" totally means they got pwned. Except not.
Higher numbers are BETTER in this test. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As far as I can see, asside from quake 3, AMD out preformed intel in most cases, and thier FPS (not bang for buck) were superior in ALL cases.
[edit] look at intel's high end chips compared to AMD's, intel got smashed in nearly all priceranges. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the chart, man. The extreme edition gets pwnt but that's no suprise, but look closer at the results for all the other processors. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They price range comparisons aren't equivalent, Of course a 500$ chip is going to be less bang for your buck than a 600$ chip <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, the price calculations ARE equivilant. You take FPS divided by dollar cost. They're not using seperate conversion factors for each one or anything. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look at the chart. As the price ranges go up, FPS/dollar goes down, notice the trend? You can only compare chips in the same price range for accurate results, any higher cost chip, according to the obvious trend, will give you less preformance per a dollar you spend on it.
Every place that the AMD chips and the intel chips are in the same price range, AMD smacks the crap out of intel.
Problem is with AMD there are so many motherboards to go with the chips that is quite confusing for the first-time builder.
Now if I have a Intel Motherboad and Intel Processor I know that the combination (Unless I do something really stupid, like try to put a P3 in a brand new motherboard.)
Problem is with AMD there are so many motherboards to go with the chips that is quite confusing for the first-time builder.
Now if I have a Intel Motherboad and Intel Processor I know that the combination (Unless I do something really stupid, like try to put a P3 in a brand new motherboard.) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Socket A, socket 7XX something or other, and 939, its not that complicated... Other than that devilish socket 940 which intentionally trys to screw over newbies by making them think more is better, JUST TO BE EVIL!!!
Btw, what's the difference between the 32 bit and 64 bit processors? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is this one game they show screenshots of the game at 32-Bit and at 64-bit there is quite a difference.
Btw, what's the difference between the 32 bit and 64 bit processors? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is this one game they show screenshots of the game at 32-Bit and at 64-bit there is quite a difference. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you mean for 32 bit processing or 64 bit processing?
For 32 bit processing, the only difference is the price, which is slightly higher for 64 bit chips.
For 64 bit processing, 64 bit processors can do it and 32 bit processors can't.