Discussion in 'Computer Talk' started by HAND, Aug 25, 2005.
Ahh, I misunderstood, sorry.
Why do Intel supporters always claim benchmarks are useless? There based on something, they don't put out random numbers with AMDs getting higher ones.
The benchmarks I read give Frames Per Second for whatever game there running for each proscesser, or the Amount of time something takes for each CPU to do. These numbers definatly mean something. Then they use these numbers to find out which is the fastest, one might be faster in one thing and another might be faster in another. In the end you get the winner.
I also find it funny that Intel supporters have never used any other the more recent AMDs to make any comparison what so ever because they pass benchmarks off as "meaninless".
First off, if you're trying to call me an "Intel supporter" you are way off base - especially since you are making yourself sound more and more like an AMD fanboy. I use whatever offers the best performance for what I want to get done. One of my machines has a P4, one of them has an Athlon. The next one I build will have whatever I feel offers the best solution for the moment.
Regarding the benchmark comment, read my original post for my reply. I stand by that.
People, don't be fanboys. It's the stupidest thing anyone can do. Blatantly going around posting that "omg Intel sucks" and "Linux pwns Micro$oft" or "**** the iPod" really need to stop.
Between the two companies, AMD offers a better desktop chip when it comes to best bang-for-the-buck performance. Intel offers the best mobile chip you can get. Nevertheless, when you look at the numbers of equivalent chips from either company, they aren't too far behind each other. Both companies make good technology that perform well. Intel also happens to have been around longer and knows how to market their products. AMD is just only starting to get their feet wet with marketing, and they really need to start getting into it more if they want people to take their name more seriously. I'm not loyal to either one; it would be ridiculous of me to claim to be so. I used to own 3DFx and thought they were a fantastic company, then Nvidia bough them out and got the strangle on the market. After that, ATI threw a punch and I switched over to them. Now the ball keeps going back and forth. I don't give a **** about a company's name - I care about what performs better.
As far as the server chips go, read my first post.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I don't mean to come off as condescending. It's a habit I have picked up from one of my professors, sadly.
Separate names with a comma.