Me and Dragon_CPU had a "debate"

[joz]

http://www.thinkcomputers.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4531&page=5

please start reading on that page 5(linked).


Someone end this before I start getting into flame mood.

[Goliath182]

Lol a AMD beats a Intel? I wish...

Core 2 Quad is way better than the Phenom, simple as that.

Phenom beats a X2, especaly with its 1 or 2 more cores.

Phenom was a failure even with the new revision. It failed to beat Core 2.

[werty316]

Reason why Dragon_CPU was defending AMD is probably because he doesn't want to feel dumb for buying a Phenom X3 let alone a Phenom in general but heck, there probably are some users out there who do like the Phenom chips, even though it may be small percentage.

Lol a AMD beats a Intel? I wish...

Core 2 Quad is way better than the Phenom, simple as that.

Phenom beats a X2, especaly with its 1 or 2 more cores.

Phenom was a failure even with the new revision. It failed to beat Core 2.
QFT.

[typh4u]

Intel vs AMD is nothing but a playground battle on the see saw.....

AMD had the performance crown for a long time and now its Intel's turn at the reigns....

[Methious]

I was AMD for years, even got the X2 6400 when I knew Intel was in the lead. Made a profit off of it even after playing with it for 5 months.

Now I'm on an Intel. If Amd pulls some thing out of their collective hat I'll be back to AMD.

Price wise though if I were in a hurt I'd drive an AMD the 6400 did every thing I ask of it with no lag or drag. I just wanted some Intel OC action.

[mivanx77]

AMD and Intel are great brands.

AMD's X2's out preform Intel in the Dual core area. But Intel out preforms AMD in the quad core area.

So simply put for me:
AMD = wins dual core, loses quad core
Intel = wins quad core, loses dual core

But you never know, AMD is starting to produce 12 core processors. (http://www.nytimes.com/idg/IDG_852573C400693880002574420065A642.html?partner= rssnyt&emc=rss)

[Kougar]

I don't agree with statements made on either side, but there are reasons besides pure performance for a chip. Well, if you care to throw a little gas onto the fire, here's a good case for Phenom. (http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&number=8&artpage=3428&articID=809) :ahhhhh:

[joz]

AMD and Intel are great brands.

AMD's X2's out preform Intel in the Dual core area. But Intel out preforms AMD in the quad core area.

So simply put for me:
AMD = wins dual core, loses quad core
Intel = wins quad core, loses dual core

But you never know, AMD is starting to produce 12 core processors. (http://www.nytimes.com/idg/IDG_852573C400693880002574420065A642.html?partner= rssnyt&emc=rss)
how do you get AMD duals beating intel duals?

[PP Mguire]

Simply p ut e8400 kicks snot out of X2 6400+

QX9650 kicks snot out of X4 9850.

What Dragon was merely saying is OVERCLOCKED a Phenom 9850 at 3.0ghz can beat certain stock Intel quads. But if you OC them then Intel is just ahead anyways. Pay a little more for a Q6600 and OC that and beat the Phenom for a little more.

Bottom line is IF you want a cheap quad a Phenom 9850 is nice to have a top of the line AMD but yet still have a quad to push 4 cores in folding or whatever. IF you want performance get an Intel, overclock the **** out of it, and you got mad speed.

I think its really stupid and kiddish to fight over something that we already know the answer too. Intel is on top right now with everything. Duals, quads, servers, overclocking, DDR3, ect. The only thing AMD has on Intel is cheap cheap price for top of the line gear on their end. Nuff said.

[Goliath182]

I don't agree with statements made on either side, but there are reasons besides pure performance for a chip. Well, if you care to throw a little gas onto the fire, here's a good case for Phenom. (http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&number=8&artpage=3428&articID=809) :ahhhhh:

This is pure performance though. ;-)

So simply put for me:
AMD = wins dual core, loses quad core
Intel = wins quad core, loses dual coreUmm where did this come from? Show me some proof lol. A over clocked X2 would have trouble matching a stock clocked Intel, little own a over clocked Intel, witch would go much higher than the X2.

[PP Mguire]

Yea a stock e8400 pwns the dual core side. I can only imagine running one at 4ghz. :drool:

[darkorb]

Joz he meant before. The AMD X2's S939 beat the INTEL PD by queit a margin. I think thats what he meant

AMD was pwning before, S754 Single Cores, S939 Single cores and Dual cores, and then AM2 Dual cores, all of this b4 the Core 2's, where those just took off and beat the AMD's by a large margin.

Its gonna go either way in the future. It was AMD for LONG while, then now its Intel. Just go with the best price/performance or performance. Brand happy is not my thing.

[Goliath182]

Yea a stock e8400 pwns the dual core side. I can only imagine running one at 4ghz. :drool:

Imagine it at 5 with extreme OCing. :jawdrop:

[PP Mguire]

If only i raked in dough i wouldnt mind taking the time to switch to Intel for an e8500 with triple phase change.

[Goliath182]

Wouldnt we all lol. ;-)

[joz]

Dude, everyone knows that Netburst sucks. Athlon>Netburst, end of story.

Im talking about Core vs. Phailure (vs. Athlon)

[PP Mguire]

I wouldnt call it a failure. It just didnt do what everyone hoped. See back in the day i had always said that AMD merging with ATI was a horribly bad idea. I think the #s (as well as cpus and gpus) prove my point.

[Goliath182]

It failed in the aspect of beating Intel, but it succeeded into bringing AMD into the quad core game.

[the_dope_chaud]

Joz, your full of it like a used condom, you may be right but your attitude ALWAYS stinks, and you hardly get any support from anybody,
I dont dont care about your arguments and I find I come less and less to what used to be a great forum, you guys are gonna lose me soon.

[Miles]

First, I think all the points of view have been expressed in this thread. Second, I don't want issues between our members that take place on other forums to carry over to Bjorn3D. While I appreciate the passion that both sides have, this topic will never be one that most can discuss without major flames. For that reason this flame war is ended, once and for all; if it continues this thread will be closed

[Dragon_CPU]

First, I think all the points of view have been expressed in this thread. Second, I don't want issues between our members that take place on other forums to carry over to Bjorn3D. While I appreciate the passion that both sides have, this topic will never be one that most can discuss without major flames. For that reason this flame war is ended, once and for all; if it continues this thread will be closed
Thank you miles I agree the point I was making was that all the proof that joz showed was only of quad extremes beating the phenoms and that proof while joz tried to say the x2 beat the phenom showed otherwise.

[PP Mguire]

I think my point still stands above all honestly.

[the_dope_chaud]

mine too !

[Goliath182]

The one thing that is totaly right here is.

Core 2 > K10 > K8
Core 2 dual > X2
Core 2 quad > Phenom

[joz]

Did you know that the Q9450 is not an "extreme" cpu?

[Goliath182]

Did you know that the Q9450 is not an "extreme" cpu?

Well it doesnt have a X after the Q so i thought that was pretty obvous.

[joz]

I was talking to Dragon_CPU.

[PP Mguire]

It dosent exactly matter if a cpu is extreme or not. It only means the processor has an unlocked multi. If your not OCing that does not matter.