More proof that Intel sucks

  • Thread starter Thread starter Godzilla Pimp
  • Start date Start date
G

Godzilla Pimp

I have been building AMD's for a few yrs but made the mistake of buying a
Celeron 2.3GHZ 256MB Dell Latitude ($600 new). What a dog! Decoding Naked
News at the maximum bitrate in WMP takes 100% of the processor.
A T-Bred 1700+ running @2000+ (1.67GHz) uses only 15%.

And it feels so slow, even after reformatting and installing WinXP Pro. It
feels about like a Duron 750 I have running at 933MHz....but slower.
 
Well a celery is Intel and the AMD equivalent (Duron) is a better CPU so why
shouldn't he say Intel sucks ... it does in this case?

BillL
 
no no no fisherman troll somewhere else.... AMD K62 sucked ass do all AMD's suck because of those?
 
Intel has been making crippled processors for the cheap-prick market since
the 486 SucX. People keep buying them so why shouldn't they? Buyer beware
and all that rot.

:
: : > no no no fisherman troll somewhere else.... AMD K62 sucked ass do
all
: AMD's suck because of those?
: >
: >
:
: According to Intel trolls, Yes
: :)
:
:
 
Godzilla said:
I have been building AMD's for a few yrs but made the mistake of buying a
Celeron 2.3GHZ 256MB Dell Latitude ($600 new). What a dog! Decoding Naked
News at the maximum bitrate in WMP takes 100% of the processor.
A T-Bred 1700+ running @2000+ (1.67GHz) uses only 15%.

And it feels so slow, even after reformatting and installing WinXP Pro. It
feels about like a Duron 750 I have running at 933MHz....but slower.
Click to expand...


Compare a dell laptop to your overclocked desktop and try to proclaim
something? LOL!
 
Pug Fugley said:
What did you expect? You bought a Dell. It's going to suck.
Click to expand...
Please People!! Intel worked hard to make their P4 the best. But I don't
care about how fast this P4, the one I typed this on
goes. It's nice when encoding Video. Older Intel's did suck, AMD's were
faster.
Were just slowly watching some of the same stuff replay it's self.
AMD's 64 bit CPU has en Edge, not in speed. But that it's 64Bit, and they
have it first.
AMD did this by linking/stacking, two 32Bit cpu's to make it one 64 Bit, and
makes sense.
How can you run it in 32Bit modes so easy? That's how.

Hmm? In the short time I've had my AMD 2000+ XP I've benched it against this
one, even if I slow it down, I still almost beat my AMD
Heh?
Here's the thing. I have an Unamed game I play. (Copyright Laws, I think
People Understand.)
I can run it close to 200 FP/s on my P4, I can't say I can play it @
that. As a matter a fact, I tried.
My AMD may only give me around 100 or so FP/s, BUT!! The point is, you can
play it @ the speed it needs to go.
And I have also found my AMD to be a little more compatible when it comes to
game pads, and other hardware.


So lets see now onced noow Shakey

Burning Fast/ ta, too fast. Costs Much $$$$
Just as fast as needed, and more compatible. A lot less cost in $$$$
It still Costs close to 400$ or more for a 3.2 GHz Cpu/ Around 200$ or less
for one of the faster AMD's without going to Athlon 64, that would be over
200$
Full Computer system for under 1,000$ & even some extra's not needed.
Or
Over 1,000 for speed some people won't ever use.
Shock my head the other day @ the place I buy my Computer stuff.
I thought the guy should've just gone with AMD, he just wanted a gaming
system.
But no, he had to have a 800FSB P4, I have one, and I say all that speed is
NOT! Needed.
What do others think?
Denny. :-) Always with a smile, even if times are bad.
 
Please People!! Intel worked hard to make their P4 the best. But I don't
care about how fast this P4, the one I typed this on
goes. It's nice when encoding Video. Older Intel's did suck, AMD's were
faster.
Were just slowly watching some of the same stuff replay it's self.
AMD's 64 bit CPU has en Edge, not in speed. But that it's 64Bit, and they
have it first.
AMD did this by linking/stacking, two 32Bit cpu's to make it one 64 Bit, and
makes sense.
How can you run it in 32Bit modes so easy? That's how.

Hmm? In the short time I've had my AMD 2000+ XP I've benched it against this
one, even if I slow it down, I still almost beat my AMD
Heh?
Here's the thing. I have an Unamed game I play. (Copyright Laws, I think
People Understand.)
I can run it close to 200 FP/s on my P4, I can't say I can play it @
that. As a matter a fact, I tried.
My AMD may only give me around 100 or so FP/s, BUT!! The point is, you can
play it @ the speed it needs to go.
And I have also found my AMD to be a little more compatible when it comes to
game pads, and other hardware.


So lets see now onced noow Shakey

Burning Fast/ ta, too fast. Costs Much $$$$
Just as fast as needed, and more compatible. A lot less cost in $$$$
It still Costs close to 400$ or more for a 3.2 GHz Cpu/ Around 200$ or less
for one of the faster AMD's without going to Athlon 64, that would be over
200$
Full Computer system for under 1,000$ & even some extra's not needed.
Or
Over 1,000 for speed some people won't ever use.
Shock my head the other day @ the place I buy my Computer stuff.
I thought the guy should've just gone with AMD, he just wanted a gaming
system.
But no, he had to have a 800FSB P4, I have one, and I say all that speed is
NOT! Needed.
What do others think?
Denny. :-) Always with a smile, even if times are bad.
Click to expand...

You all might learn something by watching these lectures..

http://stanford-online.stanford.edu/courses/ee380/040107-ee380-100.asx
http://stanford-online.stanford.edu/courses/ee380/040218-ee380-100.asx

Ed
 
BoB said:
Read a little up on intel chipsets(cpu's).
"Better quality chipset support"
in what way?
Click to expand...

Better then dealing with Via. Now that there are other options, AMDs are
much easier to deal with.
 
Godzilla Pimp said:
I have been building AMD's for a few yrs but made the mistake of buying a
Celeron 2.3GHZ 256MB Dell Latitude ($600 new). What a dog! Decoding Naked
News at the maximum bitrate in WMP takes 100% of the processor.
A T-Bred 1700+ running @2000+ (1.67GHz) uses only 15%.

And it feels so slow, even after reformatting and installing WinXP Pro. It
feels about like a Duron 750 I have running at 933MHz....but slower.
Click to expand...

I can't believe so many people fell for this. No way would someone smart
enough to build AMD systems purchase a Dell OR a Celeron . . . especially
not together!!! -Dave
 
It certainly was. From there for me it was celeron ppga to celeron fcpga to
AMD end of story. I have always built on price/performance above all other
factors.
 
Dave C. said:
I can't believe so many people fell for this. No way would someone smart
enough to build AMD systems purchase a Dell OR a Celeron . . . especially
not together!!! -Dave
Click to expand...
Noone mentioned the lameness of laptops in general(unfortunately a necessary
design limitation), on another note I worked on an emachine celery 2.5GFhz
with 64megs intelextreme agp onboard, 256megs ddr system ram, after
removing 3 trojans, 75 spywares and coolwebsearch, and a ton of crap
freeware, I optimized the xp/home.
Nothing lame at all, I am sure it would dog down with the small L2, but at
2.5GHZ, it was snappy!
 
Hi,
silly name for a post. Clearly INTEL don't suck, but I understand your
reasons why you feel the need to prove it to the world. AMD vs INTEL is
such an old topic. . . .

INTEL= Nice + Better quality chipset support
AMD=Nice + slightly better value for MHz hunter

You need to get your hands on some good examples, don't judge a whole
product range because you had one bad apple (P4 Celeron lol!)
 
Read a little up on intel chipsets(cpu's).
"Better quality chipset support"
in what way? Intel gutted the P4, it's all about ramping core frequency.
Putting out a L1 of 8KB is not what I would consider quality support.
 
Read a little up on intel chipsets(cpu's).
"Better quality chipset support"
in what way? Intel gutted the P4, it's all about ramping core frequency.
Putting out a L1 of 8KB is not what I would consider quality support.
Click to expand...


Hi,
The Intel® chipsets (i.e: motherboards) have a much better Dual-Channel
memory controller and a much better SATA-RAID-0 system (ICH5R).

CPU wise I like both AMD Athlons and Intel® Pentium® 4. It's a pity AMD
can't build a decent chipset for their own CPUs, but luckily for them nVidia
came along and gave birth to the nForce2.

So to reiterate, in No SHAPE or FORM do Intel® *suck* :P

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but mine is there *Both* good. .
..

Peace. . .
 
I must disagree. I may have misunderstood you. Though not all laptops are
lame. try the alienware Area-51-M the extreme model is better then alot of
desktops.

PS:I know it has an Intel personally i don't have a big check book so i
prefer AMD
 
Please People!! Intel worked hard to make their P4 the best. But I don't
care about how fast this P4, the one I typed this on
goes. It's nice when encoding Video. Older Intel's did suck, AMD's were
faster.
Were just slowly watching some of the same stuff replay it's self.
AMD's 64 bit CPU has en Edge, not in speed. But that it's 64Bit, and they
have it first.
AMD did this by linking/stacking, two 32Bit cpu's to make it one 64 Bit, and
makes sense.
How can you run it in 32Bit modes so easy? That's how.
Click to expand...

Let's glue together a couple Athlon XP 1600+'s and make a Athlon 64 3200+.
I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...
Hmm? In the short time I've had my AMD 2000+ XP I've benched it against this
one, even if I slow it down, I still almost beat my AMD
Heh?
Here's the thing. I have an Unamed game I play. (Copyright Laws, I think
People Understand.)
I can run it close to 200 FP/s on my P4, I can't say I can play it @
that. As a matter a fact, I tried.
My AMD may only give me around 100 or so FP/s, BUT!! The point is, you can
play it @ the speed it needs to go.
And I have also found my AMD to be a little more compatible when it comes to
game pads, and other hardware.
Click to expand...

<snip>
 
Back
Top