Yet another AMD destroys Intel thread.
Don't you mean:Grudge wrote:holy totally outrageous and unsupported claim, Batman!rep wrote:Don't trust websites more than you trust magazines. I know for a fact that the top 20 PC related websites are totally paid off.
OR
HardOCP wrote: holy totally outrageous and unsupported claim, Spider-Man!
Last edited by rep on Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
[img]http://members.cox.net/anticsensue/rep_june.gif[/img]
-
Turbanator
- Posts: 883
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 1983 7:00 am
Moral of the story, I'm on Turb's side
[quote="Duhard"]To survive a war you gotta become the war...teammates are useless.[/quote]
[quote="SOAPboy"]You happen to be out of your league when it comes to games.. so fuck off..[/quote]
[quote="GONNAFISTYA"]
I saw
the "Fist Signal" and
came runnin.
[/quote]
[quote="SOAPboy"]You happen to be out of your league when it comes to games.. so fuck off..[/quote]
[quote="GONNAFISTYA"]
I saw
the "Fist Signal" and
came runnin.
[/quote]
As someone who's been using dual processor machines and 64-bit operating systems for a good year longer than you PC weenies: that is a crock of shit.rep wrote:2.4GHz times two = 4800+ Performance Rating.
That was when intel was well known to be cooking the books.rep wrote:AMD CPUs (as clearly proven by this test) typically perform the same as Intel systems that are clocked twice as fast.
When Opteron was still in prototype, an 800MHz (frequency locked) Opteron beat a 1.6GHz Pentium 4. :lol:
G5 is, Tiger kinda is kinda isn't. Fact is, it doesn't make any difference to performance unless the application actually needs to access more than a couple of gigabytes of RAM and has been specifically coded to take advantage of it. And even then it doesn't make much difference.saturn wrote:and I don't :sad:Dave wrote:I have a 64-bit computer and OS
But Tiger isn't completely 64 bit? Or was it that G5 wasn't completely 64 bit.......hmmm
What's much more useful in the G5 system is that it's got tons of internal bandwidth.
Plus, I can encode video and audio on one processor in the background without any loss in system responsiveness. Which is nice.
-
Don Carlos
- Posts: 17514
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
I belive that the 64 DOES make a difference.
For things ike rendering and running multiple programs i have noticed a hell of a speed difference between my 3000+ 64 and the 3200 barton we have here. The time it took to convert a avi to MP4 on the 3200 was so much slower its silly. Like 3 - 4 mins difference !!!
For things ike rendering and running multiple programs i have noticed a hell of a speed difference between my 3000+ 64 and the 3200 barton we have here. The time it took to convert a avi to MP4 on the 3200 was so much slower its silly. Like 3 - 4 mins difference !!!
Where were you when the West was defeated?
[url=http://profile.mygamercard.net/doncarlos83][img]http://card.mygamercard.net/gbar/doncarlos83.gif[/img][/url]
[url=http://profile.mygamercard.net/doncarlos83][img]http://card.mygamercard.net/gbar/doncarlos83.gif[/img][/url]
-
Don Carlos
- Posts: 17514
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
-
Don Carlos
- Posts: 17514
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
that's it, i'm gonna get a dual G5 with 30" cinema display when i have money (i.e. over 5 years)Geebs wrote:G5 is, Tiger kinda is kinda isn't. Fact is, it doesn't make any difference to performance unless the application actually needs to access more than a couple of gigabytes of RAM and has been specifically coded to take advantage of it. And even then it doesn't make much difference.saturn wrote:and I don't :sad:Dave wrote:I have a 64-bit computer and OS
But Tiger isn't completely 64 bit? Or was it that G5 wasn't completely 64 bit.......hmmm
What's much more useful in the G5 system is that it's got tons of internal bandwidth.
Plus, I can encode video and audio on one processor in the background without any loss in system responsiveness. Which is nice.
-
Turbanator
- Posts: 883
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 1983 7:00 am
-
Don Carlos
- Posts: 17514
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
-
Turbanator
- Posts: 883
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 1983 7:00 am
one thing apple need to work on is their hard drives, the memory and cpu architecture is fast and powerful with plenty of bandwidth, but is bottlenecked by the hard drives and other data input sources. They don't even need to do something flashy like RAID, just use some high end 10,000rpm hds or some high density maxline 3's.
-
Don Carlos
- Posts: 17514
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Exactly
HD's on the PC are being pushed alot again now and they are coming up with some really fast fuckers. my SATA 200 gig is fast, so in RAID it must be stupidly quick
HD's on the PC are being pushed alot again now and they are coming up with some really fast fuckers. my SATA 200 gig is fast, so in RAID it must be stupidly quick
Where were you when the West was defeated?
[url=http://profile.mygamercard.net/doncarlos83][img]http://card.mygamercard.net/gbar/doncarlos83.gif[/img][/url]
[url=http://profile.mygamercard.net/doncarlos83][img]http://card.mygamercard.net/gbar/doncarlos83.gif[/img][/url]
-
Turbanator
- Posts: 883
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 1983 7:00 am
i use raid 0 dual 10k raptors... the fuckers are so fast they max out my pci bus, I've never had a chance to actually see their true performance yet. I'm going to upgrade my mobo and cpu soon so when I do I'm gonna get something with RAID integrated into the southbridge, by passing the pci bus altogether and tapping directly into the memory channels.
-
Don Carlos
- Posts: 17514
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am