Curse

SSE4 · Apr 08, 2005, 02:40 AM // 02:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkmane

I'd agree that advising Intel in a forum of people using graphic intensive programs or CAD or Rendering/ what have you is great. But touting Intel for gaming, and 'all around' performance for the end user is ludicrous.

There is far more to a systems performance than benchmarks alone. I prefer Intel processors, but I also have an AMD and I acknowledge both, which is something I can't say for the majority of AMD users. Advising an AMD for absolutely every user is a ridiculous notion itself, and it's simply not a fair decision to make either, especially for that end user you speak of. The "all-around" performance that a P4 provides is good for someone who doesn't focus primarily on gaming. It's as simple as that. On top of other posts I have made regarding the reason the AMD does so well in gaming, the integrated memory controller also helps it.

Lansing Kai Don · Apr 08, 2005, 03:45 AM // 03:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSE4

There is far more to a systems performance than benchmarks alone. I prefer Intel processors, but I also have an AMD and I acknowledge both, which is something I can't say for the majority of AMD users. Advising an AMD for absolutely every user is a ridiculous notion itself, and it's simply not a fair decision to make either, especially for that end user you speak of. The "all-around" performance that a P4 provides is good for someone who doesn't focus primarily on gaming. It's as simple as that. On top of other posts I have made regarding the reason the AMD does so well in gaming, the integrated memory controller also helps it.

HEY! Celebration, we actually agree on something completely. I agree that P4 provides a better userability than AMD, and AMD likewise performs better in games etc... That is my opinion, not backed up by anything except experience. It depends on how the processor is utilized. Where AMD leans towards parallel and Intel towards serial. I'm not a fan of either, just a fan of the best value.

Lansing Kai Don

SSE4 · Apr 08, 2005, 04:11 AM // 04:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lansing Kai Don

HEY! Celebration, we actually agree on something completely. I agree that P4 provides a better userability than AMD, and AMD likewise performs better in games etc... That is my opinion, not backed up by anything except experience. It depends on how the processor is utilized? Where AMD leans towards parallel and Intel towards serial. I'm not a fan of either, just a fan of the best value.

Lansing Kai Don

Absolutely amazing. It's a complete and utter agreement. This is what I live for.

It's nice to know someone else has a similar opinion based not only on benchmarks, but on experience as well. It's not often I come across something like this, so I should cherish it.

Ellestar · Apr 08, 2005, 06:46 AM // 06:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSE4

There is far more to a systems performance than benchmarks alone. I prefer Intel processors, but I also have an AMD and I acknowledge both, which is something I can't say for the majority of AMD users. Advising an AMD for absolutely every user is a ridiculous notion itself, and it's simply not a fair decision to make either, especially for that end user you speak of. The "all-around" performance that a P4 provides is good for someone who doesn't focus primarily on gaming. It's as simple as that. On top of other posts I have made regarding the reason the AMD does so well in gaming, the integrated memory controller also helps it.

That is just another theory. In practice, if someone asks for a better processor here on these forums, then he needs a powerful processor to play games (noone needs a processor that is 1% faster in something like Word). So, AMD is obviously a better choice. Do you need a faster processor for games or you need it to have a better virtual "all-around performance"? Thought so. Besides, who said you that P4 is "all-around" faster? AMD is also good for that virtual "all-around performance", and more importantly, both processors are good enough in "all-around performance".

SSE4 · Apr 08, 2005, 06:54 AM // 06:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellestar

That is just another theory. In practice, if someone asks for a better processor here on these forums, then he needs a powerful processor to play games (noone needs a processor that is 1% faster in something like Word). So, AMD is obviously a better choice. Do you need a faster processor for games or you need it to have a better virtual "all-around performance"? Thought so. Besides, who said you that P4 is "all-around" faster? AMD is also good for that virtual "all-around performance", and more importantly, both processors are good enough in "all-around performance".

Faster in something like Word? Actually some of the benchmarks show that Intel has lost the top spot in the majority of office programs in quite a few benchmarks. It isn't a theory when you have experience with both. How do you know someone looks for a processor just in consideration to games? Just because it's a game-based forum doesn't mean a person wants nothing but a game-based processor. The point of a forum is to bring us all together here. Sure, the forum has a central theme which is Guild Wars, but it doesn't mean everyone lives and breathes games here. That's a huge assumption. You don't quite seem to understand what I mean by "all-around" performance either. Which is fine with me. But it's difficult to assess whether or not you have a central idea for this argument.

Ellestar · Apr 08, 2005, 07:16 AM // 07:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSE4

Faster in something like Word? Actually some of the benchmarks show that Intel has lost the top spot in the majority of office programs in quite a few benchmarks. It isn't a theory when you have experience with both. How do you know someone looks for a processor just in consideration to games? Just because it's a game-based forum doesn't mean a person wants nothing but a game-based processor. The point of a forum is to bring us all together here. Sure, the forum has a central theme which is Guild Wars, but it doesn't mean everyone lives and breathes games here. That's a huge assumption.

If someone is a professional that runs some programs on a home computer that need a lot of processor power, then he should know what he needs anyway. He can ask on a forums dedicated to that programs if he feels that perfomance in these programs is more important than perfomance in games.

All other users that ask for an advice on this forum need processor power only in games because it's not critical in other applications. So, at that moment AMD is a better choice for them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSE4

You don't quite seem to understand what I mean by "all-around" performance either. Which is fine with me. But it's difficult to assess whether or not you have a central idea for this argument.

Correction: i don't know what personally YOU mean by that "all-around" performance. So, if you want to claim that P4 is better in that, then please tell what exactly do you mean by that. Preferably with a links to benchmarks that show that.

SSE4 · Apr 08, 2005, 07:32 AM // 07:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellestar

If someone is a professional that runs some programs on a home computer that need a lot of processor power, then he should know what he needs anyway. He can ask on a forums dedicated to that programs if he feels that perfomance in these programs is more important than perfomance in games.

All other users that ask for an advice on this forum need processor power only in games because it's not critical in other applications. So, at that moment AMD is a better choice for them.

Correction: i don't know what personally YOU mean by that "all-around" performance. So, if you want to claim that P4 is better in that, then please tell what exactly do you mean by that. Preferably with a links to benchmarks that show that.

Links and benchmarks aren't going to show you what a P4 is like until you use one for an extended period of time. Do you goto computerforums.org? You sound like someone who goes there. And my point still stands, that the majority of people here aren't "professionals" and not a lot of them know or even care about whether or not someone wants them to get an AMD or an Intel, because a lot of them have what you might call "shelf models". If someone is asking about what he should get in his computer, he wants to know about the system and the differences between processors. In fact a few people here have asked about the processors and I have given rather detailed answers, because I want them to make the best decision they can. Not everyone uses their computer for games alone, and some are willing to sacrifice the extra 10-20 FPS they might lose for a faster computer experience. Of course I've yet to say AMD doesn't do extremely well in games anyway.

You want to know what I mean by "all-around" performance? I use both. My AMD64 3500+ Winchester feels horribly slow in comparison to my 3.2GHz Northwood. Can I explain that to you in a benchmark? Of course not. The Pentium 4 provides me with a seamless environment that leaves the AMD64 feeling slow in comparison. My AMD64 on the other hand provides me with untouchable in-game framerates and video settings. You can't recommend AMD to everyone based on benchmarks alone. That said, some people may care more about having a processor that feels fast as opposed to a processor that gives higher framerates in-game.

I don't even know why we're arguing though. While typing this, I'm having trouble figuring out a reason for any kind of argument. Is it because you want to believe that benchmarks are the key determining factor in a systems performance and that they are 100% accurate all the time? Perhaps you could explain Pentium 4 dominance in PCMark 04 when in-game application provides a different story? Or is it because you like AMD so much that the thought of Intels being good makes you feel sick? I don't know. This is still pointless either way.

Ellestar · Apr 08, 2005, 07:44 AM // 07:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSE4

In fact a few people here have asked about the processors and I have given rather detailed answers, because I want them to make the best decision they can. Not everyone uses their computer for games alone, and some are willing to sacrifice the extra 10-20 FPS they might lose for a faster computer experience. Of course I've yet to say AMD doesn't do extremely well in games anyway.

You want to know what I mean by "all-around" performance? I use both. My AMD64 3500+ Winchester feels horribly slow in comparison to my 3.2GHz Northwood. Can I explain that to you in a benchmark? Of course not.

Clearly you're not an engineer. If something can't be benchmarked, then it doesn't exist period. There is no magic, there is no dancing around a computer, there is no feelings, there is no virtual "faster computer experience" or "all-around perfomance" or other advertisement bullshit. If that's your "detailed answers" then i feel sorry for someone who will listen for your advices.

SSE4 · Apr 08, 2005, 07:49 AM // 07:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellestar

Clearly you're not an engineer. If something can't be benchmarked, then it doesn't exist period. There is no magic, there is no dancing around a computer, there is no feelings, there is no virtual "faster computer experience" or "all-around perfomance". If that's your "detailed answers" then i feel sorry for someone who will listen for your advices.

Nah. I'll just take that as an acknowledgement that you don't have enough experience with computers. You completely ignored the benchmark comment by the way. That's because you don't know enough to explain it, because your precious benchmarks aren't everything. If those benchmarks are so much better, why do they fail to properly depict system performance in games? It's OK. You can be as ignorant as you like, but I will continue helping people with my experience and knowledge of computers.

Ellestar · Apr 08, 2005, 08:25 AM // 08:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSE4

Nah. I'll just take that as an acknowledgement that you don't have enough experience with computers. You completely ignored the benchmark comment by the way. That's because you don't know enough to explain it, because your precious benchmarks aren't everything. If those benchmarks are so much better, why do they fail to properly depict system performance in games? It's OK. You can be as ignorant as you like, but I will continue helping people with my experience and knowledge of computers.

15 years experience isn't enough for you?

I ignored benchmark comment? LOL? Show me some reading comprehension please. There is science and there is magic. Science operates facts. You're describing your "feelings". That was the answer on your benchmark comment. Sure, you can operate with "feelings", but that isn't a scientific approach and that isn't that any IT engineer will do.
Not to mention that you comment was a CLEAR LIE. There is no way you can "feel" any major difference between a AMD64 3500+ Winchester and a 3.2GHz Northwood if the ONLY thing that has a major impact on a difference in a computer perfomance is a processor. IMHO it's called a false advertisement. Not to mention that AMD64 3500+ Winchester is faster than 3.2GHz Northwood in most applications despite that you claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSE4

If those benchmarks are so much better, why do they fail to properly depict system performance in games?

Benchmarks that show a virtual "processor speed" show nothing.
Like this one http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004...charts-22.html

But you can always test FPS in a game with a different processors. That kind of benchmark will show exactly what you need - perfomance in games.
For example, like this one
http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20...charts-15.html
Let's look at the AMD64 3500+ Winchester you mentioned and Intel processors.
Check the price of AMD64 3500+ Winchester+DDR400 and the price of P4 EE 3.46 Gallatin Ghz + DDR2-711 or P4 EE 3.72 Ghz Prescott + DDR2-533 and tell me what's the best buy? Don't forget that anyone in a sane mind will use a better memory than DDR400 for AMD 64 with a very little increase in price (it's still significantly less than a cost of DDR2). And of course Athlon 64 FX-55 is faster in games than any Intel processor.
That's called real benchmarks.

Sin · Apr 08, 2005, 09:06 AM // 09:06

I just wondered if maybe that feeling thing that makes the 64 "feel" slower might be the lack of a full 64 bit operating system? A processor that benchmarks much better but might feel sluggish would suggest to me there is a lack of exploitation of its power by the operating system, thus blocking access to that power for many applications. Just a thought.

Ellestar · Apr 08, 2005, 09:46 AM // 09:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sin

I just wondered if maybe that feeling thing that makes the 64 "feel" slower might be the lack of a full 64 bit operating system? A processor that benchmarks much better but might feel sluggish would suggest to me there is a lack of exploitation of its power by the operating system, thus blocking access to that power for many applications. Just a thought.

It doesn't make sense because you didn't mentioned what kind of benchmarks you're talking about. If you see a bigger FPS in a game or a faster compression with winrar, then it can't feel slower. If you talk about a syntetic benchmarks, then they don't have any meaning anyway. Also, most benchmarks are 32 bit.

Probably you made an assumption that AMD 64 bit processor is faster with applications that are compiled for 64 bit processor than Intel with the same applications that are compiled for 32 bit processor, but on a home computer we use only 32 bit applications. No, these benchmarks are 32bit and AMD wins in a lot of them, so AMD can't feel sluggish contrary to benchmarks.

Sin · Apr 08, 2005, 09:51 AM // 09:51

Sorry, I was just thinking that there is a reason they are working on a 64 bit windows. I hadn't looked at the benchmarks or any of that one way or the other, just thought it might be less "hot" in this thread if there was maybe, just maybe, some sort of optional reason why one might "feel" one way versus another. Again, my apologies.

SSE4 · Apr 08, 2005, 04:49 PM // 16:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellestar

15 years experience isn't enough for you?

I ignored benchmark comment? LOL? Show me some reading comprehension please. There is science and there is magic. Science operates facts. You're describing your "feelings". That was the answer on your benchmark comment. Sure, you can operate with "feelings", but that isn't a scientific approach and that isn't that any IT engineer will do.
Not to mention that you comment was a CLEAR LIE. There is no way you can "feel" any major difference between a AMD64 3500+ Winchester and a 3.2GHz Northwood if the ONLY thing that has a major impact on a difference in a computer perfomance is a processor. IMHO it's called a false advertisement. Not to mention that AMD64 3500+ Winchester is faster than 3.2GHz Northwood in most applications despite that you claim.

Your humble opinion means nothing. But you still seem to misunderstand and you don't have enough experience with both, so that's simply how it is. And you talk about "feelings" and that you feel sorry for the people I help, but unfortunately for you I use facts when helping those people. I give people the actual facts about the two processors and they make the choice. What you do is say Pentium sucks and at the end of the day feel better about yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellestar

Benchmarks that show a virtual "processor speed" show nothing.
Like this one http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004...charts-22.html

Like I said. It's kind of useless. Like looking at the top PCMark 04 computers. http://www.futuremark.com/community/halloffame/ but of course you're just telling me what I know. Keep going with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellestar

But you can always test FPS in a game with a different processors. That kind of benchmark will show exactly what you need - perfomance in games.
For example, like this one
http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20...charts-15.html
Let's look at the AMD64 3500+ Winchester you mentioned and Intel processors.

You're telling me what I already know. Will you ever stop?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellestar

Check the price of AMD64 3500+ Winchester+DDR400 and the price of P4 EE 3.46 Gallatin Ghz + DDR2-711 or P4 EE 3.72 Ghz Prescott + DDR2-533 and tell me what's the best buy? Don't forget that anyone in a sane mind will use a better memory than DDR400 for AMD 64 with a very little increase in price (it's still significantly less than a cost of DDR2). And of course Athlon 64 FX-55 is faster in games than any Intel processor.
That's called real benchmarks.

That's called "stuff I already know and I've been explaining in detail for some time". Seriously, you're just putting my words back in my mouth. And obviously someone with an AMD64 (Especially an FX-55 will want DDR400 with low latency in order to get the highest performance). You still just seemed to be so angry with me that you completely missed the point.

I've already said the AMD64 is better in games than Intels. You just seemed to have forgotten in your unfounded anger that what you were telling me was information I have long seen. When someone asks your opinion or someone asks me (In real life) which processor they should get, I give them the facts about the two, and I let them test my two computers. They make a decision based solely off the facts. If they ask my deep-down opinion on them, I'll give it, and someone like you complaining about "magic" and "fakeness" will continue to complain about it. It's not like I force someone to buy an Intel or an AMD, but I give them what they need to make an informed decision.

What Ellestar is confused about is the fact that most of the benchmarks out there aren't multithreaded. What does that mean? It means that while using the processor it is likely to expect good performance especially in opening multiple files etc. because the P4 is Hyper-Threaded. You have multitasking benchmarks to show you some of the performance gains that a P4 gains from this, but ultimately you can't really show how it effects other system tasks, because they don't make for interesting benchmarks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sin

I just wondered if maybe that feeling thing that makes the 64 "feel" slower might be the lack of a full 64 bit operating system? A processor that benchmarks much better but might feel sluggish would suggest to me there is a lack of exploitation of its power by the operating system, thus blocking access to that power for many applications. Just a thought.

Ellestar couldn't answer your question, but AMD64 processors don't feel slower in 32 bit OS/applications because it runs in Legacy mode. It's 64 bit capability allows for three different modes, but when running in a 32 bit OS, it is perfectly capable of running 100% in that OS, no problems. That's what made the AMD64 architecture so interesting.

Arguing with you is fruitless, because half the time you misunderstand my argument and then counter it in the wrong way. So I wont post in this thread again, there's just no point.

Sin · Apr 08, 2005, 04:59 PM // 16:59

I wasn't necessarily suggesting a problem. I know less about either processor than anyone probably. What I brought up was brought up as a consideration so as to maybe lower the "temperature" in the thread. I am sure it runs fine on 32 bit setting yet I would bet anything you will notice a speed gain when the operating system is using the 64bit features as natively as it uses the hyperthreading features now. Until that is known anything, even benchs, are really speculation, expecially considering 99 percent of emulations even in hardware tend to have some amount of sluggishness. It may not be called an emulation, and my not be in the most technical sense, but it's a good alibi to lower the heat in the thread.

*Edit* I know that suggish "feeling" can be many things that are operating system only. I mean inside a program it may be different but getting there could be sluggish in fact, or accessing through the os to files can appear to be sluggish because of the handles in the OS more than how the processor is set up. Anyway, again just some conisderations.

Armaio · Apr 08, 2005, 07:11 PM // 19:11

I don't understand a word anyone is saying, I built my computer and still dont understand. You guys know too much about technology.

Loviatar · Apr 08, 2005, 07:20 PM // 19:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armaio

I don't understand a word anyone is saying, I built my computer and still dont understand. You guys know too much about technology.

i learned the hard way to be my own tech support and from there it was easy to build my first pc and the2-5 as well

picture being on the NON toll free packard bell help line for 89 minutes (by the telephone bill) long distance listening to how good their product was and help is just a minute away

finally get to my turn and get disconnected

burn

Armaio · Apr 08, 2005, 08:20 PM // 20:20

that is sickening ...

Roken · Apr 09, 2005, 01:51 PM // 13:51

Heh, after reading tech forums for a week or two, you could probably understand what their saying to a certain extent. I used to read forums all the time, but the only thing I really gained was knowledge of CPUs, RAM, and how to build a PC (Which I hope to do in the near future... for cheap

).

Have fun learning

Cronic · Apr 12, 2005, 07:54 PM // 19:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

PLEASE

use the edit button instead of the double post

thank you

I did.....At least i think...well anyway if i didnt sorry