Last message on previous page:

AFAIK, when you're in a public argument you better be ready to show factual details especially when disproving/discrediting someone. because if that's the way how you think (like you dont need to prove it), you need not post here again, or on any other messageboards, because what you're writing is a whole bunch of rubbish.

any of your opinions, you keep it to yourself at least (or start a messageboard of your own with you as the mod/post/threadstarter), since it concerns you and yourself alone. stop spamming in here will ya?

You disagreed... that is all that is needed for you to produce some sort of data to refute his claims. If you're not going to produce any data, then your claims are as baseless (or even more so) than his. I'm not trying to change the subject, you're the one that decided to run with this by posting your dissension.

Getting back to the original topic... yes, Q6600 is a real quad-core processor... just not a "native" quad core.

I love these rabbid AMD fanboys. They try to tell us why a slew of objective benchmarks from multiple sources that are well respected and credible are no good, and then use their own SUBJECTIVE experiences to say that AMD is better.

Guess what? INTEL HAS BETTER DESKTOP PROCESSORS! There is nothing you can say or do to change that fact. AMD's is still a great option for many people, and many of us won't recommend against them, but you've got to be realistic.

Gosh darn you two are dense.

This isn’t strange when you have tried one Intel compared to one AMD. AMD runs smoother and that’s what you will notice when you try them. Of course you need to run some demanding applications.

^ Dats fine... please buy as many AMD products as you can, to help them along. We need somebody to buy their stuff to keep them in the market.

After all, we are just a hand full or less of people that wanna tweak, enhance our PC to its better/full potential.

Not to mention mown, groan, and bitch about the 2 companies.

I personally doubt we'll see any significant improvement out of it, maybe an additional 100Mhz or so. Phenom is already at its maximum clock envelope, and pushing it furthur simply is suicide clocking.

Seriously, you're full of sh!t.

+1

It runs smoother, it is cheaper, there isn’t a socket change nearby so the parts I am buying will last a bit longer, if new games is going to use ray tracing it phenoms will be able to run those.
Here you can say what Intel is saying to programmers: http://blogs.intel.com/research/20 [...] advice.php

It isn’t a hard decision choosing AMD if you have some knowledge about computer hardware

And why are you explaining that to me? I've already spent my money, and I'm happy.

I find my Q6600 runs smooth, with a slight OC, and I'm running Vista 64bit.

It is not a hard decision in choosing Intel as well. Your choice of a double whopper with cheese, or a whaler/fish sandwich.

So far, I think the majority are meat eaters.

I find the comments about developers not writing codes to take advantage of multi-core particularly accurate. We have quad cores now, and octa-core in a year, and most programs out there still are written for single thread.

M$'s FSX developer once said, its a lot easier to write codes to take advantage of single thread performance, than multi-thread performance. There was also one developer going berserk on how single-thread codes is a lot better than multi-thread code (he is obviously a tool).

Chip manufacturers and developers need to get together and come up with a solution. Intel and AMD already steadily increased their IPC even as core counts increase, so its time for developer to come up with something to take advantage of both of them.

It also isn't a hard decision to determine that you have little knowledge about computer hardware.

Do you understand why Intel made nehalem? If you understand that, could you explain?

Intel made Nehalem because it was the logical choice to move to IMC, as well as native multi-core. But before that, most programs do not take that much bandwidth, including server applications. The only applications that would benefit from IMC and HTT are scientific programs, heavy FP calculations, and memory intensive programs. This is why while AMD dominates the 4P+ market, they still lose to Intel at 2P, 1P segment.

If you understand so much about computer hardware, can you please explain to me why AMD went native quad core at 65nm?

The only PROOF I could give would be to make up some input parameters that are just as incorrect and then show you a result. Somehow it seems that would make you happy... even though the numbers would be just as faulty as the orginal.

Ok heres a calculation for you: the results would be half of what he said because I'm cutting his input variable to half his quoted values.

Now here is the part you need to understand: MY CUTTING THE INPUT VALUES IN HALF IS JUST AS VALID AS WHAT HE USED FOR HIS INPUT NUMBERS. His input numbers were guesses extrapolated on what he thinks is correct. But if you start the extrapolation on a value that is wrong... then your input value is wrong. And your result is useless.

Is this sinking in yet? I very much doubt it... and even if you completely understood awhile ago you are still going to use your same boring and tired excuse to divert attention.

So I'll go back to my original comment: I don't feel the need to "prove" anything since your burgeoning intellect won't grasp reality anyway. (Oh wait did I say that last sentence in my "out loud" voice? OMG.)

I love these rabid Intel fanboys. You show them that a slew of objective benchmarks from multiple sources are shown to be inaccurate... and they just want to ignore the facts and brush them under that table.

Guess what? INTEL HAS BETTER DESKTOP PROCESSORS! Except for the chips that are sold in the same price range as the AMD quad chips. They are NOT "better" except in your opinion.

In addition... it is humorous to see someone complaining about objective versus subjective... and then throwing the word "better" around... which is a SUBJECTIVE OPINION. Since the Intel and AMD chips in the same price range compete benchmark per benchmark then something else needs to be used. Some people use the basic chip architecture.

This argument is going to be twisted and morphed in the future because of the Nehalem. It is going to be very amusing.

Thank you...for showing how little you know.

oooh! oooh! I know!!!! I know!!! It is because they don't have the budget to develop new process, or retool there fabs.

LOL

+1