i think this is fake but whatever still funny
You have no clue, do you?tzedek said:AMD is lame
I agree, but only to an extent. The RISC architecture is amazing, I’ve been thoroughly impressed from my experiences with Sun workstations and Sparc servers. I do a lot of graphic design (it’s a hobby of mine) and music production, recording and editing and I’ve never felt limited with the x86 architecture. I’ve always hated Mac, at least until the release of osX; I’m purchasing a 12” 1.5GHz Power Book for my girlfriend and I this Christmas, but It’ll mostly be a toy. I love the idea of a BSD based os, with such duality as osX has.VenomHowell said:And, well, if you like multimedia/graphics editing, Macs are the way to go for you, my friend.
Any performance gains you’re seeing with the 64bit cpu is solely based on their high clock and bus speeds. Even if you’re running a 64bit OS(XP is available in a 64bit version), hardly any applications, and even fewer games are written to utilize a 64 bit architecture. You’d be better off, at least for now and the near future, saving the money by getting a comparable 32bit cpu.VenomHowell said:It all depends on interests, though currently, overall, the AMD Athlon 64s are the perfect balance between functionality and price right now. the 64 3500+ is affordable and one of the best processors out there.
junglizm said:You have no clue, do you?
AMDs are a perfect balance between price and performance. They excel in gaming and some multimedia applications. Intel’s excel in things like encoding media and compression. AMD will always win in cases where money is a deciding factor. Actually, given unlimited amount of money, I’d still choose AMD over Intel, for almost everything. We’ve even taken to replacing our Xeon based server at work, with Opterons, upon the request of myself and a co-worker.
You don't understand why they do this, obviously. The reasoning behind the high numbers for the lower clock speeds, is that AMD processors are capable of carrying more than one instruction per cycle, about 1.5 if you were to take an average. Therefor, they rate their processors compared to what it would be as their old Thunderbird line, which could carry 1 instruction per cycle, though most people nowadays just take it as how fast it would be as a pentium, which is no less accurate. Therefor, my 2.20 GHZ AMD 64 3500+ is every bit as powerful as a 3.5 GHZ Pentium.tzedek said:i wasnt talk about performance. Sorry i will clear it up. I just think it is lame that they put some bigger numbers on their processors. For instance, if a car compnay produced a sports car with 250 HP, but labeled it as "350+" HP performance, everybody would be like wtf? well that is what AMD is doing with their processors, and I think that is lame.
obviously you dont understand why they do this. Its called marketing. look it up. What do consumers want to see? higher numbers. so AMD makes up numbers to give consumers higher numbers.VenomHowell said:You don't understand why they do this, obviously. The reasoning behind the high numbers for the lower clock speeds, is blah blah blah