WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Why I laugh at Intel users

Descent

Hella Constipated
7,686
109
157
#1
Isn't it funny how most Intel users will tell you to "go Intel" for no reason, and then comment about "AMD sucks," and proceed to never divulge any details?

It's just like being a Bush supporter. You just can't back it up, except if you do heavy multitasking or video editing. I know one Intel fan who has a reason, and yes, you guessed it, he does insane multitasking and can't afford an SMP setup. My hat is off to the guy, for breaking the Intel retardation barrier.

Top reasons people like Intel (And how you can beat them at their own game!)

"I like Intel's stability."

Sorry, if you would actually keep up with the current market, you would discover AMD has gotten just as good. The nForce 2 & 3 chipsets are spectacular, Via's KT880 and K8T800 chipsets are neck and neck with nVidia's, and SiS' 746, 748, and 760 chipsets are catching up fast, while at the same time having similar features and speed of the other two big names. SiS' chipsets are also very cheap, which also justifies buying a motherboard with one. I have a 748 in my second box, and it is fantatsic.

"Intel has a higher clockspeed"

Clockspeed means nothing. RISC based systems cream x86 CISC based systems, and make AMD and Intel cry. A Dual 2.0GHz G5 can run at the speed of a 1.0GHz Athlon or P3, however the software for this is still under development.

This is yet another reason why AMD can use the CPU ratings. They know how to make a chip that is effecient, and not an overpriced pile of garbage like Intel chips are.

"Intels are better for multitasking"

True. But lemme guess: You just spent $900 on a P4 extreme? My god. Someone must have slapped you with the stupid stick. You could get a dual XP 2800+ setup for half the price, which is a TRUE SMP solution, and not some special "HyperThreading" CPU. My dual 1.8GHz Duron setup installed Windows Server 2003 in ten minutes flat. I would REALLY like too see a P4 or A64 do that. It's a crying shame that most Intel users do not know the virtues of true SMP.

The same goes for A64 users. Don't buy that FX-55 or 4000+! Spend it on a Gigabyte GA-7DPXDW-P motherboard and two 2800+ XP Bartons. That will make all your friends green with envy.
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,993
1,401
487
#2
I’m pretty tired, but I thought I’d comment on these two thing. Please forgive any errors, my day’s been kind of long. :(

jstager said:
Clockspeed means nothing. RISC based systems cream x86 CISC based systems, and make AMD and Intel cry.
While I agree with the clock speed issue, you’re not going to get very far with you comparison. RISC is a completely different architecture, apples vs. oranges (x86). That’s not the case when you’re comparing Intel vs. AMD; you’re argument loses all credibility.

A dual 2.0GHz G5 system can run Windows at full speed via emulation, somthing x86 CPU's can't touch.
Wrong. CPU emulation is always taxing on the hosts cpu. The application run in the guest os will never run at full speed, this is just the nature of cross architecture virtual machines. There is currently no way around this. That’s one reason that Virtual PC for Mac is written for specific Windows versions; it attempts to cut down on os dependant emulation, so it can focus more on cpu emulation. You also don’t just emulate a 1GHz x86 with a 1GHz PPC I'm not sure about never versions, but version 6 was somewhere around 500MHz. Think about it; you’re doing with software, what hardware would normally do, doesn’t that just seem like it would be cpu intensive?

Here’s a random benchmark I grabbed from a forum.
http://sillydog.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5609
Benchmark of Windows 2000 SP4, assigned 512MB RAM, 16MB VRAM:
• G4, Dual 1.42GHz
CPU speed: @ 666MHz (reported System Info under PCMark2002)
CPU score: 2433
Memory score: 2169
HDD score: 1287
Edit: yes, I've actually used Macs extensively and I plan to more after Christmas. 12" 1.5GHz Power Book. :thumbsup:
 

tzedek

Original Member
2,515
3
38
#3
Im not into the whole hardware war thing, just becuase i dont like the idea of spending a lot of money on something that will soon be worth much less. I have never had an AMD based system, so i really cant speak about those. I thought about setting up a decent one with my christmas money, but i soon just lost interest and got a better p3 chip instead. Once they come out with p5s or the next AMD chip, i will move up eventually to what people are using today. and i still think AMD is lame for using thier "pr" rating to make bigger numbers.
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,993
1,401
487
#4
tzedek said:
and i still think AMD is lame for using thier "pr" rating to make bigger numbers.
Haha, after all that you still choose not to understand. A WinnAr is you. :thumbsup:
 

tzedek

Original Member
2,515
3
38
#5
junglizm said:
Haha, after all that you still choose not to understand. A WinnAr is you. :thumbsup:


what dont i understand? :shiner:
 

Descent

Hella Constipated
7,686
109
157
#6
While I agree with the clock speed issue, you’re not going to get very far with you comparison. RISC is a completely different architecture, apples vs. oranges (x86). That’s not the case when you’re comparing Intel vs. AMD; you’re argument loses all credibility.
Actually, I was using that to solidify my point that clock speed is irrelevant to how fast the CPU is...I was never comparing the virtues of CISC vs. RISC. I was simply reinforcing the fact that anyone who goes by clockspeed should be put into the loony bin.



Wrong. CPU emulation is always taxing on the hosts cpu. The application run in the guest os will never run at full speed, this is just the nature of cross architecture virtual machines. There is currently no way around this. That’s one reason that Virtual PC for Mac is written for specific Windows versions; it attempts to cut down on os dependant emulation, so it can focus more on cpu emulation. You also don’t just emulate a 1GHz x86 with a 1GHz PPC I'm not sure about never versions, but version 6 was somewhere around 500MHz. Think about it; you’re doing with software, what hardware would normally do, doesn’t that just seem like it would be cpu intensive?
Whoops! My bad. I made a huge typo. I meant to say that it can run about the full speed of a 1.0GHz P3/Athlon. I'm going to edit this now, I'm an idiot!
 

tzedek

Original Member
2,515
3
38
#7
jstager said:
I was simply reinforcing the fact that anyone who goes by clockspeed should be put into the loony bin.

AMD goes by clock speed.... of some other company. so what should we do with them?
 

Descent

Hella Constipated
7,686
109
157
#8
JStager said:
AMD goes by clock speed.... of some other company. so what should we do with them?
Hey man...That is not part of their naming scheme. They do list the clockspeeds on the CPU box, but that is irrelevant.

Seriously...I like you, but I doubt your abilities when it comes to comprehending simple concepts, such as AMD's naming scheme.

Just like Junglizm (Venom?) said, AMD uses this scheme to stay competitive. I suggest you try AMD before you insult them. My last Intel chip was a 500MHz Celeron, and I used my brother's old P4 Northwood 1.7, and to be honest, I thought it sucked balls. He now owns a 2500+, and is quite happy with it.
 

VenomHowell

Cynical Piece of Shit
305
0
0
#9
Junglizm isn't me. We are both different people. Regardless, it was fun reading this topic. It was better until tze started bitching about the whole AMD 'pr' thing again. Jesus, did you look at my last post in the other topic yet or not? I went into a big freaking calculation to prove why AMD is justified in putting those performance ratings down on their chips, for the normal consumer. And someone before me made a good point... They aren't deceiving anyone either, because they do put the true clock speed on the boxes.

Let me try to explain this in even simpler terms...

The general masses think that cycles a second, GHz, equals how fast the chip is. It's true, either way, despite how ignorant it is. This is in fact, only true for pentium chips based on the one instruction per cycle. a pentium 3.5 Ghz (going back to this example) completed 3,500,000 instructions every second. Since AMD uses more advanced technology (it could be argued) that completes MORE than one instruction per cycle, a 2.2 GHz 3500+ actually completes approximately 3,520,000-3,600,000 instructions a second. However, if AMD named their chips after it's true clock speed, 2.2 GHz, the general ignorant masses would look between it and a Pentium 3.5 GHz and say "Oh, the pentium is faster!" Wrong. So AMD names their chips based on their true performance rating, so people who don't know much about computers won't dismiss their chips.

And, besides, any bashing you once had against AMD and their ratings and whatever bad you had to say of them, has lost credibility. Why? You admitted you've never even owned an AMD system.
 

tzedek

Original Member
2,515
3
38
#10
VenomHowell said:
The general masses think that cycles a second, GHz, equals how fast the chip is. It's true, either way, despite how ignorant it is. This is in fact, only true for pentium chips based on the one instruction per cycle. a pentium 3.5 Ghz (going back to this example) completed 3,500,000 instructions every second. Since AMD uses more advanced technology (it could be argued) that completes MORE than one instruction per cycle, a 2.2 GHz 3500+ actually completes approximately 3,520,000-3,600,000 instructions a second.
kidna funny how you talk about how ignorant i am, but yet you dont even know that a gigahert is 1,024 mhz not 1,000.
:thumbsup:
 

Fire_ze_Missles

Martha Fuckin' Stewart
1,622
5
38
#11
tzedek said:
kidna funny how you talk about how ignorant i am, but yet you dont even know that a gigahert is 1,024 mhz not 1,000.
:thumbsup:
I imagine he wasn't trying to be technical. But was just attempting to make a point, which was very well put. :thumbsup:
 

BrIONwoshMunky

EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY!
Staff
9,654
1,302
387
#12
I belieive I must also input my opinion, that Intel and Amd chips are to the computing world, what the Big Three are to the auto-makers. Good points here and there for each one. So in the end it's up to personal preference. But I still side with AMD.
 

VenomHowell

Cynical Piece of Shit
305
0
0
#13
tzedek said:
kidna funny how you talk about how ignorant i am, but yet you dont even know that a gigahert is 1,024 mhz not 1,000.
:thumbsup:
See Fre_Ze_Missiles post for why I did this. Given the fact that you have this weird idea that AMD is not justified in putting 3500+ on a 2.2 GHz processor, I didn't think I needed to get that technical and nit picky about the numbers. And besides, for rough calculations, it's better to just use 1000. Better to use 1.0 * 10^3 Hz then the messy 1024 Hz, because those 24 are negligible. Kind of like significant digits, in the higher sciences, if you've even got into the higher sciences yet. I have my doubts though. Nonetheless, it doesn't change the fact that the AMD chip is still faster, because those oh so terribly important 24 extra Hz would be applied to both clock speeds on AMD chips and Pentium.

Nitpicking small, negligible details in my argument is only showing that you don't have a proper retort to my own argument, especially when that's the only thing in your reply.
 

tzedek

Original Member
2,515
3
38
#14
VenomHowell said:
Nitpicking small, negligible details in my argument is only showing that you don't have a proper retort to my own argument, especially when that's the only thing in your reply.

What kind of "retort" are you looking for? this is the third time you have explained why AMD chips run at lower ghz but perform on par with higher pentiums. You want me to argue that fact or something? There's nothing to argue about. I dont like their marketing scheme, BFD. Im not the only person that thinks its lame to put a pentium rating on AMD chips. and i dont need another instruction cycle lesson to change my mind. Either way, I really have nothing to say about AMD performance-wise becuase I have never used or owned one. There isnt any point in taking this any further, becuase neither of us are going to change the other person's opinion. If you insist in taking it futher please do it in the B&T and we shall discuss it more there. thanks
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,993
1,401
487
#15
tzedek said:
kidna funny how you talk about how ignorant i am, but yet you dont even know that a gigahert is 1,024 mhz not 1,000.
:thumbsup:
Perhaps don't you realise that 1GHz=1,000MHz, and NOT 1GHz=1024MHz? Now, I know that you were only trying to make him look stupid. I actually find that quite humorous. ;) Anyways...

Bytes are binary. 2,4,8,16,32,64,256,512,1024.

When it all comes down to it, everything is stored in bytes, which are made up of 8 bits. Following the binary sequence above is the easiest way to deal with it and is why it has stuck for all these years. Even with that though, some hard drive manufacturers measure a Megabyte as 1000 kilobytes and a kilobyte as 1000 bytes. This is why your new 40 gigabyte drive only formats to around 38 gigabytes or so. (Not doing the math here, but you get the point) In general, engineers use base 10, while computers use base 2.

Engineers use base 10, so 40GB is 40*1000*1000 bytes to an engineer.
Computers use base 2, so 40GB is 40*1024*1024 bytes to a computer.

Hertz, on the other hand, is the measure of oscillation in an electrical system. Your processor speed is moderated by a crystal chip (the clock) that oscillates at a set frequency per second and then that frequency is multiplied by the multiplier to set the processor speed. Here the byte analogy does not apply, because you’re not storing anything, rather processing electrical impulses at a set speed. Hertz is much older than computers, dating back to the late 1800's or early 1900's and the current usage is the accepted one.
 

Descent

Hella Constipated
7,686
109
157
#16
I know Venom and Jungie are different people, I was saying that I couldn't remember who said what.
 

VenomHowell

Cynical Piece of Shit
305
0
0
#17
Junglizm is right, actually... I feel like I've been violated and tricked ><; I know enough about binary to have realized that, but I actually assumed Tze was right because he attacked me for it... Well, I should pay more attention in the future.
 

BrIONwoshMunky

EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY!
Staff
9,654
1,302
387
#18
VenomHowell said:
Junglizm is right, actually... I feel like I've been violated and tricked ><;
Shit man, you aren't supposed to let him know it. :thumbsdn:

You are wrong Junglizm... wrong wrong wrong. :p

O well I tried.
 

BrIONwoshMunky

EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY!
Staff
9,654
1,302
387
#20
VenomHowell said:
Hey, I at least know when to admit I'm wrong... And better to Junglizm than Tze.
I agree, and I was just joshin about Jung, I take his advice all of the time... most isn't directed at me, but I take it anyways.