Miscellaneous > The Lounge
CPU wars
piratePenguin:
Oh... k.. that init thing does not want to work for me (time appears to be going slower with it...).
Isn't PCMark the thing for benchmarking CPUs?
Aloone_Jonez:
Best of all write it for DOS and then it'll be more acurate as it's only doing one task - your benchmark program.
Lead Head:
--- Quote from: H_TeXMeX_H ---Benchmarks are usually done with games like UT2004 or the like ... floating point will give you different results. I don't really believe them myself, I've seen lots of benchmarks with games like UT2004 and the results do favor AMD, but not like this ... it's a more subtle difference.
Examples: (note that most of these were done on Window$ due to the fact that most games don't run on Linux ... and wine kinda blows)
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/reviews/hardware/processorsmemory/0,39024015,39164010,00.htm
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1854918,00.asp
And with dual-core AMD is definitely superior:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-9.html?tag=btn
for more just google "AMD Intel benchmark"
Yeah AMD is better in performance ... so I'm thinking of buying one for my next computer ... building will commence in about 1-2 months ... but there is only one thing holding me back from buying AMD as opposed to Intel ... heat management.
I'd like a guarrantee that my processor (I'll buy the best and probably most expensive one available) won't burn if the cooling system fails. (I'm thinking of putting in liquid cooling just cuz fans get clogged with dust so quickly, and it's a pain to clean it ... my GPU fan got clogged and I got random crashes while playing games) From what evidence I've seen Intel does far better in preventing CPU meltdown/burning ... any evidence to the contrary ? I need hard evidence, like articles and benchmarks, not just you telling me AMD has no heat problems whatsoever.
P.S. All articles I've seen on this issue have favored Intel ... and include very nice pictures of burned AMD CPUs and the motherboard damage that incurrs ... no burned Intel CPU pictures at all.
--- End quote ---
Those were the Athlon/Athlon XP, the Athlon 64s dont burn up, tomshardware has a video of the Athlon 64 vs. P4. AMDs also have a lower thermal shutdown threshold, typicaly around 60*C instead of the 90+*C of intels wich would less likely damage the mobo, A64s are also easier to cool. an A64 3000+ Puts out 50 watts of heat at the most, an FX-60 tops at around 90-100 watts, why the P4s go muvh over 100 watts.
noob:
The pics of burned CPU's are after the thermal shutdown has been disabled. My Athlon 64 3400 over heated and turned off and no problems. Look at it this way: a game that recomends a P4 2.2 gig, or an Athlon XP 2200 is saying the recomended is a 2.2 gig Intel or a 1.8 AMD. I buy for performance, not cooling ability. As long as there is a large heatsink on it it will be fine.
piratePenguin:
The Intel Core Duo's look nice.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version