Page 1 of 4
AMD Processors
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:52 am
by Antix
Why is it that some some processors that are an older model are faster than some of their newer ones? I know that the newer ones either have a faster FSB or more cache, but still...
And if I were to do a DYI job what 64-bit would be the best one?
Also, which AMD chip has ok power for a LOW LOW price? I just wanna use it for a kinda junker...
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:32 am
by Guest
Give an example-- and yeah, AMD is good and cheap. If your going to get a 64-bit CPU, get the ATHLON 3000+, it's like the best bang for the buck in the 64-bit market. I think Windows XP 64-bit Edition is already out.
Oh and the 3000+ (64-bit) is like tied with the Intel P4 3.0GHz (I think).
Most people just think it's...
AMD = gamer
Intel = video-editing
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 12:17 pm
by palmboy5
yeah thats pretty much it
except its more like 64 3000+ is tied with 2.8GHz
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:14 pm
by Antix
2.8 GHz OC'ed or reg? umm... get back to you on that example. I need to go to a site where I can look at a few AMDs so I can copy it.
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:26 pm
by palmboy5
OC'ed or reg is such a broad way to put a good question that it doesnt work.
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:46 pm
by Antix
Oh, sry. well I was just wondering how u were comparing it that's all.
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 4:10 pm
by Guest
palmboy5 wrote:OC'ed or reg is such a broad way to put a good question that it doesnt work.
PWNED
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 4:20 pm
by palmboy5
um forget i said it was better
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 4:20 pm
by Guest
LOL
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:38 am
by Antix
palmboy5 wrote:um forget i said it was better
ok... well is it something other than actual clock speed kinda performance, like and AMD can perform as well as an Intel that's at a higher clock speed? Something like that?
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:53 am
by palmboy5
AMDs are more efficient
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 2:22 am
by Antix
and MUCH MUCH cheaper...
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 2:25 am
by palmboy5
well actually they jacked that up just simply cuz so many ppl go by "its too cheap to be good"
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 3:50 am
by Antix
Oh... that sucks. Still cheaper than Intel though.
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 11:42 am
by Guest
WTF palm? IMO AMD didn't do what palm said. AMD probably was TRYING it, but didn't like it. That's most likely why they decreased all their A64's prices by $100. *cackle* Now I can get the 3000+ for $220 (CAD).