| Re: Computer Overheating. [message #210287 is a reply to message #210144] |
Sat, 29 July 2006 02:29   |
icedog90
Messages: 3483
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| help-linux wrote on Fri, 28 July 2006 05:11 |
it maby fast to you, but amd users will probably think it is slow. amd processors have allways been one step ahead of intell.
some people think that the speed of the processor EG 2.7 GHz is how fast it will be but that is wrong.
from what i understand about how they work, processors have something called registers and the more registers a processor has the faster it will be.
a register performs commands that the operating system gives it.
amd have an advanced command system on their registers, intell have only a simple set of commands.
also from what i have heard, intell processors have 16 registers, amd have 32.
that is why amd processors are known to get hot. it is also why amd processors are so much faster than intell processors.
to me, intell processors are not too bad. but i have noticed that they are very bad a mulititasking. but running one or two programs is ok.
|
Listen, I've been a fan of AMD since three years ago. I think their CPUs are really good, and that intel has failed to compete for ages. But I'm sorry, your response is quite ignorant, for you have not even done a bit of research on the Core 2 Duo. I'm not going to be like a lot of AMD fans and still stick with AMD even if the other side is doing better. I KNOW that the faster the GHz doesn't mean the better. Nobody believes that these days, so I have no idea why you assume I do. One of the Core 2 Duo processors, known as the E6600, beats the Athlon FX-62 in just about everything, and that processor is supposed to be priced around $300 (it'll probably end up a little above that). I'm not just following benchmarks either. Its technology is more advanced, and many articles explain it well and how it's more efficient. I'm not going to rate processors only by "registers". You can if you want, but have fun getting shafted while I enjoy a great processor.
and just so you know, this time intel is one step ahead of AMD.
[Updated on: Sat, 29 July 2006 02:33] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer Overheating. [message #211046 is a reply to message #189178] |
Wed, 02 August 2006 23:41 |
Berkut
Messages: 508
Registered: July 2005
Location: N/A
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
|
I bought a Dell 4700 about a year ago. Everyone told me Dell sucked, but I went through with it. It cost me $900, and handles every game I put on it. It's also the best out of 5 computers in our house (some of which costed more at the time purchase). It runs the same as it did when I bought it. The only issue is that it's not vented very well, and may overheat if it's in a restricted space (though I guess that's unniversal for PC's). They're not very appropriate for post-purchase hardware customizing, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer Overheating. [message #212311 is a reply to message #189178] |
Tue, 08 August 2006 08:03 |
 |
danpaul88
Messages: 5795
Registered: June 2004
Location: England
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
yes, the new core 2 duo's are one step ahead of anything AMD has so far made public, but the price's simply don't compare with the prices on AMD processors.
I am using an Intel P4 3.0ghz +HT right now, although having since seen comparisions to AMD processors I wish I had gone with an AMD processor, but it does it's job well and I ain't going to buy a new processor just for the sake of it.
When the multi-core lines from both manufacturers have been out for a while I will look into which is the best at that time, and decide whether to stick with Intel or switch to AMD.
As icedog implied above, you can't buy a processor based on brand name or ghz rating alone. When I first built this PC I made that mistake, and have since learnt from it.
[Updated on: Tue, 08 August 2006 08:04] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
